Philosophy Bites - Podcast Rankings and reviews

I have been listening to this podcast loyally for over ten years because each episode is provocative and presents enlightening ways of thinking about deep questions. The wide range of philosophical topics are well represented. The most recent episode on moral heroes with Elizabeth Harman seemed unpromising at first, but left me thinking critically about the choices I, my family, and my friends make in our dealings with others. Like many episodes, the short quarter-hour episode gave me tools to think. I especially like the way David and Nigel eschew chit-chat and dive right in to the meat of the episode. This shows a respect for listeners’ time, which I greatly appreciate. I like this style so much that in 2020 I modeled my own podcast Geology Bites on it. I hope they don’t get bored with it even though they have notched up a staggering 375 episodes.

Read their books, get all their Podcasts on your Feed. These guys are as up to date with where the field of Philosophy is going and have spectacular guests and nice tidy short and to the point discussions. This is a must have Philosophy Podcast if you care about modern philosophy.

Fantastic range of topics discussed with compelling philosophers. The questions posed throughout the interviews take this show to the next level. The interviewee is neither harassed nor given an easy way out. Perfect show length with no meaningless fluff. Very well done, indeed!

I enjoy these bite-sized episodes which (for me) serve as an intro to Western philosophers who I have heard about. In the episode on Schopenhauer, however, the glancing reference to Indian “classical” or as I would put it, ancient texts deserves more in-depth analysis and an episode of its own. Schopenhauer did more than “borrow” from ancient Indian texts; these works seem formed the basis of some of his philosophy. Too often eastern texts are used merely as references. There must be an acknowledgment of their profound influence on western thought and literature and even popular culture -from Schopenhauer to Star Trek to The Matrix -what is now known as Hinduism is behind all of these.

The best thing about this show is when the philosophers present opposing views in the interest of philosophical analysis, without getting upset. However, all such opposing views are absent when the topic of religion (all too frequent) or mainstream liberal ideals come up.
So “optimism only makes sense if you believe in god who can make good on all the evil in the world…. so believing in god is the pragmatic way to justify optimism”. How can the speaker get away with such a logically flawed argument without a hint of an argument from Warburton?
The next episode presents Pascal’s Wager, which basically says that believing in god is simply a rational decision. The speaker proclaims Pascal as a genius who has endless contributions to philosophy and Warburton doesn’t utter a word about the logical fallacy in Pascal’s statements.
Religion pervades every aspect of society. It does not need philosophy to help it out. Philosophy is the only tool we have to formalize rational arguments, and here we are trying to rationalize faith. The sophists taught us to argue both sides of every argument. Nigel Warburton falls short on the topics where this is needed the most.