The central conception of logic is not truth, it's validity. If you want to be an academic,
you do need a doctorate. By the time I finished my doctorate,
I I realized two things. The first was that I'd only ever be at best a
mediocre professional mathematician. And secondly, that philosophy is a lot more
fun than mathematics cuz there's stuff you can discuss and argue about, right? [Music]
Hello everyone. Welcome back to the show for another episode. This time I come with a great
guest. His name is Graham Priest. He is a philosopher and logician who at the moment
is teaching at New York if I'm not mistaken at the Cooney Graduate Center. Uh, of course
I'm not big on doing uh great introductions. I I just prefer for us to have a conversation.
So Graham, welcome. Welcome to the show. Thanks Mateus. Pleasure to be with you.
Amazing. So, uh, as as I was telling you earlier, this podcast is for people that are interested in
philosophy but are not necessarily philosophers per se. Sorry, my my dog here is barking a bit.
So, I I wanted to ask you, how did you first uh get into philosophy and how did you follow
uh this uh interest, passion, profession all the way to where it it took you today?
Well, it's slightly non-standard. um my first degree is in mathematics. In fact,
I my doctorates in mathematics. So when I was studying mathematics as an undergraduate,
I I became interested in philosophy and logic and um when I finished my undergraduate degree,
I decided to carry on with my interest in mathematical logic which I wrote my doctorate on.
And there's a close connection between logic and philosophy um and mathematics. Uh we can go into
that if you want but for the moment just take my word for it. Okay. Um so even though I was working
in a math department, I was still thinking about philosophy as well. And by the time I finished
my doctorate, I realized two things. The first was that I'd only ever be at best a mediocre
professional mathematician. Um and secondly that philosophy is a lot more fun than mathematics
because there's stuff you can discuss and argue about. Right? So um when I finished my doctorate
I decided I wanted to be an academic and I wanted a job I'd have taken any job to be honest. Okay.
But I would have preferred a job in a philosophy department than a math department. And uh for
reasons I still don't really understand. Um the University of St. Andrews in Scotland offered
me a job in their philosophy department and I took it like a flash. So was me becoming a professional
philosopher and then no one in the UK seemed to want to offer me a permanent job. The first
permanent job I was offered was in Australia. My family and I, well my wife and I, we had a couple
of young kids decided to move to Australia and we thought we'd be back soon. We didn't expect to
stay there but we did. So if you'd immigrated and then my professional life I spent in Australia.
Okay. How long did you spend in Australia and then when did you go to the US? Okay.
So I went to Australia in 76. M uh and I worked there until I
moved here. Exactly when I moved is a bit vague because of going backwards and forwards because
that was about um let's say 15 years ago. Amazing. So about mathematics and philosophy.
Um most departments in in Latin America for philosophy they are philosophy and literature
or philosophy and theology. There is rarely a department like philosophy and mathematics or
philosophy and physics or philosophy and logic. Uh and I and I've and when I studied uh in in London,
I realized this and I'm like, "Wow, that's like for us in Latin America,
it's not very common to connect philosophy and maths." And I think that's a big mistake, right?
Well, I mean, philosophy is a very strange subject. I mean, it's a bit like an octopus and
it has tentacles. Uh and the tentacles spread out all over the place. In fact they they they connect
with virtually every other academic discipline and far beyond that. Um so of course you know this is
recognized by you have philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of science, philosophy of religion,
philosophy of psychology, philosophy of history blah blah blah blah blah. Okay. So
uh you you compare philosophy with many other disciplines uh and where what it's paired with
if it's paired at all uh often depends on the kind of history and culture of the country.
So a connection between um ma philosophy and mathematics, philosophy and science is much
more common in uh the English speaking world than it is say in the Latin world. I think
that's a great point. So I I did engineering as an undergrad industrial and system engineering. So I
had to take well uh I had to do a lot of logic not formal logic but you know within maths and within
physics optics and and chemistry and all that then I did my my my first masters in in in in London
King's College but before that I had to do a year of undergrad at least I I I did a year I I could
have done more but I did a year of undergrad philosophy to to join the the masters and I
remember I spoke to one of my professors there about uh she she was my professor for knowledge
and and reality so epistemology and metaphysics and and I asked her why why do we all study like
maths ever since we're really young we learn math like mathematics 1, mathematics 2, mathematics 3,
four every year uh everyone. But when no one teaches like philosophy 1, philosophy 2, Phil,
you know, at least like ethics one, ethics 2 or epistemology or the basics like why is that not
taught in a general structure of of education? Look, that's an interesting question. Um, I mean,
philosophy is taught at the senior years of high school in some countries. Yes. and
in particular in Europe, in France, Germany, but sometimes in the English speaking world
too. So it's not true that it's not taught in schools, but it's not taught in the way that
mathematics is. Your question opens up a real kind of world about what the function of education is.
Okay. Generally speaking, the function of education in most countries is utilitarian. Okay.
So, you educate people to give them the skills they need to get through in life. Okay. And um
nowadays it's very hard to be employed if you're not literate, you can't read, you can't count.
Um increasingly if you can't operate a computer, a lot of people realize that point of education
is more important than merely getting a job. uh the utilitarian side I think has predominant to
do in most countries. So you got to remember that um public education at least in Europe only came
to being really in the 18th 19th centuries and that's about the time that capitalism started
to require some kind of urban workforce um uh and increasingly one that required people to
be literate and numerate u so I think that's the historical reason why things like language and and
mathematics are taught in in most places. Okay. I mean you raised the question of what else should
be taught. Uh that's an important question but that that answers your question anyway.
I agree and I mean education should increasingly be about how we think. Uh wouldn't you agree how
how we approach questions and how we answer now that we have so many advances with
uh with technology well artificial intelligence and other things perhaps being a deeper thinker
might be of interest for more employers right at least that's something I I I think could
be the case uh but anyways so you you went into teaching at an undergrad at undergraduate level
uh at the beginning and now you teach at a post-graduate level and
you specialized in in logic if I'm not mistaken. That that's not quite right. Um the universities
that I've worked at in the UK and Australia aren't undergraduate institutions. They teach
undergraduates but they're research institutions. So they graduate students. So for most of my life
I've taught right through the curriculum from first year students to doctoral students and
Otocks. Um but the college I'm in in New York is called the graduate center and that's the reason
the reason for that is that it it teaches only graduate students. It's CUNI has many colleges.
Um but the graduate center was set up just to teach the graduate programs. So since I've
been here I teach only graduate students. I'm very fortunate and that I I don't have a heavy teaching
load and I can teach exactly what I want to do. That's amazing. Occasionally I teach logic but to
be honest very rarely I teach logic. It's the other things that interest me. In the
last few years I've taught courses on time and on metaphysics. Next course next semester I'm
going to teach on ibn sinner or as is best known in the Latin west avisenna. And only recently I've
realized how important Arabic philosophy is in the development of western philosophy and I don't
know much about it. So I want to educate myself. That's amazing. That's amazing. I I really think
complimenting complimenting uh the way we think with more and wide range of of of uh disciplines
is is the way to go, you know, uh and and I really I really value that. I really uh compliment you on
that. So, two people that I know uh have studied also at at Cooney, perhaps you've you've met them.
One is uh Dr. Henry Chevlin. Henry Chevlin did his uh Oh, yes. So I remember having
PhD. Yeah. Also consciousness. Yeah. He's English, right? And
he's English doctor. And actually I've lost track of him so I don't know what he's doing now. Yeah.
Now he's teaching here in Cambridge at the fantastic
at the it's called Lever Center for the Future of Intelligence, the CFI.
All right. Say hi to him for me.
I will. I will. I I'm hoping to bring him to the podcast. He also uh he taught me the philosophy
module on the AI on the ethics of AI masters here at Cambridge. He's a great guy. So funny. I I
will I will let you know. I will send your your regards. And the other is uh Karisa from Oxford.
Oh, she's Spanish. Well, Mexican and Spanish. She wrote a book called Privacy's Power. Yeah. Look,
I No, I know her. Uh uh you're right. She's Latin. Uh, but she moved to Oxford. I I have seen her
occasionally since she moved. Oh, yeah. Yeah. But not not
for a couple of years now. Amazing. So, Cooney Cooney
has really established the themselves as a as an important uh institution in the last few years.
Well, it's it's not a high-profile university. It's not a private university. Doesn't have the
same kind of status as Harvard or or Princeton or whatever. It's actually has an interesting history
because it was set up in the 19th century provide tertiary education for ordinary New Yorkers and as
you may know um uh New York has always been an immigrant city. So there's always been a large
number of relatively poor people in New York uh immigrants trying to establish themselves. Um and
obviously they can't afford all the you know enormously expensive fees to go to Harvard or
Colombia or whatever. So this the city set up this university to provide good tertiary education for
um ordinary New Yorkers and that's part of its mandate. You know I support that. It wasn't until
recent terms that it really started to think that it could um educate graduate students
who could then go on to work in universities. Um that's a relatively recent phenomenon. Um,
and in many areas it's been quite successful in that, including the thought. Yeah, I've heard
great things. I I would love to visit you one day. I've I've been to New York a couple of times,
but down the road I would love to to visit you. Going. Yes. Yes. So, uh, talking about logic,
um, you wrote a book called, uh, I love that series, the the the very short introduction,
you know, I've I I read many of those books and you wrote the one on logic. So, I actually had a
book, uh, your book for a long time. I've had your book for a long time. I didn't know. Uh,
now that I spoke to Carlos, he told me about your story and I was like, "Wow, that that's amazing."
uh could you talk a bit about that the experience of writing that book because I haven't done my PhD
eventually I want to do my PhD but I also think we could work and we should work at not exactly
going on the depth of philosophy like on the you know but but working on the breath the base
of philosophical understanding and I think these books are something that can help many people of
course you can go as deep as you want but having the proper language to int introduce these topics.
Uh I think it's really important. For example, the University of Cambridge has just hired um a
professor for the public understanding of maths. Her job is to connect with the public. Could you
speak a bit about this? How was that experience? So I I know the series well uh and I've read many
of the volumes. Oh, I haven't heard of them, but I want to learn about an area because they are
so good. I mean, I've never read um a volume in that series which isn't well written, informative,
enjoyable. Prison Company accepted, of course. Okay. So, um I like her much. Now, Oxford wrote
to me, gosh, it must have been 25 years ago or maybe even more, asking me if I'd write the volume
in Logic. So, it was one of the early volumes in the series and they said, "They're going to
be very short. We want you to introduce people to logic in I don't know 30,000 words or 40,000 words
or something. I know and said get real can't be done. It's a challenge. It's a challenge. Well,
so the editor whose name I now forget she's left. She left a long time ago wrote to me and said,
"Yeah, look, I understand. um why don't you think of it not so much as an introduction to logic but
um talk about how logic relates to things like philosophical issues and then explain those and
explain some logic along the way and I thought that's an interesting idea so it was a good idea
and that's the way I decided to write it in the end so if you look at the chapters they they all
sort of spin-off philosophical issues and then I introduce the the logical ical techniques which
might be used to address them and it it covers a very broad spread both philosophically and
logically. So logically it's very superficial. Um I hope I say enough to to give people the
idea of some of the logical techniques involved. Okay. And when I wrote the book I I wrote it very
fast. I mean I think I wrote it in a month or six weeks. I just sat on wrote and and it was
it was easy partly because well, you know, if if you're writing this stuff, you know,
you can't do justice to it. So, if I'm writing an academic article, I'm looking over my shoulder all
the time. I think what what are my peers going to say? How are they going to object to this? Right.
Yes. Always. You can't do that. So,
you're not looking over your shoulder. You're just trying to explain explain stuff, right?
Yeah. Yeah. Um, so it was it was actually very enjoyable writing
because I wasn't looking over my shoulder. So you've written many for a very short
introduction. No, only one.
Ah, only one. Okay. Okay. Uh, but there there are like I don't know if hundreds perhaps hundreds. I
remember in Blackwells in in Oxford there's a big So it's from Oxford University Press
now that you mentioned makes sense. I remember in Blackwell there was a big like many shelves
of very short introduction to to everything. So you don't refer to logic because you speak
about logically and philosophically. So you wouldn't consider logic a part of philosophy.
You would consider it something on on its own like because it could also be considered as a
branch of philosophy. How does that fit into the the disciplines? Well, I mean in its own way,
logic has tentacles which spread into many different areas. Mathematics, computer science,
linguistics, but the original home of logic was philosophy. Well, okay. I mean, you know,
the early people who developed formal logic were philosophers. BS philosophers did many
other things but uh it's it's no accident um that there are connections between logic and philosophy
just because um there's this entanglement between logical issues and philosophical issues and it's
not just that people reason in philosophy which they do of course but people reason in all sorts
of ways so it's not that kind of connection that I'm gesturing at the connection is rather that
logic often provides a conceptual framework for philosophical theory izing when you theorize you
use various categorists to put it in Aristotle's terms and you want to know how those categories
behave and that's something that's very much investigated in logic so you know Aristotle's
um categories is closely connected with the rest of his work in logic that that
connection has certainly evolved over 2 and a half thousand years but it it's still there
I think maybe a hundred years ago when logical positivism dominated philosophy when logic was
thought to be kind of philosophy neutral It was an interesting idea. It didn't work. And nowadays,
I think most logicians and metaphysicians and even more general philosophers will think that
um that there's a very tight connection between logic and metaphysics. Uh just because logic tells
you something about the conceptual framework you're dealing with when you do especially
metaphysics, but also other bits of philosophy. And and there is please correct me if I'm wrong,
but you have been not I'm not sure if you're still actively working on it, but you uh are developing
a a new theory of logic or a new branch of logic, Daleithia, uh which from what I understand is
challenging the three the classical rules of logic from from Aristotle, right? The three principles,
the axiomatic uh logic from from Aristotle. And uh it would be a logic that admits contradictions in
the same sense and the same context. How would this work and and and how could we
teach this? Because there is something about the little that the few things that I've read that
resonate deeply with me for example as far back as Heracitis with the duality of of opposites
and other thinkers and all the paradoxes that we have floating around. How can we approach
this this subject and how could you explain it? All right. Well, we could spend the next several
hours discussing it, but it's a lockdown. Um, let me just correct you though in one
thing. What you're referring to as the three laws of logic are usually the law of non-contradiction,
the law of exist identity. Now, it's true that uh but but calling those the laws of logic is very
old-fashioned. It's a hangover from sort of uh 18th early 19th century philosophy. No one thinks
in those terms nowadays. Okay.
Um even in Aristotle two of those laws excluded middle and non-contradiction
are not logic. They're metaphysics. They're not Aristotle's logic. They're in
his metaphysics. And the law of identity you don't even find in Aristotle. It doesn't really become
articulated until Linets. So you know this this is just all wrong historically. But I mean never mind
the sort of the the historicals are dytheism is the view that some contradictions are true. Okay.
Now the word contradiction gets thrown around by many people and many philosophers and you know uh
I'm not saying there's a uniquely correct way of uni correct word use of the word contradiction but
logicians tend to use it in a very precise sense. Uh maybe a contradiction is something like it's
raining it's not raining. uh you're in Cambridge are not in Cambridge. Uh all men are mortal. Some
men are not mortal. That so they're kind of of the form as logicians will say P and not P.
P and not P. Yes. As in the modus ponent P and not P. Okay.
Oh well that's not modus ponent. Modus pon is yes is if if P then Q. Yeah. P Q. But yeah
that normally when I I I speak about P's and Q's I remember about that.
So uh Dismiss was the view that some things of that form are true. Now that goes against what
you're calling the law or what is normally called the principle of non-contradiction.
That that can't be the case. You can't have a true contradiction. Uh and Aristotle did defend that.
As I said, it's in his metaphysics logic. Uh he had a bunch of arguments. They're pretty shocking
arguments and they don't really work. And that's not just my view. That's the most of that's the
view of most contemporary scholars or Aristotle. I think we can go into that if you want,
but let's leave it for the moment. He established I mean whether or not the elements were good,
he established the principle of non-contradiction as a high orthodoxy in western philosophy. Now
status in other philosophical traditions is a bit different but again let's leave that for
the moment. Um and it's true that there have been people in the history of western philosophy after
Aristotle who questioned the law. The most obvious example is Hegel but if I say that Hegel scholars
will often have a you know a fit about this. Yeah I read that well Hegel and Vidinstan as
well right but why would they have the fit a fit with Hegel?
Okay again this is going to take us off as a tangent but let me do it quickly.
Okay. uh uh if you read Hegel, it's pretty clear he's a dialtheist. He thinks there some
contradictions and he he spells out what those are quite explicitly. They're of the four P. Um but
the law of the principle of law of contradiction has been so orthodox in the history of philosophy
that people who are Hegelian commenters and if you if you if you a scholar of Hegel,
you spend your whole [ __ ] life reading his books because he wrote so much and
they're difficult. Yeah. It's so difficult. Yeah. But you you've done hold your soul to this guy,
you know, and scholars do that kind that's fine by me, you know, if you want to spend your life
doing that, go for it. Yeah. Yeah.
And I admire scholarship. Um but look, if you if you spend your life if you dedicate your life
to understanding this guy, the last thing you want to do is land on him a view which is kind
of regarded as Looney Tune stuff. Yeah, I see what you're saying.
You're going to try and interpret him in a more sort of a way which you think is
more charitable. Charitable. Yeah. and accepted accepted in the common. Yeah.
So many commentators on Hegel will try to get rid of the various obvious contradictions in
his thought. Okay. End of tangent. For all that um the law of non-contradiction has been
high orthodoxy in western philosophy. Orthodoxy. Well um I'm one of a few contemporary philosophers
who have now challenged that orthodoxy and we've called it dialtheism. This is sort of it's a
it's a neologism but uh it means something like two truths. So something can be true and false.
Okay. When we started pushing this 40 odd years ago it was it was regarded as looney tune stuff
because the principle of non-contradiction is so orthodox. Yeah. Um it's not so regarded now as far
as I understand my community. It's still regarded as highly unorthodox and pretty implausible, but
uh it's no longer regarded as looney tune stuff. Okay. Okay. That's a start. I mean in philosophy
this is how a lot of the changes happen, right? Like at the beginning is like don't speak about
it and then eventually after a 100 200 years, you know, there's some progress done, right?
Yeah. No, it's true that I mean all orthodoxes in philosophy were heresies and 200 years ago.
Uh which is not to say that everything was a heresy which will come orthodox.
It's a different matter. Um but certainly you know there were there are conceptual
changes big conceptual changes in the history of philosophy. People come up with new ideas.
Sometimes they live sometimes they don't. But the um you know uh heresy can become
can certainly become an orthodoxy. That's part of an answer to your question. Um, and
uh, this word daleism you mentioned is a metaphysical view or at least it's a view
about truth. What's true? What kinds of things are true? Right. It's not a view about logic per se.
Okay. And you connected daleithism with logic. And
there is a connection, but that's going to be the second part of the answer if you want to go then.
Yes. And um I mean I would think that truth is an epistemological matter. Why would you classify it
as metaphysical as an ontological thing? Okay. Look the nature of truth is highly
contentious in every version of philosophy I know. Okay. Highly contentious. Some people think of
it as pismological. Some people think of it as ontological. But when I said it's metaphysical,
I I just I meant no more than that. It's about truth. Period.
Okay. It's about truth. Truth is,
okay? And that that's all I meant. Okay.
Um and dialtheism as such is not committed to any particular theory of truth. Okay. It's about
truth. Okay. Now, the central conception of logic is not truth. It's validity.
Yes. The principles of validity. Yeah. Because logic is about arguments. And logicians call
good arguments valid. The topic of logic is validity. It's not truth. I just wanted to
sort of hammer home the thought that dialtheism is not about validity. It's about truth. Now
there is a close connection between dialtheism and logic. Um but as I say that's the second
part of the story. We can go there if you want or you might want to move on. It's up to you.
No, we can go there. Yeah. Yeah. We we could go there. And and I'm interested of course
uh how a a world would be where we could where more people understood this. Have
you written a paper or a book about this in specifically? Have you published something?
Lots lots. Yes.
Mo but most things I write like most philosophers I write for professional philos
I see. Um I'm sure I must have written other things which are sort of more intelligible for
the general public but in in some sense you know media like this you know are much better ways of
talking to the general public than writing philosophers who who reads books nowadays
don't answer that question. Yeah, I mean I'm I've I've I've dedicated my life to to to fight this
to do like a countercultural movement because you know how social media is. Uh people want
uh shorter videos and they want videos and if they get books they want shorter books.
And you know what why I'm interested in this the reason I'm I'm interested in this is because of
the polarization that is occurring in the world because this dialectism I think it even has a
a potential to have a political impact because of soypism in the sense that we all have cases
of people we know close to to us which have been radicalized into thinking that their their truth
is the truth and you know and their opinion is the truth you know and there's no no other way
around it. Of course we have the principle of charity we have uh a bunch of ways to insert
friction to open dialogue but if we don't have the conceptual tools the thinking before the
conversation conversations won't won't be useful. So you got me thinking about also like what would
a very short introduction to dialism look like? Um I I agree with you that the world is becoming
more polarized it since. Um I've never thought that daleithism would really help in addressing
that issue. They asked me you know what are the political implications of your view? And I have to
say honestly I don't really see any but that might just be because I'm being shortsighted. If people
out there in Zoomland are really interested, um I wouldn't go to a book in the first instance. I
mean, you'll find various videos of me on the net, sometimes lecture series which I've done
at various universities and some of those are sort of explaining dilism and its entourage for
a you know a a general audience. That's where I'd start. So if you just sort of Google or
or go to YouTube and and Google Grand Priest and Daleism, these will turn up pretty easily.
I see. And and would you recommend to have a a base of logical understanding before getting into
Daleism? Not not necessarily. It certainly helps in due course but you don't need to understand
much logic to understand daleism because it's not about logic as such. That's true.
That's better I think because and and of course when I I was told about this and I
read a bit about it. I thought about quantum physics. I don't know if that's uh kind of a
naive way of or first knee-jerk reaction to some concept but how would computers would because
computers use logic could we relate this or no two things quantum mechanics and computers
um sometimes people suggest or have suggested that that quantum theory is dialic and you know
it's true that in popular quantum theory you see people saying that uh you that an
electron is a particle on a wave and lives are contradictory that Schroing is catless dead
and alive and that's contradictory. I've never been persuaded by this argument. I mean it just
the mathematics they're actually complex mathematical functions.
Probability, right? They're probabilistic functions. Well, they're functions which
map things um particles or points in space to something called a state space which is
a complex mathematical structure. Uh and you could interpret these as um the probability of
telling you something about the probability of making certain observations. That that's
that's what the mathematics tells you, right? Um, and the mathematics is quite consistent.
It's nothing to do with Daleism. I've never been persuaded by this argument. Although, you know,
it may well be there interesting connections to be explored. Um, if and when any physicists
become interested in in paristent logic, you know, the sort of mathematics of this stuff,
um, maybe we'll see that kind of application. Who knows? I don't. So, that's first question.
Second question is computers. Look, computers are just devices which manipulate ones and zeros.
That's all ones and zeros. It's not even ones and zeros. It's about a charge flowing, you know,
a current flowing or not. They have no intrinsic connection with logic. Any logic can be massaged
into a form where you're manipulating ones and zeros or or more ma or complex more complex
mathematical structures. So of course you can get a computer to work on or operate any kind of
logic you like. Okay, there are limits because of the halting theorem, but we don't need to go into
that. But generally speaking, um you know, you can get a logic you can get any computer to work
on any logic you damn well like. Yeah, I think this the whole subject is fascinating because it
gets us to the limits of it would change the way we interpret the world. Has it changed your way of
of seeing the world by accepting contradictions? How how has that had like impact in in the
rest of your work and in reading new kinds of philosophy? Well, it's made me more open-minded in
the philosophical climate in which I grew up. Um the thought that if you're giving a philosophical
account of something and it might be motion, it might be free will, it might be realism,
idealism. Um the thought that you could actually countenance an incon a contradictory theory would
have been thought of as crazy for reasons we've talked about. Once one takes styleism to heart uh
one doesn't write off these views in a thoughtless fashion. You might reject the contradictory
theories because contradictory theory might not be the best theory but um it opens the space of
theories you might seriously consider. In that sense you become more open-minded. And so now
I'm I'm more openminded about a lot of things. I will consider theories that most people might not
consider because they're contradictory. I think that's the main change that's the main effect it's
had on my philosophical theorizing. That's good. But being
open-minded is generally good. Um yeah, I think it is. And if we want to, you know,
solve some of the biggest problems, we we need to uh get fresh ideas. We we can't stop, right?
Yeah. Although I don't identify open-minded with being credulous or naive or gullible. Right.
Of course. Of course. You're still critical about ideas. You know, you should open your mind to any
old [ __ ] What I'm saying, you know, um if there are serious intellectual possibilities,
then they should be considered. And of course, you should consider them on the basis of how
good the theories are, what the evidence is, what what problem they're trying to solve,
how they solve them, this kind of thing. So this this is not an argument for kind of naivity
and gullibility. This is an argument for greater intellectual responsibility. I like that. So what
are your plans for the future Graham for for uh the rest of this year uh and next year? You tell
me that you've told me that you like to you you teach different kinds of courses. I like how you
think because many people would consider that as a a massive challenge to because you have to you
know uh understand all the material, practice it, prepare and then teach a lecture. It's a real it's
a real challenge. I like how you think because that keeps you on the bleeding edge on the cutting
edge of uh of of intellectual activity. One could just do one thing for the rest of their lives.
Yeah. Look, I don't find it hard work because I find it fun. Um, and if you find something fun,
then you know, if you think that gardening is fun, it can be physically hard work. But, you know,
phys hard work, right? Well, I don't particularly I don't garden. I'm not that kind of puss. I like
gardening. I like Okay. Well, you know what I mean. For me, doing philosophy and particularly
writing and thinking about issues is fun. So, I don't find it hard work. And what am I going to do
the rest this year? Well, sometimes you never know till it happens. But at the moment I'm finishing
a book on nothingness. One of my plans for this the northern summer is to is to finish that. Next
semester I'm teaching a course on ibsino which I don't know much about. Um but I'm looking forward
to that. Um when I finish this book on nothingness there are other things I want to write. Um I'd
like to do a third edition of my first book on dithism which was called in contradiction.
Um there are a couple of other books that I have in mind which I'll think about but though I mean
um these are some way down the track. Um and always people write to me and say will you
write an essay on X and I'm pretty stupid because I thought oh I don't have anything to say about
that. I think hang on that's kind of interesting you know maybe I'll write about that and before
I know it I've committed myself to write all these bloody essays. Uh I'm I'm writing on
things that you know other people write me to ask not what I want to write. Now that's all
badly. I've learned so much by people forcing me to think about things. So you know English
but but it just means that I I sort of often write about things that I'm asked to write
about and not what I'm really want to think about. Yeah. It's it's it's strange, right? like uh each
each person has their own interests and then the world has their interests and it's kind of a an in
between what you do is it's kind of contingent on on how you how you live your life. I suppose some
people don't do that but that I again I admire that because um who says that our interests are
the correct ones you know maybe there's some some other interests out there that could you know
yeah could be well lots of academics are relatively narrowly
focused they have particular ideas that they have expertise in a certain area and they'll just work
on that and if it were to be like that that's fine but that that's never really appealed to me
I mean as I said philosophy interacts with so many things and there I I just find ideas fascinating.
Um whether or not they're true, that's a different question. But if they're to to understand whether
they're true, you've got to understand them first. Um so when people throw ideas at me,
I I I like to if I had the time think about them. So I'm always open to considering new ideas.
So I would like to close with by asking uh some advice. eventually I want to uh to complete to
make my my my my PhD but I have this this worry that it might drift me away from my
general audience in the sense that sometimes PhDs get you so deep and so because you have
to research a question for four years if I'm not mistaken right and uh I'm I'm inclined to to do my
PhD not on philosophy but on education because I think if we can improve pro the world even a
little bit. It I I think at least it's going to be related to education somehow on the long run,
you know. So I I and I love education. I I I I'm passionate about about teaching and I
I've been thinking about doing it on the history of philosophical education. But the other way,
the other path would be just not do a PhD and do like an another master's and then another master's
on different topics to increase my spectrum, not my depth of of of knowledge. What advice would you
give to me for the next few years in this sense? Look, in some sense, this is a question of what
your values are, what what the things you want to do which you will find valuable. Okay? And
only you can decide that. Okay. However, um let me just sort of comment a little on the
things you've said. Um if you do a doctorate, then you will spend three to six years depending what
country you're in concentrating on something of a very narrow focus and investigating it in depth.
So as far as that goes, you will become tunnel visioned as you know many PhD students are. I
mean you have to do that because you got to write something that's publishable. So you've got to
write something which is going to be accepted in journals and you know the professionalism
will is is not going to accept it unless it's kind of very scholarly in a way. Um so you you
become tunnel visioned in a sense and it's true that some academics never get out of this sort
of tunnel vision but that's not necessary. Um, and you can maintain interests in other things and you
can get a doctorate, do other things at the same time, not become academic or become an academic,
do other things. That that really is how you want to organize your life. But I know plenty of people
who are not tunnel vision. They do their doctorate in one area of philosophy or education and then
when they get an academic job, they spread out to different areas. So if you want to be an academic,
you do need a doctorate. It's the it's the gateway into an academic job. Not that it's
necessarily a sufficient gateway, but if you want a job in academia, then you've got to adopt it.
You have a choice. If you don't, then it's not so necessary, but it can still be a rewarding
intellectual experience where you you really start to think about something very detailed in a
way you probably never done before. and examining something very specific and minutely and that has
its you know that has its own rewards and lessons to be learned. So I mean that's a few thoughts
about doing a doctorate and I wouldn't necessarily worry that if you do a doctorate it will take you
away from what you're doing now namely your sort of um involvement in education. you I I
know plenty of people who uh have a doctorate but do other things as well especially in the current
um times when it's so easy to put stuff online so I know people who you know have a doctorate
in philosophy maybe they're professional philosophers and they do other projects
they might be playwrights they might be educators a lot of philosophers professional philosopher I
know have another kind of side to their life and that's fine of course if you want to do that kind
of thing You must make sure you don't get tunnel visioned when you do a doctorate. But if you're
aware of the danger, that's that's fine, too. Things you must sort of balance. Yeah,
that that's the that's the word, the tunnel vision. That's I think that's what's kind of
scares me a bit. But but as you said, I I could it could take me some time, but I could, you know,
uh get back the get back to the more general broad uh view and and take back other interests.
You you don't even have to give up your other life when you're a graduate student. I mean
you can do other things like make podcasts or and you know I know graduate students who do it
with this dual life and it's perfectly possible. Yeah I would like to integrate it as much as
possible you know like some some doctorates require you to teach as well right perhaps
I could you know integrate it somehow. Yes. Um the systems in North America and the systems in
other countries tend to be a bit different. Uh one difference is that in the in North America
um doctorates tend to be a lot longer five or six years and the first three there's a course work
whereas in a lot of the rest of the world you you you just go in and you write a thesis so that's
what you spend the second half of your time doing in North America that's all you do in say Britain
or Australia or or Germany or France. Um so that's one difference. Uh another difference is that um
If you get into a decent North American program, you'll almost certainly be funded. In the rest of
the world, um, funding does not come automatically with being admitted to the program and it can be
much more difficult to get funding. Yeah. The advantages of the North American system. Um,
and to come back to teaching finally, um, there's a quid proquo for being funded. You got to teach.
So our students at the graduate center go out and teach philosophy in the undergraduate colleges of
the city university. Um and that that's a very very valuable learning experience. One one thing
that your students never know is that when you teach a course you learn more than the students.
Yes, definitely. Yeah. I'm starting my my my history of philosophy course uh is the 34th
time I've done it. It's an 11 11 weeks. So, I've done it. Every time I teach it,
I learn more and more and you know, it's it's fascinating. I I just love it.
And you'll never stop learning as long as your mind doesn't work.
Yeah. Yeah. You you got to stay. So, I'm starting to write a course on epistemology,
a 10-week course on epistemology for the, you know, I always design my courses for
uh general public. And on that sense, the last question I want to ask you is what what advice
would you give to someone that is starting to learn philosophy? They're just beginning and it's
exciting. It's fun, but it's also an octopus as as you mentioned. What would be a good advice for
someone starting to get on that on that path? Look, there there are so many entry paths
into philosophy that it's really hard to generalize and in some sense it depends
on what interests the person. uh you might be interested in epistemology, you might be
interested in political philosophy, you might be interested in mathematics. Who knows? I mean
um all of those will provide an entry point. Um a good general introductory course never goes a
miss. Uh to take a course which sort of introduces you to the various bits of philosophy, some of
the important ideas in philosophy, something that gives you the general lie of the land,
but that never goes a miss. it'll tell you more about what bits interest you. Um, and there are
plenty of courses around like that. You know, you you can do them in um adult education centers. You
can do the kind of thing that you're doing. Uh, you're in a university town. You can maybe sit
in on a course at the university. You can do an undergraduate degree if you want. I mean,
um, so there are lots of opportunities through that. You just got to sort of investigate what's
available where you live. Um, and of course nowadays it doesn't even have to be where you
live. if it can be online. Uh, of course you want a decent teacher. You don't want some fly by night
merchant. If you don't know much about philosophy, that might be it might be difficult to judge that.
Okay. So, that's one thing. Now, almost certainly you're going to be interested in some areas of
philosophy more than others. That's fine. Um, and uh it's not a bad idea to um follow your
interests. I mean what I tell my students when they tell me when they ask me what should I do
I say I say follow your interest because because that's what you'll find most rewarding in the end
your interest will change as you go along that's fine too but if you concentrate on what interests
you now that will you know speed you through the path faster than anything else. Um so when
you know which particular areas of philosophy you engage you uh uh you want to engage at the
moment then you got to find some reading to do um and you know this Oxford series is very short
introduction too very good so um there is um there is actually a general introduction to philosophy
um but there are very short introductions to so many different areas of philosophy like
philosophy, religion or metaphysics or logic um uh and particular philos philosophers like Plato
and Bickenstein and Haidiger and so on. Um as I said I like that collection. Uh they they're very
well written generally. You could thumb through the list of titles, choose something that looks
interesting to you. Uh, I think you probably enjoy, you know, those very short interactions.
Thank you very much, Graham. Thank you. It's been an honor and I hope we do this again,
perhaps in person next time. Do you do you come to to the UK often? You still still have family here?
No. No. My family's in Australia, but I do the UK often. I mean, um, more often than not, it's just
in transit to mainland Europe. Um but sometimes uh I get come to give talks in various places. Uh
um I haven't been to Cambridge for a while. Um I promised to go to Oxford in the beginning of 25
six 26 so I will be back. Okay.
So yeah I mean it's quite impossible and there are there are a lot of things we didn't talk
about today. I mean the question of logic came up and it connection with Daleism and that that's an
important issue. We couldn't obviously couldn't talk about everything but you know we can meet
again to talk about that if you want to. Let's do it. I would love to. I would love
to. Graham, thanks again for your time and for your intelligence and for sharing so
much with us. Uh so as I told you, I'm going to translate everything to Spanish and I'm
going to share it with uh the Latin American world and Spanish speakers everywhere. Okay.
You're welcome. You're welcome. Thank you very much.
Enjoy your new life in Cambridge. Yes, I am. I am. We have to talk
about that as well. You could give me some advice on that, too. We could talk about
Cambridge if you like. It's a kind of strange place. All right. See you. Bye-bye. [Music]
Links in the description. for [Music] Bye-bye.
Chrome Extension