More London 2025 speakers announced - EXPLORE IN BIG IDEAS
Debates at HowTheLightGetsIn London 2023 will challenge the status quo and push forward the boundaries of knowledge.
Exploring the theme Dangers, Desires, and Destiny our speakers interrogate modern moral dilemmas, timeless scientific mysteries and pressing political crises to unpick the dangers the future holds and what we desire to change.
Our carefully curated programme fuses cutting edge debate with an entertaining, accessible format, for a truly mind-expanding experience.
Rationality has often been cited as a key factor in the uncovery truth. But today, in a world of competing and often radically incompatible perspectives, reason has been called into question and rationality seen as a rhetorical strategy to defend outdated views. Yet this runs the risk that there is no agreed way to test assertions. Hardly surprising perhaps that 60% of Britons now believe in conspiracy theories and some claim social cohesion itself is being undermined.
Should we give up the idea that rationality helps uncover the truth? Or must we double down on reason to follow through the consequences of competing perspectives? Is reason nothing more than a pretence of objectivity, masquerading as value-free when it is in fact embedded in a given outlook? Or is rationality the primary and vital means to escape subjective chaos?
Psychologist Carol Gilligan, leading sceptic Michael Shermer and outspoken philosopher of language Kathleen Stock delve into rationality and its role in our understanding of truth and objectivity. Myriam François hosts.
'Treat others as you would wish to be treated' is a central principle found in many cultures and all major religions. Known as the Golden Rule it is widely seen as the cornerstone of morality. Yet some argue the golden rule is wrong and damaging. It imposes our values, desires and outlook on those with different experiences, and goals. The extrovert may wish to be the centre of attention but it does not mean they should impose this on a shy neighbour. Furthermore, studies show that in clinical settings, Golden Rule thinking leads to inaccurate judgements with important consequences for medical policy.
Should we abandon the Golden Rule as dangerously narrow? Should we seek to empathise with perspectives different from our own and treat others as they would wish to be treated? Or is this a shift that risks losing moral compass and the Golden rule an essential universal law?
Yale Law Professor Daniel Markovits, philosopher and bioethics expert Peter Singer (Zoom), and American feminist, ethicist, and psychologist Carol Gilligan come together to debate the 'Golden Rule'. Myriam François hosts.
For three generations, despite localised and sometimes extensive conflict, the world as a whole has avoided global war and maintained a remarkable peace. But the horizon is darkening rapidly. War in Europe, for decades unthinkable, shows no sign of ending and has the potential to escalate. While China/US relations deteriorate with Xi Jinping instructing his generals to 'dare to fight', strengthen their military in 'preparation for war' and not 'renounce the use of force' over Taiwan. Across the globe a new arms race is underway and military expenditure at an all time high as a host of nations ramp up defence spending.
With so much at stake how is peace to be obtained? Should we see military expenditure as the best means to avoid war, or does it heighten tension and risk catastrophe? Some would argue the nuclear deterrent has been the reason for our extended period of peace, but have we as a result become complacent and imagined that peace will be maintained when in practice it is being dangerously undermined?
Ukrainian politician Inna Sovsun, one of Britain's most senior ex-intelligence officers David Omand, and economist and professor Richard Wolff grapple with the challenges of maintaining global peace amidst a new arms race. Hilary Lawson hosts.
In the wake of ChatGPT, high profile figures including Steve Wozniak, co-founder of Apple, and Elon Musk called for a temporary halt to AI development, claiming the future of humanity is at stake. But critics argue, with ChatGPT 49% owned by Microsoft, that this is a marketing tactic by Microsoft to build hype around AI and, concurrently, a competitive business tactic by rival tech companies to prevent Microsoft getting too big of a head start. Meanwhile what we really have is not 'artificial intelligence' but 'dumb algorithmic learning systems' which require immediate regulation independent of the tech companies to limit social damage.
Will general artificial intelligence be developed in the near future and should we take the threat of AI taking over from humanity as a genuine and real danger? Or is it alarmist rhetoric designed to distract from the immediate harms that Chat GPT and other learning systems already pose? Or is all talk of artificial intelligence a form of hype that should be renamed Dumb Learning?
AI researcher at DeepMind Timothy Nguyen, world class poker player and podcast host Liv Boeree and Professor of Computer Science at the University of Oxford Michael Wooldridge debate the AI revolution. Stephanie Hare hosts.
Productivity isn't everything, but in the long run, it is almost everything" claimed economist Paul Krugman. Driven by lifechanging technologies, productivity - the average level of output for each hour worked – improved dramatically across the developed world throughout the 20th century. But since the 2008 financial crisis, despite computerisation and the internet, productivity growth in many countries has been low, static, or even falling; threatening living standards and social unrest.
Has something gone fundamentally wrong and will the 20th century prove to be a unique event? Is tech itself the problem, encouraging pointless activity, or would we be more productive if we worked less? More radically, is the mistake to focus on narrow definitions of productivity and output in the first place, and should we instead change how we value our activities and our time?
Yale Law School Professor Daniel Markovits, Chief Economics Commentator at the FT, Martin Wolf, Head of Research at Theos, Madeleine Pennington and Labour Party politician, Angela Eagle, debate how we think about productivity and how we use our lives. Hilary Lawson hosts.
Event in association with Theos.
In our everyday experience, time is an inescapable backdrop against which events unfold, allowing us to sequence events and measure durations. Yet in the hundred years since Einstein's general theory physics has had a radically different account. Time does not flow, there is no before and after. We are not born and we do not die. The entirety of spacetime is given at the outset of the universe. There is no cause and effect. Is this radical discrepancy with our everyday experience a threat to physics or a threat to our understanding of what it is to be alive?
Should we take seriously claims of physicists that everyday experience is an illusion? Or is it their model of the universe that is mistaken? Or are these two profoundly different accounts of time the product of frames of understanding will always remain incompatible?
Quantum theorist Avshalom Elitzur, theoretical physicist Michio Kaku, philosopher of physics Tim Maudlin, and historian of science Jimena Canales delve into the fascinating conundrum of time. Güneş Taylor hosts.
Shame has long been a powerful tool of social regulation, as the medieval stocks and the Christian association of shame with nakedness testify. But today critics argue contemporary mechanisms of shame, like cyberbullying, 'fat shaming' and aspects of so-called cancel culture, have spiralled dangerously out of control. Studies have shown shame to be correlated with anxiety, depression and even suicide. Fueled by social media, some claim we are seeing shift from a guilt to a shaming culture which is highly damange to society and the individual.
Should we seek to excise shame from social and public life to protect the well being of all? Or are shifts in attitudes to racism and sexism evidence that shame is an important and powerful motivator for change? At root are we right to feel shame when we violate social norms, or should we seek to overcome shame and feel confident even if we recognise that we have acted badly?
Author Joanna Kavenna, cultural sociologist Sophie Scott-Brown, and human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell engage in a profound examination of the societal effects of shame and shaming. Florence Read hosts.
We all want to be good or be seen to be good. Even the most vicious dictators imagined that they were on the side of truth and justice. From the Christian Crusaders of medieval times to the twin tower terrorists of today, from the leaders of both sides in WW1 to Putin and his invasion of Ukraine, those who carry out acts of terrible violence and destruction are often motivated by believing that they are acting on ultimate principles and right is on their side. Might therefore the most dangerous of all values be the belief that we are acting for the good? For is this not the defence used to support our actions however self-interested, however unjust, however cruel?
Was Nietzsche right when he concluded "the most dangerous of all errors... is the Good'? Should we recognise that when we believe ourselves to be acting for the good we are often seeking to defend an outcome we think beneficial for ourselves? Or is the desire to be good the only defence we have against a far more terrible outcome that all pursue their goals with no regard for others?
Post-postmodern philosopher Hilary Lawson, outspoken philosopher Kathleen Stock and University of Oxford philosopher Hilary Greaves debate why it might be bad to be good. Sophie Scott-Brown hosts.
Concerns about limited global resources and climate change have led many to argue that public policy should focus on future generations as much, or more, than current issues. And we all think we should care about the lives of our descendants. But there are risks. The future is not predictable nor the outcome of current policy. China's one child policy, draconian as it was, imagined it was making the country better for future generations. Yet now, it looks misguided as the dangers of a falling population become apparent.
Should current policy be focussed on long term consequences rather than immediate short term goals? Can we improve our long run future and reduce the risk of extinction with altruistic decision making? Or is this dangerous rhetoric open to abuse by interested parties and the reality that we cannot know how to act on behalf of an unknown future populace?
Future Generations Commissioner Sophie Howe, former judge and historian Jonathan Sumption and University of Oxford philosopher Hilary Greaves debate longtermism. Philip Collins hosts.
Most of us think news should be impartial. A recent worldwide poll found 75% favour neutrality and claim to choose the news provider they think most in line with the truth. But many argue impartiality is not achievable and the claim risks hiding propaganda under the guise of truth. Respected Western media such as the BBC, CBS, The Times, Washington Post, don't look impartial viewed from Teheran, Bejing and Moscow. Nor does their coverage of WWII look impartial if read today.
Should we conclude that all media sources inevitably carry a particular perspective and claims of impartiality are false? Would we be better to see all media as partisan but require from their different partisan outlooks a determination to cover events factually from their point of view? Or is impartiality still a valuable goal even if it can never be achieved?
The West has become accustomed to economic supremacy. Its dominance though is not only in decline but some maintain it is already over. This year the BRICS economies, of Brazil, Russia, India, China and S.Africa, has overtaken the GDP of the Western economies, the G7, and is set to account for half the world by 2030. In addition the BRICS are cementing ties, coordinating policy and have formal annual meetings. None sanctioned Russia over Ukraine and instead increased trade. In addition they have formed the New Development Bank which some argue will undermine the dollar and the global economy.
Is there a danger that the strength of the BRICS will redraw the global order and herald a new era of power block conflict? Or is the end of US supremacy an opportunity for a fairer distribution of the world's resources and potential for us to trade with rapidly growing economies? Then again, is the new world order overdone and the challenge of the BRICS just what is needed for the West to rediscover belief in its values and culture?
Financier and activist Bill Browder, FT Europe-China correspondent Yuan Yang and economist Sergei Guriev delve into the implications for the world as the BRICS economies rise to prominence. Sasha Polakow-Suransky hosts.
"Government by the people and for the people" proclaimed Abraham Lincoln. A maxim that has become one of the foundational principles of Western liberal democracy. But many claim this principle is under threat. In Britain, 94% of voters believe their views are not the main influences behind eventual decisions. Donors, corporations, the media, and lobbyists are all seen to have a great deal more influence. Similar results are found from surveys in other Western democracies.
Is it time to recognise that democracy is no longer by, or for, the people and act to change this state of affairs? Do we need to outlaw donations and lobbyists, curtail the influence of corporations and the media? Should we democratise the civil service and adopt citizen assemblies which are already widely used in the Netherlands? Or is direct government by the people not only impossible to implement but dangerous requiring complex decisions from an electorate that has little expertise?
Conservative Party politician Nadhim Zahawi, journalist and speechwriter Philip Collins and moral philosopher and author, Susan Neiman, engage in a pivotal discussion on democracy's future. Mary Ann Sieghart hosts.
Most of us seek to avoid prejudice and discrimination in our views and actions. Yet for the most part we don't apply this to our sexual desires and preferences. But some now argue this is a mistake. Historically and culturally sexual preference has varied widely, so it is argued there is no reason to allow current fashions in physical factors such as height, weight, and race to determine our choices in a way that is frowned on in other spheres of life. And it is surely troubling that dating app data shows white people ten times more likely to be messaged by black people than the reverse.
Would we be better to see sexual desire as a political and ethical choice? Could we seek to avoid discrimination by not referencing physical characteristics on dating apps, and designing algorithms to avoid societal prejudices? Or is the choosing of a sexual partner an evolutionary choice and tampering with sexual desire not only problematic but socially dangerous?
Journalist Maya Oppenheim, British historian Zoe Strimpel, and former sociologist for Tinder & Bumble Jess Carbino engage in a thought-provoking conversation about the politics of sexual desire. Joanna Kavenna hosts.
Humans have always marvelled at the wonders of life. But for nearly a century science has had an explanation for the immense variety of life forms on the earth. Out of a primordial soup a random combination of chemicals generated the building blocks of life. Evolution did the rest. But might this account be mistaken? Despite decades of effort, biologists and biochemists have been unable to evolve living things from inorganic material. The emergence of the first cell and the development of complex life remain a mystery.
Is there something about the origin of life that means it will never be uncovered? Is the failure to account for life a threat to the whole evolutionary story? Or might we be able at some point to demonstrate the evolution of cells from inorganic material and the subsequent development of complex life forms? And if so where might this solution be found?
Artificial life researcher Kate Adamala, organic chemist Matthew Powner and evolutionary theorist Eörs Szathmáry discuss the challenging and intriguing question of life's origins. Güneş Taylor hosts.
We all know Big Tech is hugely influential. But the scale of its reach is not always appreciated. The largest of the Big Tech firms, Apple, has a valuation equivalent to the GDP of the UK. Along with the other four Big Tech corporations, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and Facebook, they have a value greater than the GDP of the UK, France and Italy combined. Critics argue capitalism always tends to monopoly and the internet has turbocharged this phenomenon creating unprecedently powerful organisations that manipulate our lives and opinions as well as our buying habits.
Can we break up Big Tech, or like China do we need to build our own national internet companies to retain some control? Or is it too late and the financial power of Big Tech already sufficient to buy political influence, media comment, and up and coming competitors? Or is the scale of Big Tech a sign that the power of the nation state is no longer as great as the power of capital?
'Break 'Em Up' author Zephyr Teachout, tech journalist Kenneth Cukier and automated luxury communism defender Aaron Bastani debate the overarching power of Big Tech.
Homes provide the very fabric of a society, a core stability around which society can function. But for decades a housing crisis has been looming. And some claim it is now upon us as the era of ultra low interest rates has abruptly ended. Across the world the young spend an ever greater proportion of their income on housing. Half of all Europeans have some form of home insecurity, while it is estimated a billion people worldwide lack access to secure housing, threatening the lives of many and risking civil unrest.
Can we solve the crisis by creating more homes with incentives for builders, lifting planning controls, and financing public provision? Or is the structure of ownership itself the problem? Has private ownership contributed to an increasingly unequal society where many have significant wealth while others have nothing and would we be better to limit inheritance to a modest sum? Or is greater private ownership the solution and could the state provide a universal level of capital available to all?
Cultural anthropologist Kristen Ghodsee, housing crisis author Anna Minton, Deputy Mayor of London for Housing Tom Copley and economist and broadcaster Liam Halligan tackle the growing housing crisis. Mary Ann Sieghart hosts.
From the sea to the sky, from tables to chairs, light to dark, before to after, we see the world as differentiated into countless bits, qualities and relations. But from the outset of Western thought some have maintained this is a dangerous illusion. One of the first philosophers, Parmenides, claimed 'what exists is whole and unchanging, one and continuous'. While today, there are sociologists and linguists, neuroscientists and philosophers who argue that the distinctions we make are a function not of reality but of language.
Do we need to give up the idea that the world is differentiated and take Parmenides and Spinoza's idea that the world is one seriously? Or, should we see differences and distinctions as a product of language and the human mind? Would this make us more open to different ways of seeing the world or fatally undermine knowledge and our ability to communicate?
Renowned philosopher Michael Della Rocca, leading philosopher of physics Tim Maudlin, and continental philosopher Kathleen Higgins debate reality, language, and human perception. Maria Balaska hosts.
We assume the way to respond to the mental health crisis is better treatment and medical care. Research though suggests mental health is frequently due to social and political issues. Young women are 26% more likely to experience a mental health difficulty than their male counterparts, LGBTIQ+ people three times more likely than straight people, and Black British people 30% more than White British people.
Do we need to accept the limitations of prescription drugs and therapy and see mental health as a social and political issue? More radically, is it a mistake to describe some behaviours as mental ill health in the first place, when they might more properly be seen as a product of social inequality? Or should we see drug and therapy treatments as having made major strides in improving the life of millions with huge potential to make further progress?
Mental health professor at UCL Praveetha Patalay, psychiatrist Simon Wessely, and left-wing commentator Aaron Bastani discuss society, the individual and mental health. Barry Smith hosts.
Life expectancy has seen a dramatic rise in the last fifty years. Nearly 20% in the UK, and 40% globally. While this is to be celebrated, living longer carries with it risks for all of us and dangers for society as a whole. As Jonathan Swift wrote three hundred years ago (in his story of Luggnagg where some never die), everyone wants to live forever but no one wishes to be old. An ageing population requires care from an ever smaller proportion of working age folk and there are already signs that health services can't cope. While calls to legalise euthanasia mount.
Have we medicalised death and isolated the aged when instead we should be recreating family and intergenerational community? More fundamentally, should we accept that death is part of life and stop chasing permanent health and well-being, when it is not only costly but impossible to deliver? Or will medical progress enable ever longer and healthier lives, and do we instead all need to work longer to pay for it all?
Professor of Biogerontology David Gems, University of Oxford epidemiologist Sunetra Gupta, and tech-philosopher Nolen Gertz explore increased life expectancy and the potential reality of living forever. Güneş Taylor hosts.
'He who look inside himself awakes' claimed Carl Jung. And it seems we have taken his conclusion to heart. From the World Economic Forum's statement, 'Self-reflection is the most important leadership tool', to our contemporary focus on self-help, attempts to 'know thyself' are very much the fashion. Yet critics argue self-reflection carries with it serious risks. A 2018 Harvard study and The American Psychological Association both concluded that there is no link between introspection and insight, in some cases the opposite is true. Furthermore, the biggest worldwide survey into stress identified that self-reflection was one of the greatest factors leading to anxiety, depression, and in some cases suicide.
Should we see self-knowledge as an aim not only misguided, but actively dangerous? Is self-knowledge in fact impossible for as Nietzsche argued we have to use the self to uncover the self? Or is self-reflection a vital and rewarding activity that uncovers meaning and improves our ability to act well in the world?
Groundbreaking psychologist John Vervaeke, philosopher of psychoanalysis Isabel Millar, and outspoken sociologist Frank Furedi debate the value of self-knowledge. Joanna Kavenna hosts.
We all know the story of Newton framing his theory of gravity as a result of watching an apple fall from a tree. But 350 years on we still don't understand this seemingly simple force. Current theories cannot apply both at the small scale of atomic particles and at the giant scale of galaxies, on the scale of quantum mechanics and on the scale of general relativity. Without a solution the mystery of gravity threatens to undermine any overall account of the universe.
Is the fault with Einstein's theory of general relativity, or with our understanding of quantum mechanics? Do we need an entirely different account of gravity altogether, or perhaps remove gravity from our explanations altogether? Or should we just accept that a single holistic account of the universe is not possible and see our theories as limited to a given frame and reference?
Astrophysicist and Yale Professor, Priya Natarajan, cutting edge string theorist Erik Verlinde, and scientist and YouTube star Sabine Hossenfelder, delve into the intricate mysteries of gravity and its role in our understanding of the universe. Bjørn Ekeberg hosts.
Once parents encouraged their children to travel to school on their own. Now they are more likely to be worried for their safety. From trigger warnings to stringent health and safety regulations, from ever tighter oversight of school safeguarding to the introduction of urban 20mph speed limits, we live in a culture that puts safety first and seeks to avoid all risk. Yet critics claim this safety culture is itself dangerous, limiting experience and introducing fear into everyone's lives. They argue mental ill health and high levels of anxiety in the young are in part due to a risk averse culture. In a recent uk survey, 62% of parents acknowledged they are overprotective.
Do we need to reverse the culture of safety to enable lives to flourish? Is a generation of risk averse teachers and parents damaging the lives of the next generation? Or is a focus on safety a sign of an enlightened age that places care and compassion at the heart of our culture?
Sociologist and social commentator Frank Furedi, leading feminist Carol Gilligan and behavioural scientist Paul Dolan discuss the potential pitfalls of our modern culture's emphasis on safety and risk aversion. Isabel Hilton hosts.
Reproductive medicine has made huge strides over the last few decades. Now it is claimed we are within ten years of developing an artificial womb, raising the possibility that having children could take place without pregnancy or childbirth. In Brave New World, the artificial womb spells a dystopian future, where children are removed from loving relationships and brainwashed by the state. Yet for many feminists, this prospective alternative to childbearing is the route to emancipation. While others point to profound dangers arguing that artificial wombs could upend the social structure, family relationships and the very fabric of society.
Is it time to make childbirth a technological, not a biological, phenomenon? Should we welcome this as a critical stage in the development of human organisation enabling genuine equality between the genders? Or is this a frightening prospect that will remove from women the monopoly of reproductive capacity, endangering their position and posing a threat to the legal, social and cultural organisation of society?
Futurist Anders Sandberg and scholar of gender, radical author Mary Harrington and post-socialist studies Kristen Ghodsee grapple with the profound implications of artificial wombs. Güneş Taylor hosts.
For a lifetime physics has had at its core the search for ultimate particles. The Standard Model sets out the current framework. But many argue that all is not well in the particle physics zoo. A key solution to many deep puzzles was the prediction of supersymmetry particles but precisely none have been found. Meanwhile vast and costly experiments have been carried out to find particles that might account for dark matter and dark energy that make up 95% of the universe. Again nothing has been found. It is not even clear what a particle is, since some have no dimension and others no mass. While at the same time physics is rife with proposals for a host of new 'particles'.
While there are positive spin-offs from the technology created to carry out particle experiments, has the theory itself run out of road? Would we be better describing reality as the product of quantum fields, information, or mathematics, rather than particles? Or does the Standard Model not actually describe the ultimate nature of reality at all, and particles just a useful fiction?
Theoretical physicist and science communicator Sabine Hossenfelder, theoretical physicist Gavin Salam, and philosopher of science Bjørn Ekeberg explore the dilemmas and debates surrounding particle physics. Shini Somara hosts.
From consciousness to free will, and even life itself, it has become fashionable to explain some of the most puzzling phenomena in the universe as being being 'emergent'. Some even make the claim that nothing in science makes sense without emergence, the idea that the characteristics and behaviour of the whole is different from, and in addition to, its parts. But critics argue there is a danger emergence gives the impression of understanding when in reality it explains nothing at all and we would be better to say 'mysteriously appears'.
Can we explain emergence and provide an account of how an overall property appears when it is not present in the elemental parts? Might a new science of emergence pave the way for breakthroughs in our understanding of life, consciousness and physical properties like superconductivity? Or is emergence a mere rhetorical device to give the impression that materialism and a reductive approach to the world is capable of explaining its deepest mysteries?
In the West we pride ourselves on being free to express our creativity. But some argue this core principle is in jeopardy. There was widespread outrage when Salman Rushdie was recently stabbed on stage having lived with a death threat for thirty years. Rappers like Jay Z are fighting their lyrics being used to convict them in court. While works from the past face the prospect of passages being airbrushed, including authors like Roald Dahl. More widely every publishing house now has 'sensitivity readers' to identify and remove problematic content. And, critics claim, authors, comedians, and artists self-censor their work to avoid public opprobrium.
Should writers and artists be able to publish work free from the threat of retribution or vilification even if their views are offensive to some? Or, if we are to combat prejudice and privilege is it necessary that some forms of expression are outlawed? Is it time to reassert traditional Western liberal values, or should we see liberalism as carrying a form of authority that needs to be challenged?
Novelist Joanna Kavenna, prominent barrister and political activist, Jolyon Maugham, and journalist and filmmaker Myriam François, debate the role of creativity and the limits of free expression. Hosted by Philip Collins.
Established religion has been on the decline in the West for more than a century, but of those who claim to be not religious 40% believe in 'some form of the supernatural'. From horoscopes to TikTok psychics, we see these alternatives as harmless new-age fantasies. But a recent UCL study found that people who were not religious but had "a spiritual understanding of life "were 77% more likely to be dependent on drugs, 72% more likely to suffer from a phobia, and 50% more likely to have a generalised anxiety."
Are new-age spiritual beliefs leading us into a post-enlightenment dark age? Or was Wittgenstein right when he said "the facts of the world are not the end of the matter', and Deleuze when he proposed we should "bring something incomprehensible into the world?" Should we see sprituality and mysticism as a dangerous spiral to dystopia or a positive outcome of challenges to scientific truth?
Award-winning psychologist John Vervaeke, founder of The Skeptics Society Michael Shermer, and philosopher Sophie-Grace Chappell, delve into the rise of alternative spirituality and its potential implications. Barry C. Smith hosts.
Dostoyevsky and Nietzsche both regarded the creeping nihilism and meaninglessness of their time as a fundamental threat to humanity. While both were critical of modernity and rationalism, their solutions were radically opposed. Dostoyevsky looked beyond the human for an answer and found in love and compassion, 'the chief law of human existence'. While Nietzsche declared God dead and found meaning in human nature and the assertion of human creativity.
Is Dostoyevsky, as some have argued, a denial of all that is human and an acceptance of authority and oppression, or is it Nietzsche who is most dangerous in his endorsement of human desire and the will to power? Can meaning only be found outside of ourselves, in the love of others and in God's love for us? Or should we follow Nietzsche and see human will and desire as the means to create meaning?
Radical author Janne Teller, Nietzchian philosopher Kathleen Higgins and Dostoevsky translator Oliver Ready debate where to find meaning. Niki Seth-Smith hosts.
Europe’s answer to TED
Total Politics
Press
