Forum for Philosophy

Fantasy is often perceived as an escapist illusion that hinders engagement with reality. We draw on philosophy, psychoanalysis, and art to re-assess fantasy.

Join us for the Philosophers’ Book Club, where we’ll be reading The Philosopher Queens, edited by Rebecca Buxton and Lisa Whiting. From Hypatia and Hannah Arendt to Ban Zhao and Angela Davis, this new collection of essays places twenty prominent women thinkers on the centre stage of philosophy.

We trace the development of our modern ideas about the mind, from the highly influential work of Descartes and the impact of Darwinian evolution to more recent accounts of the ‘extended’ mind and the enhancements made possible by new technologies. Why is Descartes so important? What changed with Darwin? And in what ways have technological advances changed how we think about the mind? Join us as we explore the story of one of the central concerns of philosophy.

Mollie Mathieson, Alexander Mazonowicz, and Hanna Pickard discuss how philosophy can help us understand the relationship between addiction, recovery, and identity.

Michael Beaney, Siobhan Chapman, and Peter West discuss Stebbing, a pioneer of analytic philosophy who applied her technical expertise to pressing social issues

Andrew Etinson, Yoriko Otomo, and Lyndsey Stonebridge discuss the advantages and limitations of the human rights model.

Alexandra Georgakopoulou, Daniel Miller, and Rebecca Roache on what philosophy, linguistics, and anthropology tell us about how we communicate today

Kathryn Belle, Skye Cleary, and Kate Kirkpatrick on the life, legacy, and literature of Simone de Beauvoir

Michael Cholbi, Will Daddario, and Priya Jay explore the nature of grief and grieving.

Monica Vieira, Rachel Muers, and Naomi Waltham-Smith offer perspectives on silence from philosophy, religion, and political thought

C. Thi Nguyen, Or Rosenboim, and Ahmed Sinno explore the complex history, philosophy, and politics of food.

David Edmonds, Maria Carla Galavotti, and Cheryl Misak discuss the life and work of Moritz Schlick, a member of the Vienna Circle murdered in 1936.

Is anger sometimes a useful emotion? It is often suggested that we should try to suppress our anger. Perhaps passion is a virtue, but anger is simply unproductive. But might anger be useful for achieving positive social change? Can it help us make better moral judgments (or even form part of those judgements)? Can "good" anger be distinguished in a principled way from 'bad' anger? How do different schools of thought answer these questions?

Societies take it for granted that we should punish those who commit crimes. Punishment for serious crime takes various forms in different areas of world and periods of history: caning, mutilation, death, exile, servitude, and imprisonment are all examples. But why do societies engage in this practice? What purpose does punishing serve? And does the punishment we find in modern societies do an effective job of meeting these aims? A leading philosopher, a decorated criminologist, and a prominent prison reform campaigner and ex-governor engage in a dialogue to answer these questions.

International agreements and over a hundred national constitutions recognize a “right to health”, often defined as a claim to the “highest attainable standard of health”. So understood, several questions arise about this supposed right. Do people really have a claim on others to be helped to become as healthy as possible? Who are the agencies on which they might have such a claim (governments, corporations, international organizations)? Can this right be made consistent with limits on the available resources for health care? And how should this right be balanced against other rights, such as the right to free movement? A leading constitutional law scholar, an expert on the right to health and problems with its institutionalisation in Brazil, and two philosophers who have proposed interpretations of the right to health will debate these questions.

The asymmetry between the past and the future is called the Arrow of Time. For example, the events of the past year have shaped all of us, but the future years are ours to shape. We all perceive the Arrow: we remember the start of the pandemic, but we don't "remember" or even know when it will end in the future. We have hopes about the future, but must simply accept and learn from what has happened in the past. Where do these differences come from? How do they arise in human psychology? Do they have an origin in the physical nature of space and time? What can reflecting on the difference between the past and the future tell us about our place in the post-pandemic world? To discuss these questions, we are bringing together a diverse collection of thinkers for a panel-style event, with discussion questions posed by the chair, and questions from the audience.

What does it take to live a good life? The idea that we should aim to cultivate a state of "tranquility" is important to both Eastern and Western thought on this question, from Confucius to Epicurus and to Christianity. But is it true?

Is tranquility a recipe for good mental health, well-being and fulfilment, or merely a way to cut ourselves off from what really matters? Should a life well lived include periods of suffering and stress?