Current Episode
 

bergson
Episode 92: Henri Bergson on How to Do Metaphysics

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:38:30 — 90.2MB) On “An Introduction to Metaphysics” (1903) How does metaphysics differ from science? While Kant had dismissed metaphysics as groundless speculation about things beyond human knowledge, Bergson sees it as a matter of grasping things “from the inside.” He calls this “intuition”: the kind of Read more…

Next up: Precognition of Ep. 93: Free Will (via Strawsons)

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 14:29 — 13.4MB) Guest Tamler Sommers (from the Very Bad Wizards podcast) summarizes Galen Strawson’s “The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility” (1994) and his father P.F. Strawson’s “Freedom and Resentment” (1960). Read more about the topic and get the articles.

From the Blog

New Work Entrepreneurs (and a Now-Bountiful YouTube Channel)

Folks that were interested in our Frithjof Bergmann episodes last fall about New Work should subscribe to the New Work YouTube channel, of which I am the proprietor, with Frithjof’s encouragement and cooperation.

All of the videos previously created on this topic for bloggingheads have been reedited and put in a playlist here, and I have continued in recent months doing interviews with other people associated in some way with New Work. These now include:

-Two interviews about entrepreneurship with John Glazer, a long-time associate of Frithjof’s and the Director of TechGROWTH Ohio, an Ohio Third Frontier-funded venture-development organization housed at Ohio University’s Voinovich School of Leadership and Public Affairs in Athens, Ohio. TechGROWTH helps early-stage technology companies acquire resources to accelerate commercialization.

Watch John Glazer on YouTube.

Continue reading…

Tales from the Crypt: Transhumanism, wow!


The licence to speculate on the fringes of human progress is immediately issued when that which we hadn’t even imagined transitions to that which we merely know we do not fully understand. This transition point is the playground of the so-called “popular imagination”, the stage on which esteemed careers are built without the effort and determination of achievement. Though, admittedly, it’s often where middling scientists and researchers go to retire (as in, for example, the case of master babbler Michio Kaku).

In this space, most commonly reserved for the self-consciously fictitious, transhumanist conferences are on constant replay alongside their more prescient counterparts: Star Trek and the Twilight Zone. The presenters, keynote rock stars and wide-eyed, thin-haired wanderers each proclaim: 1) look at all the cool science stuff we’ve discovered!; 2) we don’t even know its implications!; 3) here are some of its implications! … [pseudo-philosophical techno-babble].

Continue reading…

5,000,000 Downloads

In Nov 2012 we posted a retrospective mini-episode to celebrate 2 million PEL episodes downloaded according to libsyn (whom we haven’t hosted with since the beginning, so there are some additional ones from the first year or so in addition to whatever they tell us).

We’ve now hit 5 million, and all you get is this little overshare about behind the scenes stuff:

1. We are by no means tired of this. We have a long long list of topics and are eager to get to them. More metaphysics! More aesthetics! Economics! And even higher level ethics and political philosophy. It was great to finally get going on philosophy of science in 2013, and we’ll do a few more of those. We hope to have a bit more non-Western on the horizon, as well as some Middle Ages stuff, but we’ll see…

Continue reading…

Henri Bergson and William James on Vicious Intellectualism

Henri Bergson postage stamp

“If I had not read Bergson,” William James wrote in A Pluralistic Universe, “I should probably still be blackening endless pages of paper privately.” James had been engaged in a very long philosophical debate with the leading Idealists of his day, F.H. Bradley and Josiah Royce, when Bergson came to the rescue. James thought that Bergson supplied him with the concepts he needed to finally win “The Battle of the Absolute,” as his debates with Royce came to be called. For his purposes, James explains, “the essential contribution of Bergson to philosophy is his criticism of intellectualism. In my opinion he has killed intellectualism definitively and without hope of recovery. I don’t see how it can ever revive again in its ancient platonizing role of claiming to be the most authentic, intimate, and exhaustive definer of the nature of reality.”

Continue reading…

“Modern Day Philosophers”: Reading Wikipedia with Comedians

I was recently alerted to the existence of an up-and-coming podcast that just started last summer called Modern Day Philosophers. Hmmmm, is that like the New Books in Philosophy podcast, bringing to light the work of under-appreciated academics?

No, as you can see by the guest list: These are for the most parts established comedians like Artie Lang, or Bill Burr, or Lewis Black, and the idea is that these thoughtful people have a lot to say about religion, society, the good life, and reality.

So it’s a comedy podcast, and to get these comedian guests to wax philosophical, each episode assigns them one historic philosopher. Now, at PEL I’ve long looked for a famous comedian (or rock star, etc.) to actually read some philosophy and come on to represent their profession. I’ve found it’s very hard to get these famous people to read anything and so prep in the way that we do here (Lucy Lawless being the exception).

Continue reading…

Topic for #93: Free Will and Moral Responsibility (Strawson Father vs. Son)

Listen now to Tamler Sommers’s summary of the two Strawson articles.

On 4/6, Mark, Wes, and Seth were joined by Tamler Sommers of the Very Bad Wizards podcast to discuss the following articles:

1. P.F. Strawson’s “Freedom and Resentment” (1960)
2. Galen Strawson’s “The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility” (1994)
3. Gary Watson’s “Responsibility and the Limits of Evil: Variations on a Strawsonian Theme” (1987)

We also brought a bit of insight in from a great article by Thomas Nagel: “Moral Luck” (1979)

Continue reading…

Conversation on “Wittgenstein’s Nephew” by Thomas Bernhard

Two old friends find themselves at the same hospital, one diagnosed with pulmonary disease and the other madness, and while they long to be near each other both confront their separate mortality. Though that Wittgenstein is mentioned, this story is about another Wittgenstein, one of several “geniuses” from the Austrian family. 

I want to see him clearly again with the help of these notes, these scraps of memory, which are meant to clarify and recall to mind not only the hopeless situation of my friend but also my own hopelessness at the time, for just as Paul’s life had once again run into an impasse, so mine too had run into an impasse, or rather been driven into one.

Continue reading…

Please Stop Contributing to the Publish-or-Perish Landfill

Bernard Williams was the rare academic who was also a great writer. In his review of Williams’ Essays and Reviews: 1959-2002, Paul Sagar lets academia have it:

We can now see that Williams was not lazy: he spent an immense amount of time reading and thinking, and knew much beyond his own academic arguments. What he chose to do was spend time thinking about things that most interested him, rather than engaging in the Sisyphean task of attempting to stay up to date with the vast and ever-expanding sea of contemporary scholarship, which tirelessly throws out publication after publication in every conceivable niche of enquiry. It is undeniable that the vast majority of present scholarly output in philosophy and attendant disciplines is of a poor standard: it is either unoriginal, original at the expense of being preposterous and tiresomely pointless or trivial, or else diligent and robust but utterly devoid of interest to anybody other than those academics who have made a career out of grinding out points and counterpoints within debates that only exist because of the very professionalization of intellectual pursuits of which their activity is a function. Williams chose to bypass all of this and get on with being original and interesting. It is not at all clear that he was making a mistake.

Continue reading…

Theater and Ritual: Discussing Richard Schechner and “Dionysus in ’69″ in Not School

Moving away from just reading plays and more toward theory, the Not School Theater group in March had a look at the work of theater director and performance theorist Richard Schechner.

Daniel Cole, Philip Cherny and I discussed a video of The Performance Group’s Dionysus in ’69 (you can buy the text here, a very loose adaptation of Euripides’ Euripides’s The Bacchae.

In addition, we read Schechner’s essay Drama, Script, Theater and Performance (which you can purchase in the collection, Performance Theory), in which he basically tries to do two things: 1. Establish a classification of the aspects of various social events in the four categories named in the title. 2. On that grounds, explain the relation of the performing arts to ritual, play, hunting and warfare, in concepts taken from ethology as well as from anthropology. Continue reading…

Apoplectic About Outsourcing Apps

When the Partially Examined Life discussion of human enhancement (Episode 91) turned to the topic of digital technology, the philosophical oxygen was sucked out of the room. Sure, folks conceded that philosopher of mind Andy Clark (not mentioned by name, but implicitly referenced) has interesting things to say about how technology upgrades our cognitive abilities and extends the boundaries of where our minds are located. But everything else more or less was dismissed as concerning not terribly deep uses of “appliances”.

I think this is a misguided way to look at technology. It dramatically underestimates how technologically mediated behavior can impact character and autonomy.

Continue reading…

Why Are We Here?

The Partially Examined Life is a philosophy podcast by some guys who were at one point set on doing philosophy for a living but then thought better of it. Each episode, we pick a text and chat about it with some balance between insight and flippancy. You don't have to know any philosophy, or even to have read the text we're talking about to (mostly) follow and (hopefully) enjoy the discussion. Join the discussion!

Quote Rotator

Loading Quotes...