APA blog: Thanks so much for agreeing to be interviewed, Jack. For readers that may have never heard of the Panpsycast Podcast, what is your podcast about?
Jack Symes: Thank you for asking me. I love interviews, but usually, I’m the one asking the questions… which is a lovely segway into what The Panpsycast is. First and foremost, it’s about asking questions; more specifically ‘the big questions’. I suppose that’s true of philosophy more generally, which is primarily what the podcast is about (the big questions), but we also dive into areas of science, psychology and theology – but again, this is true of philosophy more generally. So, in short, the podcast is about philosophy.
Excuse the cheek of this, but before I ramble on, I’m going to quote directly from our website here – “The Panpsycast is an ‘informal and informative’ philosophy podcast that supports teachers, students and academics in philosophy. We also aim to awaken fellow free-thinkers worldwide and inspire a new generation of philosophers.” I think that description hits the peg on the head.
It’s a continually growing project, so I’ll talk a little here about how the podcast has changed.
The podcast has evolved tremendously over the past two years. The first 15 or so episodes are more comedy-based than content-based. We wanted to make a podcast that people would want to listen to. So, it had to be funny; it had to be entertaining. If your readers want to laugh and enjoy poor audio quality, I recommend they listen to our earlier episodes.
As our audience grew, the podcast evolved. What started off as myself, Olly and Andrew (my co-hosts) talking and joking about philosophy in the early episodes has blossomed into something which ‘only I could have expected’. I say that because I always recall Andrew’s healthy scepticism that the podcast wouldn’t reach 5,000 subscribers, and now we have over 70,000. He was right to be sceptical, but in those early days, I think he underestimated the level of determination and effort that myself, Olly, and himself, would eventually put in. Now, The Panpsycast team goes beyond us three. Greg Miller, Emily Rose Ogland, Phoebe Light and Thom Atkinson have joined the club, and as a consequence, we’ve produced some amazing content. Before shamelessly promoting our work, I should pause here and say that these are incredible people to be working with. The podcast would not be possible without them, and I am always astonished at the level of work they put in.
Okay, so, right – you’d think after seven years in philosophy I could give a concise answer to your question. Let me say one last thing here. As the podcast has developed, we’ve been lucky enough to interview some of the biggest names in philosophy – A. C. Grayling, Daniel C. Dennett, Peter Singer, Yujin Nagasawa, Bence Nanay, Christian B Miller, Rebecca Roache, Galen Strawson, Steven Pinker – and the list goes on. Not only do we interview big thinkers, but we also release informal discussions focusing on a broad range of areas within philosophy – existentialism, moral philosophy, political philosophy, philosophy of mind, philosophy of religion – there really is something for everyone, and we always pitch it at non-specialists. Each episode, we want somebody who is completely unfamiliar with a particular topic/thinker, to come out the other end at the forefront of the contemporary discussion – but most importantly, come out of the other end with a smile on their face.
In my day-to-day life, I try and live by Camus’ advice, to defy the gods and ‘be Sisyphus happy’, and I strive to bring this into the podcast. I also like to quote William James on this point, “Good-humor is a philosophic state of mind; it seems to say to Nature that we take her no more seriously than she takes us. I maintain that one should always talk of philosophy with a smile.” On the podcast, we always talk of philosophy with a smile… unless we’re talking about something it’s not okay to smile about… then we’re usually laughing.
APA blog: My, that was a wide-ranging and detailed response! I’d like to expand a bit on something you said near the end–you mentioned Camus and William James, two well-known philosophers–did reading their work influence your philosophical development? For you personally, which philosophers had the greatest influence on you? And how did you get into philosophy?
Jack: I enjoy reading William James and I have great respect for him as one of the greatest thinkers of the 20th century, but I wouldn’t say that James’ work has had a significant impact on my own positions. Albert Camus, on the other hand, is a very different story. Let’s take a detour; I’ll answer your third question and then I’ll make my way back to this point.
When I was a child, all I wanted to do was make people laugh. My parents recall a cheeky, curly-haired boy, always running around with a smile on his face. I used to do stand-up at parties, talent shows, my grandparents’ care home; basically, anywhere I could find a stage – I even had a selection of traditional jester hats (bells and all). I can’t imagine I was very good, but people seemed to enjoy it, probably because they could see that I was enjoying it. Fast-forward to high school, and still, the only thing I was interested in was making people laugh. I was indifferent towards my grades and what I was studying.
At the same time, I was always troubled by philosophical questions, particularly those pertaining to existentialism and philosophy of religion, as most young people are; but it wasn’t until my late teens that I discovered ‘philosophy’ in the form of an A-level class. I was instantly hooked. I booked my ideas up academically – I wanted to turn it all around to study this for the rest of my life.
Fast-forward again. I’d finished my masters in philosophy, and I’d cherished every moment of it. That’s a bit of an understatement. In The Gay Science, Friedrich Nietzsche asks us the following:
What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: ‘This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more’ … Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: ‘You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine.’
If the demon were to propose an eternal return, I would praise him as a god, simply to study the same philosophy courses again and again. In fact, I have gone back to study the same courses again. As a postgraduate, I’d sit in on as many of my old undergraduate classes as I could, and herein lies the answer to your second question. The philosopher who became the biggest impact on my development was Daniel Hill, who taught me as an undergraduate and postgraduate at the University of Liverpool. Daniel’s mentoring, good humour and devotion to all of the virtues required of a good philosopher, make him, in the words of my good friend Thom Atkinson, “the most underrated thinker in philosophy of religion.”
So, why did Camus have such a significant impact on my development? After my undergraduate degree, I became obsessed with answering what Camus called, the only truly serious philosophical question – suicide – “judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy.”
Camus likens the human condition to that of Sisyphus’. In Greek mythology, the gods condemned Sisyphus to ceaselessly roll a stone to the top of a mountain, only to see the rock fall back of its own weight. When the rock fell down to the foot of the mountain, lo and behold, Sisyphus would have to push the rock back up the mountain, ad infinitum. Sisyphus would have certainly cursed Nietzsche’s demon!
So, what is Camus’ solution? How should we respond to ‘the problem of suicide’? This is one of my favourite quotes, so I’ll let the master do the talking here:
I leave Sisyphus at the foot of the mountain! One always finds one’s burden again. But Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity that negates the gods and raises rocks. He too concludes that all is well. This universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile. Each atom of that stone, each mineral flake of that night filled mountain, in itself forms a world. The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.
Smile in the face of your absurd condition – oops, here I am with William James again “it seems to say to Nature that we take her no more seriously than she takes us”. I guess James has had a bigger impact than I thought.
APA blog: Would you mind talking about your thoughts about the duties and responsibilities of doing public philosophy? What role do you think public philosophers do (and should) play?
Jack: I’m inclined to think that philosophy is intrinsically good, that is, something that is good in itself, something that can be done for the sake of itself. For me, philosophers should aim at the truth; finding out what is true, is what philosophers should be doing. However, that isn’t to say that engaging with philosophy doesn’t lead to extrinsic goods, that philosophy can’t achieve other goals on the way to truth. To ransack an example from Christian B. Miller, we should be driving our cars to Destination Truth, but there’s no problem in enjoying the journey; hanging our head out of the window and appreciating the breeze. My view in short? I think philosophy is essential to one, a meaningful life, and two, a flourishing society. The role of public philosophy? To get people doing philosophy so that it can fulfil these breezy bonuses.
Existentialism or philosophy of religion can give somebody’s life purpose, and deliberating questions of moral philosophy enables us to make better decisions ‘out there’ in the world – the importance of both cannot be overstated. A society with a ‘herd mentality’ is extraordinarily dangerous. John Stuart Mill comes to mind here, who warns us of “the deep slumber of a decided opinion”. Philosophy teaches us to challenge our views, challenge the reasons we hold our views, only to accept a conclusion if our positions stand up to rigorous analysis, and, here’s the kicker, always remain open to being proven wrong – this is essential in philosophy. You’re there to reach the truth, not to win the argument. So, Mill warns us not to fall into the “slumber of a decided opinion”. We should never forget why we hold something to be true, and we should always challenge and re-evaluate our ideas. This might seem odd to some. I hear the reader’s mind tick… “but if we have reached the truth, we don’t need to re-evaluate our views”. Mill’s answer? If we have good reason for maintaining our positions, they should stand up to scrutiny. We cannot fall into the complacency of thinking we are right. Why? Because “it is dangerous and poisonous when the opinions are wrong” (Mill, On Liberty) – you don’t need a degree in history for that one.
That’s a glimpse into the many reasons why I think philosophers should be engaging in public philosophy. It might sound harsh, but I think anybody who is capable of engaging in public philosophy has a moral obligation to do so. Plato’s now-freed prisoner did not leave the cave and run to the nearest academy to lock himself away; he went back for the other prisoners, to tell them what philosophy had taught him. The saddening part of Plato’s allegory of the cave is that the remaining prisoners (non-philosophers) didn’t want to hear what the returning prisoner (the philosopher) had to say. In fact, they would rather see him dead than hear him drone on – a thought which assuredly passes through the minds of my students from time to time. I recently did an interview with Philosophy Bakes Bread, in which I quoted Bertrand Russell’s famous line, “Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so.” I like the quote because it packs a punch, but I no longer think it’s true. People will think if you don’t bore them to death first. Plato’s returning prisoner just sucked at marketing. Plato, unlike his freed-prisoner, was the master of marketing. He made philosophy exciting, writing some of the most powerful and enjoyable philosophy the world has seen; philosophy still has much to learn from its father.
There’s still a slice of your question pie I’m yet to pour custard on. Once we’re motivated to do public philosophy, we need to do it properly. We need more substantive and less sensationalistic public philosophy. Too often, we chisel philosophy down to an erotic sculpture, merely to appease the masses, but the price of public engagement shouldn’t be philosophy itself. We need the detail, we the rigour, we need to keep the arguments – and we can. Projects like The Panpsycast show that we can. I’m sorry Plato’s freed-prisoner, the numbers are out. People will love philosophy the way it is if you present it in the right way. A little bit of showmanship never hurt anybody. Failing to encourage substantive free-thinking, now that’s a different story.
APA blog: I’d be interested if you could elaborate more on how to engage in public philosophy. Are there any particular tricks of the trade you have picked up while working on The Panpsycast? Do you have any concrete suggestions for other philosophers that may want to engage in public philosophy in the future?
Jack: The world of public philosophy is broad, so begin by looking at some of the different platforms it has to offer. Listen to podcasts, watch debates, read philosophy magazines and blogs; be an audience member first. Now, ask yourself, ‘what would I enjoy doing myself?’ Public philosophy should be enjoyable, so make sure it’s something you’re keen to do.
I’ll stay within my paygrade and offer advice for appearing on a podcast or radio show. The most important thing? Smile. The audience can tell when you’re enjoying the discussion; they can hear the smile on your face. Speak with passion, speak from the heart; show the listener why you fell in love with the thing you’re talking about.
Try not to lose the audience in gratuitous technical jargon. Public philosophy needs to be accessible. If public philosophy is bogged down with jargon, it will seem too abstract to the Jack and Jill on the street – but it doesn’t need to be. We interviewed A. C. Grayling (an excellent public philosopher) on The Panpsycast last year and something he said has really stuck with me. He told us that when we do philosophy, “we are only two or three steps away from the things that really matter.” He’s right. When you’re doing public philosophy, just make sure you bring the discussion back to the things that matter, the things that got you to where you are now. Show the listener why the question bothers you, and it will bother them too.
I’ll make two final points, keeping them uninspiring and humourless like a good Adam Sandler film. If you’re a philosopher interested in changing the world for the better, reach out to a public philosophy organisation. More often than not, they will be happy to show you the ropes.
In her book Plato at the Googleplex: Why Philosophy Won’t Go Away, Rebecca Newberger Goldstein (another great public philosopher) tells us that “what was tortuously secured by complex argument becomes widely shared intuition, so obvious that we forget its provenance.” Simply put, Goldstein is saying here that the things philosophers work out, end up becoming public knowledge. This is a good thing, no doubt. But here’s my worry. I’m concerned that the public will only end up with the beliefs, not the reasons for holding the beliefs. It’s important that when we’re doing public philosophy, we show people ‘how to do philosophy’ – cultivate philosophical enquiry itself!
When we talk about philosophers, we describe them as intellectually honest; we idealise them as putting their egos aside. No philosopher would employ playground tactics; they don’t care about winning the argument or 1-upping their opponent – they want to arrive at the truth! I’m concerned that there might be a growing egotism in the world of public philosophy. The public need to focus on the thinking rather than the thinker. I’m mixing up my thoughts here; I’ll stop beating around the bush. We need public philosophers, to be honest, to lead by example, to teach people how to do philosophy, which means prioritising truth over ticket-selling and point-scoring. Oh sorry, my advice? You’re a philosopher, so act like one!
A final piece of advice? Leave them wanting more. Keep them asking questions. It doesn’t need to be profound. Just end with a series of short sentences, before fading out with an ellipsis dot dot dot
Jack Symes
Jack Symes graduated from the University of Liverpool in philosophy (BA and MA) before going on to read teaching studies at the University of Birmingham. Currently teaching at King Edward VI High School for Girls, Jack is best known as the creator and producer of The Panpsycast Philosophy Podcast.
Although The Panpsycast supports teachers, students and academics in philosophy, the show also aims to inspire the general public to engage in philosophical enquiry. 75,000 people subscribe to The Panpsycast; owing to the shows comedic-informal discussions, and interviews with leading philosophers such as Peter Singer, Daniel C. Dennett, Rebecca Newberger Goldstein, and Galen Strawson.
