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.

YouTube Transcript:
SyS #3 - GRAHAM PRIEST | ¿Lógica y Matemáticas? Mejor FILOSOFÍA.

Video Transcript

Paste YouTube URL

Get Our Chrome Extension

Get Instant Transcripts: Just Edit the Domain in Your Address Bar!

YouTube Transcript:SyS #3 - GRAHAM PRIEST | ¿Lógica y Matemáticas? Mejor FILOSOFÍA.

Video Transcript

Paste YouTube URL

Transcript Extraction Form

Get Our Chrome Extension

Get Instant Transcripts: Just Edit the Domain in Your Address Bar!

YouTube Transcript:
SyS #3 - GRAHAM PRIEST | ¿Lógica y Matemáticas? Mejor FILOSOFÍA.