Reason for human action

In this episode, we explore the reasons why human beings act the way we do. Having previously examined what philosophy has to do about human actions, we now broaden our scope to address the question in more general terms. We begin with reward and punishment as external factors, then expand our inquiry to consider various dimensions of the human inner life—asking whether these dimensions, too, are rooted in hedonistic principles of action, or if they perhaps transcend such a framework. One dimension that defies inclusion in this narrative concerns the meaning of life: the nature of the human being, the nature of existence, and what constitutes a meaningful relationship between the two. Can we speak meaningfully about such questions? And can we bring these inquiries to the fore in a way that bridges Athens and Jerusalem? The painting is Autumn Plowing by Edvard Munch 1919.

In this episode, we explore the practical implications of different views on human will. We ask if a libertarianism and a compatibilism view of the will, will create different way of acting and being in the world. We try to explore the question through different practical cases. Depending on the view, we see different kind of action or attitude to action, but there is also something in our conversation suggesting that it is not differing views on the will that determine action. Rather, it seems to be something deeper in practice that causes us to do what we do. And this conclution turnes us toward maybe a deeper question; What is it that causes our action? Our guest Soren Sabet is with us today too.

In this episode we examine the human will. We look at the will from different perspectives or perhaps different language games. Our main discussion takes place within a larger academic discussion that both empirically and logically discusses the will in relation to the distinction between brain and mind. Here we attempt to show different perspectives on the human will and where this discussion ends empirically and moves on to a metaphysical discussion. Eventually we introduce another language game that more fundamentally asks whether we have will at all or whether will is an expression of man's inability to be good to himself.The guest in todays episode is Soren Sabet.

In this episode, we ask if there is anything new in education and learning over the past 2500 years. Much of today's research is about confirming what philosophers and others have known. What seems to be new is our ability to provide learning to all children and perhaps especially to children with special needs. At the same time, to learn is to control or master something and perhaps this era of mass education is making the human footprint larger and unsustainable. Maybe education itself is not sustainable? Central to our discussion is the possibility of creating an education that is sustainable and what importance spirituality and philosophy have to say for an alternative way of educating for a sustainable future.

In this episode we have a visit from Rebecca Teclemariam. She has worked for more than 30 years in education as an educator, teacher, teacher educator and administrator. We are particularly curious about how she connects mathematics and ethics. She attempts to show how essential values ​​for humans can be shown mathematically. An example is to create a mathematical model that shows the relationship between generosity and friendship. We also discuss whether it is possible to measure all forms of values ​​and knowledge mathematically, maybe even theological values. If it is true that the universe is mathematical, then we can stop doing mathematics based on material prosperity and growth and instead use human resources to measure the values ​​that really have value for us. Can we stop giving value to what we think we can measure and instead measure what actually has value for us? This will have revolutionary impact and perhaps this is what we should do in schools to create a sustainable relationship between humans and the world?

In this episode we start by discussing the development of philosophy. Or rather, our thesis is that there has actually been no particular development of philosophy. Rather, it seems as if there have perhaps been some degenerate thoughts within Western philosophy over the past 2500 years. Furthermore, we examine the idea of ​​which rationality actually motivates action. Why is it that scientific knowledge does not necessarily change human practice, while much indicates that the motive for our practices is philosophy and understanding of life. By implication, philosophy is the most practical rationality we have as humans. In that case, a new problem arises. If philosophy is what motivates humans to act, and this philosophy has not changed in 2500 years, does that mean that we still act the way they did 2500 years ago?

In this episode, we talk about the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard. We have with us an expert on his philosophy, Professor Roe Fremstedal at NTNU, Norway. He presents his interpretation of Kierkegaard as an ethical thinker. We start from the distinction between knowledge and faith. A central point is that when it comes to faith, we cannot be certain. While when it comes to knowledge, we can have evidence that supports the knowledge. The uncertainty of reason means that humans must choose. We cannot help but relate to faith and questions without evidence. Refusing to relate to faith will also be a choice. In the podcast we discuss that even those who say they do not believe have a belief. And those who are good people, but think they do not believe, actually believe deep down.However, we will not be completely clear in this podcast when it comes to answering life's essential questions, rather there will be a good deal of nuance in Kierkegaard's philosophy and not least clarification of some of the misconceptions about him. Enjoy!For further reading: Roe Fremstedal, Kierkegaard on Self, Ethics, and Religion: Purity or Despair, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2022And soon to come: Roe Fremstedal, The Ethical and the Religious, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press in press 2026 (Elements in the Philosophy of Søren Kierkegaard

In this episode we talk about Hitler's philosophers and the book: Nils Gilje (2026). Hitlers filosofer - nasjonalsosialisme, filosofi og religion i mellomkrigstidens Tyskland. Solum Bokvennen.There are three philosophers in particular which the podcast is based on. These are Martin Heidegger, Alfred Baeumler and Ernst Krieck. All three cultivated academic freedom and had developed a philosophy that fit with Nazism before Nazism came to power. Heidegger's romantic philosophy is central to our episode. Especially his hubristic idea that man can revolutionize the world spiritually. His goal was to get the German people to think anew. We link this and many of his other thoughts to cultural essentialism and the belief in politics as the distinction between friend and enemy. This ends up in a metaphysical decisionism. In such a realpolitical atmosphere, there is not much room for religious or ethical thinking.

In this episode, we ask whether AI can have a religious function. Can AI synthesize all religions into one religion, or can AI itself become the new religious authority in the world? These are just two of the questions we address. We also touch on the relationship between religion and ethics and what humans really need to be moral, and what about AI. Will it be possible for something artificial to motivate humans to do good deeds or political leaders to make wise choices? The last question is especially important because we largely know what should be done rationally, but many state leaders prioritize their own or their nation interests over the good of society as a whole. In the end, we are left with the question of what AI really is and can offer humans.

In this episode, we examine the phenomenon prophets. Much of the discussion is about understanding what a prophet is. We also touch on the question of whether there are modern prophets. After listening to our own conversation, we wonder if the prophets really have anything to say about their own position, or it is the followers who determine their status? There are no definitive answers here, but rather a multitude of different perspectives that are central to being able to gather revelation and wisdom.