In this episode of Brain in a Vat, Georgi Gardiner returns to explore the epistemic value of tarot: its capacity to shape self-understanding, spark creative reflection, and influence major life decisions.

Drawing on personal experience and philosophical analysis, Georgi examines how tarot can serve as a mirror for introspection while also raising concerns about confirmation bias and self-deception. The discussion also considers the history and diversity of tarot practices, and compares tarot with artificial intelligence as a tool for navigating uncertainty and meaning.

Whether you are a skeptic, a believer, or somewhere in between, this conversation offers a thoughtful examination of how we seek knowledge and what counts as a good reason to believe.

[00:00] Introduction and Guest Welcome

[00:11] Georgie's Personal Journey with Tarot

[00:51] The Impact of Tarot on Decision Making

[11:50] The Epistemic Value of Tarot

[28:22] Potential Criticisms of Tarot

[31:28] The Five Waves of Tarot History

[38:29] Confirmation Bias and Flipping the Reading

[42:25] Comparing Tarot and AI in Epistemology

[44:09] The Role of Tarot in Education and Research

[59:01] Concluding Thoughts

In this episode, Brain in a Vat is joined by public philosopher and author Agnes Callard to explore the relevance of philosophy in everyday life. Drawing from her work on Socrates, Agnes makes a case for why philosophical inquiry matters, now more than ever. From the pig farmer analogy to Socratic love, this conversation is a deep dive into how philosophy is a way of life.

Chapters:

[00:00] Introduction to the Guest and Topic

[00:44] The Monologue vs. Dialogue Experiment

[06:50] Philosophical Training and the Element of Surprise

[13:34] The Nature of Philosophical Inquiry

[21:45] The Pig Farmer Analogy and Life's Purpose

[29:26] Intellectual Progress and Stability

[31:41] Socratic Views on Love

[35:21] Friendship and Enemies in Philosophy

[47:47] Cultural Perspectives on Disagreement

[54:58] Conclusion: Inspiring Philosophical Lives

Are Jews entitled to their own homeland? Is the Israeli response to the massacre of civilians perpetrated by Hamas on October 7th justified? Should there be a ceasefire?

David's Article in Quillette: https://quillette.com/2023/10/21/its-not-the-occupation/

Raja Halwani wrote to us about Jason's exposition of his view at 33:06. Here is Raja's clarification:

**I wanted to clarify a point that Jason made during the interview with David Benatar. Jason asked Benatar what he thought of the view that “the view is that the Gazans are an oppressed people. They’ve been oppressed for so long that they’ve acted out of desperation. And there’s only two options that they have.” Jason goes on to say that I have defended the view that “the Gazans are an oppressed people who only have two options. The one option is to die and the other option is to attack, to attack Israel in order to secure some sort of freedom. Those are its only two options. And so ... Raja takes the view that if Hamas were to lay down its arms, then it’s just a slow death for the Gazans. That’s, that would be the future of Gaza.”

However, I did not make this claim about having only two options, nor would I, because it reads as a justification of killing civilians, especially given the context of the Hamas attacks of October 7 (and other attacks against Israelis). It reads as a justification because if death is one of only two options, then the second, to attack, seems permissible. The last sentence in Jason’s question, about Hamas laying down its arms, seems to especially imply this (though Jason did not intend to make me come out as justifying Hamas’s actions).

Jason attributes this view to me based on something I wrote in my blog (as he explained to me in personal correspondence). Here is the specific passage on which Jason bases his attribution:

People are quick to condemn Hamas for the evil that it has wrought, but they are as quick to neglect that Hamas acts out of sheer desperation, out of the sheer desire, no matter how steep the price, to score a victory against Israel, a country whose military might not even its prime ministers fully comprehend, and out of the sheer hopelessness of the slow death that their people has been dying. Although to explain this is not to justify it, I also ask the reader: What options do the Palestinians have? What do you advise them to do? Their lives are going nowhere. Peace initiative after peace initiative has failed them (and, to add insult to injury, they are blamed for the failure). No Palestinian state has emerged, and none is likely to given the current map (just look and see whether a state can be built out of the Swiss cheese that is the West Bank). Their tunnel has been long and with no light at its end. So what should they do? They ought to sit still and “take it like a man.” To suck it up. To bear the unfair burden of history. We have to tell them, “Misfortune has fallen upon you, and you may not extricate yourselves from it by killing civilians. Even as you yourselves die, slowly, surely, with no justification, and with barely an explanation, you may not take the lives of the civilians of your enemy. This is the noble way.”

Clearly, the passage is a bitter one about Palestinian loss and oppression, but it is as clearly morally ruling out the option of killing civilians. So even though Hamas might take up arms against civilians, this is not a morally viable options for Gazans or Palestinians in general. Hence, insofar as Jason’s question attributes to me a justification of attacks on civilians, this clarification should clarify that this is not my position.**

Chapters:

[0:00] Introduction

[0:22] Thought Experiment

[7:52] Historical context

[23:13] Two-State Solution

[27:46] Ethical Blockade

[31:37] What if Hamas laid down their arms?

[36:06] Current War

[45:46] Proportionality

[54:59] Concluding thoughts

[59:01] Outro