Current Episode
 

jesus (2)

Episode 113: Jesus’s Parables

Interpreting the Parables using texts from Paul Ricoeur, John Dominic Crossan, Paul Tillich, et al, with guest Law Ware.

Please visit thegreatcourses.com/PEL.

From the blog


  1. The Philosofa Podcast

    by

    Comment

    The premise of the show is to take two stand-up comedians as hosts, and let them chat with philosophers and other intellectuals about a philosophical topic. This is a good idea. Philosophers spend years – decades, even – on a single thought; comedians are quick, sharp, and keen to learn. When it works well, a good comedian can process and summarize philosophical arguments into crystals of intelligence that make for perfect podcast material.


  2. Science, Technology and Society VII: On Gender and Science

    by

    1

    Evelyn Fox Keller is a leader among a generation of feminist scholars interested in questions of gender and science. Although feminist philosophy of science is a complex and controversial field, and these scholars frequently disagree among themselves as to what changes are desirable or realistically attainable, they share a commitment to broadening the scope of science so that it does not devalue feminine perspectives as a kind of structural principle.



  3. Phi-Fi Conversation on Woolf’s Novel “To The Lighthouse”

    by

    1

    “In a moment he would ask her, ‘Are we going to the Lighthouse?’ And she would have to say, ‘No: not tomorrow, your father says not.’ Happily, Mildred came in to fetch them, and the bustle distracted them. But he kept looking back over his shoulder as Mildred carried him out, and she was certain that he was thinking, we are not going to the Lighthouse tomorrow; and she thought, he will remember that all his life.”


  4. Science, Technology and Society VI: David Bloor and the Strong Programme in the Sociology of Knowledge

    by

    3

    Whereas Kuhn had suggested that science might not be an entirely rational activity, and Feyerabend had drawn certain philosophical and political conclusions from a rather more strident belief, David Bloor argued for an approach that ignores the truth status of scientific theories and instead concentrates on their social context of production. Needless to say, the idea that truth claims arising out of science can be ignored at all, let alone as a systematic methodological principle, was and is controversial.


  5. Duality without Dualism

    by

    31

    How could a contrast between Real and Unreal ever even be formulated? The question ‘could everything be a mirage?’ can be immediately answered: no. A mirage is something which is set in contrast to something that isn’t a mirage. Thus there is something deeply suspect when we’re asked to transpose these conditions into metaphysical divisions or dualism.


  6. a note on The Latest Zizek Thing

    by

    8

    No doubt Zizek sees himself as a Lacanian figure, kissing the cheek of culture at the right moment so as to disturb its psychical neuroses – each polemical world a calculated cure. From the other side however, it feels very much like an old man has spit all over our faces. And when we decide to avoid the next session, he’ll call us to remind us that this moist therapy is essential.


  7. Soul Dust: A Well Supported Stab At The “Why” Of Consciousness.

    by

    11

    Consciousness, Nicholas Humphrey claims, does not add or enhance some survival ability (as, say, wings allow birds to fly). Consciousness improves the chance of survival because it makes life worth living. Being phenomenally conscious grants import, meaning, and ego, essentially fooling us into striving towards fulfillment.


  8. Phenomenology is Wrong

    by

    30

    There are two traditions within phenomenology: realist phenomenology and idealist phenomenology. The distinguishing feature is how they treat their ‘pre-bracketed’ and ‘post-bracketed’ states. In the realist case when we interpret (describe) the world we can bracket the truth of the claims epistemologically; in the idealist case we can metaphysically bracket claims.


  9. Should the social sciences be like the natural sciences?

    by

    26

    Should the social sciences be like the natural sciences? Wilhelm Dilthey didn’t think so; he contended that the concept of Verstehen is crucial in our interpretation of human thought and behavior. Whereas we look for explanations of phenomena in the natural sciences, Verstehen as applied to the social sciences means interpreting human behavior.


  10. What is Satire for?

    by

    16

    A majority of comics profess to solely be interested in getting a laugh. Something about that just doesn’t sit well with me.

Go to the Full Blog







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. 

PEL Facebook Group Feed

At the end of the stranger, mearsault proclaims "there were only privileged people". I’m trying to figure out exactly what Camus meant by privileged. In what sense did he mean it? He then goes on to describe the others and how they will all one day be condemned. Who in this case are the others?

I will post the full context of the passage shortly.
See MoreSee Less

View on Facebook

I’m attempting to read Zizek’s Interrogating the Real and having a lot of trouble understanding any of it. Philosophy is just a hobby for me, and I don’t have a firm background in Hegel or Lacan or any of it. I just listen to PEL and read randomly.

Has anyone else had trouble understanding Zizek? I like his YouTube videos. I hear he has published 75 books. Should I try another one or just stick to the YouTube videos?

Edit: I’m going really slow and looking up all the terms and still not able to tell anyone who asks me "what are you reading?" what I’m reading about. Perhaps I should practice talking about what I just read more…
See MoreSee Less

View on Facebook

On what philosophical basis can one disagree with using the medical model in the realm of mental health difficulties? See MoreSee Less

View on Facebook

If I have thoughts of killing someone, to the point I devise a plan to carry the action out, but never perform the action, am I blameworthy or immoral?

I ask this question because I want to know if it is our thoughts that make us immoral or our actions.
See MoreSee Less

View on Facebook

I’ve looked at the Tarski correspondence theory a couple of times now and I admit I have a hard time understanding what it is about this idea that people find so powerful.

Tarski says that the statement "snow is white" is true if and only if "snow is white." Very well, that’s probably what the first cave man meant when he used that word too. It’s not exactly a bold idea. I’m not saying Tarski is wrong or that there’s no such thing as truth or anything like that. What I’m trying to understand here is how Tarski’s idea constitutes a philosophic achievement and not a restatement of the view we’ve had all along.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/tarski/#Tru
See MoreSee Less

View on Facebook