Overall a very interesting series of discussions. What’s strange is that Melvyn Bragg knows nothing about philosophy. And that’s not necessarily a bad thing. It lets the guests speak in much longer, more insightful discourses. With hosts who know the topic they tend to burst in a lot to show their bona fides. Melvyn does the opposite, which makes for a better conversation. The one big drawback is that the guests are often lost as to how to answer his leads. He’ll say something like “tell me about Plato”, which is ridiculously broad in what is meant to be a much narrower topic. Once they regain their composure they do a good job of turning the conversation back to the topic.

I cannot stand how frequently this man interrupts and speaks over women in this podcast. It is distracting, especially when this behavior isn’t mirrored with male guests. Lovely subject matter and guests, however, I can’t stand the host.

To the host: Please stop interrupting the female guests as they are speaking. Let them speak and let them finish their thoughts. Thank you.

I’ve been scrolling through the old episodes and listening to the ones that stand out to me. I like the format and I like the Tid-bit approach to topics. It’s not overpowering and they don’t go deep down in rabbit holes. Just enough to give you the gist of it.

Most of the programs and conversations are very good. The guests and Melvynn usually have a great chemistry. I do have a criticism, which is that Melvynn tends to interrupt guests during inopportune times, just as they are getting to share a relevant or important point. Other than that, the conversations are usually very interesting, and flow quite well.

Host is a slobbering, interrupting, near-senile old man. He fails to enunciate every other word, and interjects with asinine input. Would like to listen, but cannot. Get a new host if u want to grow as a show

The “In Our Time” podcasts are an autodidact’s dream.

I came back today to try to listen, I say try because there are times that are just Ick. The one today was Plato’s Atlantis from October. I greatly appreciate all the guests of the show, but at times between the host’s butting in, especially to older women, his comments seem sleepy or generic. Today’s comments interrupt interesting ideas with things that my 9 year old might ask/say : it all goes back to the republic [multiple times in various ways] and then something like “ Atlantis might be made up” :| I just keep thinking… we are deeper in convo now.

This show provides a rigorous introduction to a variety of philosophies, making for an easy listen. It provides a great refresher for those with some previous knowledge of the subject(s) but it might move too fast for the uninitiated. My only complaint is that frequently the main host moves too quickly through points, particularly during his introductions to the subject of the day. But the rewind button exists, so I can’t really complain.

More like Crap-ernican Revolution. To things themselves!

I look forward to the show because I’ve always learn a lot in the most engaging way. The host is always to be relied on for asking questions to bring the best out of the panel. The subject matter is always intriguing and interesting. It is one of my favorite shows for intellectual challenge and content. I always feel smarter after I listen to it!

I love listening to Melvyn and guests unpack each topic with wisdom, dialectics, grace, and humor!

One of my favorite listens. Informative, Interesting, Relaxing.

The monarchism under which these scholars were raised shines brightly during their discussion on “freedom”. Lol! Deprograming of the statist bent is entirely required. Listening to their discussion of the US Constitution while ignoring the Bill of Rights and the absolute monarchist upbringing is among the funniest things I have ever heard. Striking that there was no discussion of any actual libertarian philosophy in this presentation.

Melvin Bragg is a host from a different era: knighted for his public radio work, a writer himself, he prepares extensively for each program and holds the guests to a much higher standard than do hosts in almost all other podcasts around these days. Yes he is direct and sometimes rude, probably more so to female guests than male guests (although it’s obvious that some of his favorites are women, eg Angie Hobbes), but at least some instances are actually maneuvers whereby he keeps the guests on topic and in check. The intelligence and articulateness of some of his repeating guests are stunning: I can spend all day listening to Marcus du Sautoy and Ian Stewart on math, Edith Hall on Ancient Greece, or Anthony Grayling on philosophy, and he brings on sometimes independent researchers with extremely unconventional and yet interesting ideas. I take notes on each program as they are so dense in contents. Dislikers can go listen to politically correct hosts politely interview a carefully curated list of racially and ethnically diverse guests (I say this as a colored woman academic), but I take In Our Time with its actual focus on intelligent inquiry and genuine curiosity any day.

Very deeply disappointing that there was no mention of those philosophers who have pushed back against Russell and the logical positivists who push hard on the idea of rationalism and operate very much in the Cartesian tradition that gets constantly stuck in either/or binary paradoxes—binarisms that cannot be resolved in the context of classical logic. You cannot ignore quantum mechanics and the implications of such things as non-locality, the measurement problem, entanglement and, especially, Bohr’s Principle of Complementarity. The area that does directly address are the process/relational philosophers who, very sadly, and very disappointedly, actually, receive no mention whatsoever in this broadcast. Which, I think, is a huge oversight. For example, Alfred North Whitehead incorporated Bergson’s ideas in his speculative philosophy of organism, and the American fsther of pragmatism, a close associate of William James, and re-discoverer of triadic semiotics, Charles Sanders Peirce, insisted on a fundamental temporal continuum as the foundation for his evolutionary process metaphysics and architectonic philosophical system. The field of semiotics and the process of semiosis or signification as the way in which organisms derive meaning from experience also assumes a subjective nature to time which relates to Bergson. The only process philosopher who makes it into the discussion is Deleuze. And Deleuze was one who revives the interest in ‘Bergsonism’ but also links Bergson to Peirce in his philosophy of cinema. The relationship of Bergson to some of the phenomenologists like Merleau-Ponty and Levinas is also unfortunately unrecognized in this presentation. I hope the program may have a chsnce to redress thes oversights at some point to give a more complete and powerful assessment of Bergson’s influence. Much more to say but will stop here.

An interesting intersection of new and old ideas in a time of rapid change. I very much enjoy Melvyn Bragg’s ability to direct discussion and maintain on topic. Well done. It may be germane to revisit some adjacent ideas to those discussed in previous episodes as the post modern world continues turning to a cadence much more swift than ever before. A revisitation of similar ideas, which will likely evoke complete different discourse, especially, in consideration of the specialist who guest speaks, may prove even more thought provoking. Well done!

Quite dry, but stays on-topic, covers the various topics extensively, and is easy to follow.

This podcast would be awesome if the host wasn’t heavily breathing into the mic the entire time... it’s so distracting and frankly just awful to listen to. He is also very arrogant and interrupts his guests all of the time. So much potential wasted on this pod

What a gift to listen to discussions of classic works by eminent scholars of philosophy!

I believe it is Bragg who is moderating the discussion on Plato’s Republic, and I am just shocked by how incredibly rude, arrogant, and interrupting he is. Unbelievable! I swear I would leave the discussion mid-way. As one woman is talking he cuts in “yes yes we have to get to the cave”, rushing her along. Are you kidding me? How can people stand this ill-mannered, rude simpleton? He does a great disservice to the grand topics this podcast broaches by treating it as just some business he has to rush through. Shame!

Melvyn is great. I like when he gets to the point - we only have 40 or so minutes for each episode. The guests tend to drawl on. - 25 y/o, Chicago, IL

Why did the moderator allow Helena to talk so much and let himself talk so much and cut off Germaine repeatedly when she ha so many interesting and valid things to add by didn’t get to flesh out because she was interrupted?

Love the conversational format with multiple perspectives on one topic

Fantastic conversation and contemplation about century-old ideas and beliefs on a huge range of subjects, philosophers, and other theorists and theories, also their application to the modern day. Incredibly intriguing.

Well-produced podcasts reliably providing experts and in-depth discussion regarding a variety of philosophers, theories, and topics. Well worth the time.

Great conversations; I listen to this while I take my morning walk, and am never disappointed.

Some of the best scholars of our time give us primers on some of the best thinkers of all-time. We're very lucky to have this podcast and I appreciate it greatly.

Podcast is excellent In all areas. Well done!

I love that you are all talking openly early in your lives. Can't wait for you all to grow up and join the world outside of classes and school, look back and reflect on how things are out here. Some things you will be ashamed of for sure...

Great guests discussion the big questions in thought.

Melvyn Bragg rules....... More episodes please!!

Why one anyone end this cast?

I like the depth of these conversations and the broad subjects they cover.

Fantastic topics and discussions. Will not disappoint.