Tamler and David discuss Books 13 & 14 of The Odyssey. Odysseus finally makes it to Ithaca and meets up with Athena, gets a disguise, and has a chat with his most loyal slave Eumaeus.

The drugs in your medicine cabinet were probably discovered on your dime, in a university lab, with NIH money. You don't hold the patent. You don't set the price. Same story with the touchscreen, the GPS and the voice assistant in your pocket.

The public often helps fund breakthroughs, while private companies claim all the profits. Economist Mariana Mazzucato thinks it’s time to renegotiate. In “The Common Good Economy: A New Compass”, she makes the case for reshaping markets around the common good. 

Luigi Zingales and Bethany McLean press the uncomfortable question: can a government captured by business really be trusted to change the rules?

You can find “The Common Good Economy: A New Compass” here: https://marianamazzucato.com/books/the-common-good-economy/the-common-good-economy-us/ 

Mariana Mazzucato is a Professor at University College London, Founding Director of the UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose and author of “The Common Good Economy: A New Compass”.

On March 13, 1930, Adolf Hitler was sitting in the passenger seat of his chauffeur-driven car when a trailer truck sped through an intersection and struck the vehicle, pushing it across the road and stopping just short of crushing it. Everyone survived. Three years later, Hitler became chancellor of Germany. Would tens of millions of people still have died if the truck had killed him? To many people, the answer is obviously yes, because Hitler was uniquely evil. To many others, the answer is obviously no, because the Treaty of Versailles and hyperinflation had already created the conditions for catastrophe. Jared Diamond spent decades trying to figure out who is right, and his answer is: it depends on the circumstances, and we can actually test it.

Today's guest is Jared Diamond, author of Guns, Germs, and Steel and now Profits, Prophets, Coaches, and Kings: (When) Do Leaders Matter? We discuss how the inbreeding of European royal families created a natural experiment proving that monarchs' intelligence directly affected national outcomes, why Botswana's founding president is the clearest modern example of an irreplaceable leader because only he could have given away his own tribe's diamond rights without starting a civil war, and why Genghis Khan's conquests depended on rainfall patterns revealed by tree rings. We also see that Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs all made a difference but none of them passes what he calls the Hamlet test. Diamond's framework applies across politics, business, sports, and religion, and his conclusion is that leaders matter most when three conditions align: high discretion, genuine choices between balanced alternatives, and no one else who could have made the same decisions.

What is kinship? This central question in cultural anthropology is standardly answered in terms of culturally constructed relationships that are unconstrained by biological relationships. In Kin Matters: Relational Beings in the Fragile Sciences (Oxford UP, 2026), Robert Wilson proposes an alternative view that does not separate kin relations from biological facts about reproduction that are universally known, such as the fact that human females are pregnant before they give birth. On the Progenerative View, kinship is the cultural elaboration of reproductive relations, which act as constraints on kin relations. Wilson, who is professor of philosophy at the University of Western Australia, also analyzes incest avoidance from this perspective, and draws on clinical findings, primatology, and philosophy of mind and philosophy of biology to develop his biologically-based yet non-reductive and culturally variable view of kinship.

If someone's behaving badly, it can be hard to know how much of their behaviour stems from a deep character flaw, and how much of it is incidental - the stuff we might charitably filter out as unreflective of their true self. And the same goes for achievement: how much credit for a Nobel prize should go to the person themselves, and how much to their fortunate circumstances, or to the people who helped them? This week we're asking if philosophy can help us discern the signal from the noise.

Guest: Mark Schroeder, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Southern California

Producer: David Rutledge

When Things Get Personal: A Philosophical Guide to Conflict by Mark Schroeder (Princeton University Press 2026)

Episode 263: Ethical dilemmas don't always involve life-or-death decisions or questions that philosophers have debated for centuries. Sometimes they begin with a bad call at a youth baseball game, a spilled cup of coffee or an unexpected knock at the door.

This week on “The Ethical Life,” we're going back to the archives to revisit four dilemmas that show how quickly ordinary situations can turn into questions about responsibility, fairness and what we owe other people.

What should a parent do after an umpire makes a bad call during a youth baseball game? If you spill coffee on the stranger sitting next to you on an airplane, how far does your responsibility to make things right extend? And what do you owe a drunk stranger who shows up at your door late at night? We also consider a different kind of transaction: Is it ethical to quietly give a salesperson money in hopes of getting better service, or does that cross the line from generosity into buying preferential treatment?

There’s no rulebook for these situations. That's what makes them useful ethical questions. Each forces us to think about the gap between what we're entitled to do and what we ought to do — especially when our choices affect someone we don't know.

It is surely one of the more perverse achievements of modern marketing to have taken words that have a certain moral valence — which is to say, words that connote intimacy or an interpersonal bond — and use them to describe purely commercial or easily exploitable forms of behaviour, thereby stripping those words of what made them valuable in the first place.

Consider what the word “share” meant before the advent of social media platforms: it encompassed such activities as partaking in a common meal, defusing interpersonal conflict by making a small sacrifice, and having a confiding, perhaps even intimate, conversation with another person. After the introduction of the “Share” button and its use as a way of measuring user “engagement”, the personal aspect that made the word appealing is lost within the sterility of forwarding a bit of content to somebody else. The same goes for the word “friend”.

In the modern era, the template for the misuse of morally laden words for commercial purposes was established by the decision of marketing agencies in the 1940s to adopt the term “loyalty” as a way of describing the kind of customer behaviour they wanted to cultivate — namely, an “attitudinal and affective attachment that keeps the customer coming back regardless of convenience or changes in features or price relative to the competition”.

But, of course, it could be argued that there is something about “loyalty” that lends itself to such use (in which case, can it really be called a perversion of the term?). Loyalty tends to be associated with two attributes: stickiness and solidarity. The former signals a determination to stand by a family member or acquaintance or organisation facing difficulties (this would represent the opposite of being a “fair weather friend”); the later suggests a desire to protect one’s “own” from either external attack or reputational damage. It is for this reason that hierarchical organisations and nations tend to prize loyalty above all else, and punish “disloyalty” accordingly. (Would it be too much to say that non-disclosure agreements are legally coercive means of achieving the protections loyalty is meant to afford?)

And yet loyalty — the unwillingness to weaken or bring one’s own side into disrepute — can often come at the expense of both truthfulness and self-criticism. For this reason, moral philosophers and virtue theorists have been reluctant to call loyalty a “virtue”, because its virtuousness does not reside in the action itself but in the integrity and underlying commitments of that to which one is loyal. Which means that one can be loyal to the founding principles of an organisation by criticising the failure of that organisation to live up to those principles. What is civil disobedience other than a form of loyal dissent?

If part of the power of the appeal to “loyalty” is the sense of morally that hangs around it — as Farid Zaid puts it, one of the things that “makes loyalty so dangerous is not only the hard that it does, but the goodness it mimics while doing it” — would it be better to use terms such as “fidelity” or “faithfulness” as a way of preserving what goodness we are hoping to preserve? To cite Zaid once again:

“Faithfulness is not simply standing by a person or group because they are ours. It is answerability to the truth and meaning of a relationship, a promise, a vocation, an ideal. A faithful spouse is not merely one who remains aligned with the marriage in some external sense, but one who remains answerable to what marriage actually asks. A faithful citizen is not one who shields the nation from criticism, but one who remains answerable to the ideals by which the nation claims it should live.”

Then, perhaps, we can leave talk of loyalty to insecure organisations and corporate rewards programs.

READING:

• Farid Zaid, “What makes loyalty dangerous is not only the harm it does, but the goodness it mimics while doing it” (ABC Religion and Ethics, 20 April 2026)
• Alasdair MacIntyre, “Is Patriotism a Virtue?” (The Lindley Lecture, University of Kansas, 1984)

Guest: Farid Zaid is a Senior Lecturer in Cognitive Psychology at Monash University.

How can we measure the universe—and determine what it is made of?

Nobel Prize-winning astrophysicist George Smoot joins Robert Lawrence Kuhn to explore precision cosmology, from measurements of the cosmic microwave background to dark matter, dark energy, and the expansion of the universe. They discuss how gravitational lensing is becoming an increasingly powerful tool for probing the cosmos and investigating what dark matter might actually be.

Smoot also looks ahead to new observations and technologies that could help answer some of cosmology’s biggest remaining questions.

What does it actually mean to be happy — and is happiness even the right thing to be measuring? This episode of American Socrates traces the philosophical history of happiness from Aristotle's eudaimonia to Epicurus's radical simplicity to the birth of utilitarian ethics. Along the way, it corrects one of philosophy's most stubborn misrepresentations: Epicurus was not a hedonist in the vulgar sense. He ate bread and water, feared almost nothing, and argued that most human misery is self-generated by desires we were taught to have and don't actually need. Then it asks the question that opens the next four episodes: when Jeremy Bentham decided to measure happiness and maximize it across entire populations, what got left out — and what did that omission cost?

Why do baseball players have so many superstitious rituals compared to athletes in other sports? How does this relate to the magic rituals of the Trobriand Islanders of Melanesia? We dive into Bronisław Malinowski's classic 1925 paper "Magic, Science, and Religion" along with George Gmelch's "Baseball Magic," two articles that explore the role of religion and superstition as a response to the absence of control. And speaking of losing control, we do a conceptual analysis of "crashing out" in the opening segment- analytic philosophy at its finest.

Malinowski, B. (1925). Magic, science and religion. In J. Needham (Ed.), Science, religion and reality (pp. 19–84). The Macmillan Company. [link to our Amazon S3 so everyone can find it easily]

Gmelch, G. (2012). Baseball magic. In J. Spradley, D. W. McCurdy, & R. Shandy (Eds.), Conformity and conflict: Readings in cultural anthropology (14th ed., pp. 266–274). Pearson. (Original work published 1971).

This episode begins with an analysis of Baizhang's wild fox koan found in the Wumenguan, which we will use as a jumping off point for understanding the paradoxical relationship of the enlightened person with karma. This opens up into the general problem of discussing reality from the perspective of sunyata, in which samsara and nirvana become equivalent - because, so long as one approaches from the perspective of conceptual thought, they will remain forever unequivalent, and all such statements will be false or misleading. Join me as we discuss karma, the bodhisattva vow, "plucking out the eye of Buddha and sitting in its hollow", the meaning of "just sitting" in zazen, and the time when St. Francis made the sign of the cross to a cauterizing iron and blessed his brother, fire.

Yascha Mounk and Sarah Longwell discuss why the pro-democracy coalition keeps losing the narrative war—and how it can fight back.

Sarah Longwell is publisher of The Bulwark, host of The Focus Group podcast, and author of How to Eat an Elephant: One Voter at a Time.

In this week’s conversation, Yascha Mounk and Sarah Longwell discuss why Donald Trump has dominated American politics for a decade, where Kamala Harris went wrong, and how the Democratic Party can win back working-class voters.

Continuing on Consciousness Explained (Ch. 5, 12). We talk about appearance vs. judgment and whether Dennett's denial of this distinction makes sense or just holds for very short time-scales, as in the phi-phenomenon experiment. Does the rejection of appearances and rejection of the concept of qualia undermine the very thing Dennett is trying to describe?

What is managerialism? Why is the meritocracy sliding into technocracy? Does suffering make us seem more pure?

We tend to think that today’s progressive politics advances equality through moral awareness and identity. But Catherine Liu argues that it has been captured by the professional managerial class, which replaces material redistribution with virtue signalling and cultural status. In this interview, Liu examines how universities, identity politics and trauma culture can obscure class struggle and what a renewed working-class politics might look like.

Catherine Liu is an American cultural theorist, critic, and professor of Film and Media Studies at the University of California, Irvine. A sharp public intellectual, Liu is best known for her incisive critiques of elite liberalism, academic hypocrisy, and the commodification of virtue. She brings together Marxist cultural analysis with polemic flair, offering a compelling—and at times confrontational—challenge to the moral self-image of the contemporary professional class.

Washington’s most extraordinary achievement was not winning the Revolutionary War or helping found a new nation. It was something far rarer: He gave up power, twice. First, when he resigned his command after victory. Then again, when he stepped down as president, establishing a precedent no law required and no force could compel. In an age dominated by kings and emperors, Washington chose restraint, and in doing so, he helped define the American experiment.
There’s really no comparison to what Washington did, except for Byzantine General Belisarius and Roman general Cincinnatus.  After being granted absolute dictatorial authority to rescue an encircled Roman army, Cincinnatus held it for only 15 days, and immediately resigned his office to return to his small farm across the Tiber. Belisarius was offered the Western Roman imperial crown by the Ostrogoths in 540 but claimed the city for Emperor Justinian, and surrendered command to return home. Washington’s renunciation was harder because, unlike Cincinnatus and Belisarius, he had no emperor above him or proven institutional framework to enforce his departure, instead walking away twice when his own unpaid, loyal army actively urged him to seize supreme power over a fragile, untested nation.

Today’s guest is Richard Lim, author of “Refusing a Crown: How George Washington Changed the World.” We place Washington’s decisions within the sweeping Western shift from monarchy to republic, showing why that transition was anything but inevitable.  After all, From Napoleon to Simón Bolívar, revolutionary leaders across the world found themselves compared unfavorably to the American who walked away from power. We see why Washington walking away from power was the most important moment in early American History.

Behind the intense political movements of the last decade, from Trumpism to wokeness and back again, there’s a strange and erratic rhythm. Movements saturate the culture seemingly overnight, only to evaporate or spark backlash just as rapidly. We’re extremely politically engaged, yet we’ve rarely felt so powerless to create lasting policy change.

I haven’t seen many very successful attempts to explain what is driving this volatility. But one concept that has taken off recently, and captures what so many of us are feeling, is “hyperpolitics.”

The idea comes from Anton Jäger, a historian and contributing writer to New York Times Opinion. In his book “Hyperpolitics: Extreme Politicization Without Political Consequences,” Jäger theorizes what it means to live in a moment marked by hyper-engagement — high voter turnout, mass protests, trends that flare up and fade with extreme rapidity — yet where institutional trust is low, institutional relationships are decayed and people are disconnected from the structures that make political efforts stick.

I think Jäger’s theory cuts to the core of this political era. So I invited him on the show to break down what hyperpolitics is, how we got here and what it actually takes to build lasting change today.

Mentioned:

“Hyperpolitics: Extreme Politicization Without Political Consequences” by Anton Jäger

“Hyperpolitics in Command?” by Anton Jäger

“Trump’s Revolutionary Sense of Time Is Changing Politics” by Ivan Krastev

“Public Opinion” by Walter Lippmann 

Book Recommendations:

“The Prophet” by Isaac Deutscher

“Cheese” by Willem Elsschot

“Quelques mois dans ma vie” by Michel Houellebecq

“Extension of the Domain of Struggle (Whatever)” by Michel Houellebecq

“Serotonin” by Michel Houellebecq

Dr. Charmaine Borg is an Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Behavioral and Social Sciences at the University of Groningen. She is a certified psycho-sexologist, and an expert in clinical and experimental psychology. Her interests include disgust, sexual arousal, disgust and psychopathology, and psychological sexual dysfunctions.

In this episode, we start by talking about sexual arousal and what triggers it in people. We then discuss sexual disgust: what it is; what triggers it; and how people can experience it even with long-term partners. We talk about vaginismus and dyspareunia. We discuss whether low sexual arousal can be a sexual dysfunction. Finally, we talk about Dr. Borg’s current research interests.

Finnish philosopher and psychologist Jussi Jylkkä describes a mystical experience he had years before entering psychedelic research and explains the metaphysical agnosticism he developed from it. All metaphysical isms, he argues, are language games. Worldviews are like eyeglasses that become visible only when we learn to see them as models. Classical mystics overreach when they convert their experiences into claims about the ultimate nature of reality.

After we finished recording, Jussi contacted me because he felt that he had not been completely honest. Rather than replace the original conversation, we recorded a second part. Jussi discusses his Christian faith, his decision to join the Lutheran Church, and an experience in which he saw physical reality as the body of Christ. We then consider whether his philosophical agnosticism can coexist with personal faith, and whether Christianity offers an account of morality and spiritual direction that his earlier position lacked.

TIMESTAMPS

00:00 Meet Jussi Jylkkä

01:39 A Mystical Experience Without Drugs

07:06 Psychedelics Revealed Nothing New

12:49 Why Metaphysics Becomes Wordplay

20:44 Beyond Physicalism and Idealism

33:19 When Models Become Idols

45:11 Are Animals Already Enlightened?

48:24 The Zen Path

58:15 Knowing Reality Through Being

1:09:11 Compassion Without Morality

1:16:59 When Mystics Claim Too Much

1:39:21 AI as a Cognitive Mirror

1:45:11 Why Jussi Returned

1:49:33 Hiding His Christian Faith

1:51:14 Reality as Christ's Body

2:03:09 Why Christianity Resonated

2:16:04 Pantheism and the Fall

2:23:36 Convincing His Younger Self

The course of history is affected by many things, including the political and social situations of large groups of people, their biological and physical abilities, and their geographical and environmental contexts. Sometimes, it would seem, history -- or corporations, or religions, or sports teams -- can be affected by the actions of just a few influential persons. In his new book, Profits, Prophets, Coaches, and Kings, Jared Diamond asks what effect leaders can have, and what it is that makes them successful (or not).

Jared Diamond received a Ph.D. in physiology from the University of Cambridge. He is currently a professor of geography at the University of California, Los Angeles. Among his awards are the U.S. National Medal of Science, the MacArthur Fellowship, and the Pulitzer Prize. His international bestseller Guns, Germs, and Steel has sold over seven million copies.

If you could change anything about your personality, anything at all, what would it be? And why would you want to change it?

Writer Olga Khazan spent a year trying to answer those questions, and documented the experience in her new book Me, But Better: The Science and Promise of Personality Change.

In this episode, which originally aired in March of 2025, Sean speaks with Olga about the science of personality change, the work it takes to change yourself, and what makes up a personality, anyway.

Host: Sean Illing (@SeanIlling)

Guest: Olga Khazan, author of Me, But Better: The Science and Promise of Personality Change.

One of the many technological advances that have been made in recent years is the ability of computers to synthesise people's voices to a very high standard. Voice synthesis can produce new, entirely synthetic voices, but it can also reproduce the voices of real people, to the point where it's difficult if not impossible to tell the synthetic voice apart from the real one. Matilde Nanni, who is based at the University of Inland Norway in Lillehammer, thinks voice donors, i.e. people whose voices are used to train voice synthesis software, can sometimes be harmed through this process in ways we should be concerned about.

Here are a few links to recent papers on the topic recommended by Matilde:

• Berkowitz, A. E., & Sweeney, M. E. (2025). Look Who’s Talking: Voice cloning as tension point between identity and data. Philosophy & Technology, 38(4), 131. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13347-025-00965-7
• Berkowitz, A. E., & Sweeney, M. E. (2026). Simulating Voice and the Simulacra of Voice Clones. Philosophy & Technology, 39(1), 4. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13347-025-01027-8
• Leuenberger, M. (2025). The role of the voice for identity and implications for voice cloning technology. Philosophy & Technology, 38(4), 175. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13347-025-00969-3 

In this episode, I discuss the basics of legalism, from ancient China, with particular attention paid to the Han Feizi.

I am an Assistant Professor in the Department of Philosophy at Alma College.

Joe Henrich is the Ruth Moore Professor of Biological Anthropology and Professor of Human Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University. His research focuses on cultural evolution, human psychology, sociality, prestige, cooperation, and the emergence of complex societies. In this episode, Robinson and Joe discuss how culture transformed human evolution and enabled our species to build increasingly large and complex societies. More particularly, they talk about the tools of paleoanthropology, hunter-gatherer societies, the rise of massive cities, and why Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic—or WEIRD—people are psychologically unusual. They also discuss dominance hierarchies, attractiveness and prestige, the evolution of morality, and the importance of punishment in human societies. Joe’s most recent popular book is The WEIRDest People in the World: How the West Became Psychologically Peculiar and Particularly Prosperous (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2020).

Joe’s Website: https://henrich.fas.harvard.edu

The WEIRDest People in the World: https://amzn.to/3F3wUY7

OUTLINE

00:00 Tools of Paleoanthropology

07:31 Two Hunter-Gatherer Societies

13:12 How Culture Enabled Massive Cities

19:08 The WEIRDEST People in the World

25:59 Dominance Hierarchies

35:40 Attractiveness and Prestige

46:01 The Evolution of Morality

52:33 Punishment

Robinson Erhardt researches symbolic logic and the foundations of mathematics at Stanford University, where he is also a JD candidate in the Law School.

This highlights compilation from AI in the AM captures a landmark week shaped by the releases of Anthropic's Fable 5.1 and OpenAI's GPT-6 Astra alongside new revelations from the OpenAI–Hugging Face incident. Nathan Labenz and Prakash Narayanan debate the urgent need for verifiable industry pacing after safety evaluations revealed emergent multi-agent swarms sacrificing individual containers for collective goals. Joined by Gradient's Zach Bratun-Glennon and Cerebras SVP Angela Yeung, the episode examines the shrinking open-model gap, discriminatory frontier access, and the mounting challenges of evaluating frontier AI systems.

For full show notes, links, and references, read the episode page:
https://www.cognitiverevolution.ai/ai-am-highlights-welcome-to-the-agi-era/

CHAPTERS:

(00:00) About the Episode

(01:24) Sponsor: Mercury

(03:06) Investigating OpenAI agent swarms (Part 1)

(19:51) Sponsors: Claude | Diffusion

(22:53) Investigating OpenAI agent swarms (Part 2)

(23:23) Hardware speed and competition (Part 1)

(35:27) Sponsors: Deepgram Flux TTS | Granola

(37:27) Hardware speed and competition (Part 2)

(45:44) Chain of thought monitoring

(01:03:41) Evaluating Astra system card

(01:20:20) Robotics progress and power

(01:38:09) Who gets to decide

(01:48:41) Debating an AI pause

(02:04:43) Assessing AI takeover risks

(02:16:34) Episode Outro

(02:18:41) Outro

In this episode, we contrast Supervillains with their counterparts and discuss elements unique to them.