Topic for #16: Philosophy of Art (reading Danto)
Posted by Mark Linsenmayer in General Announcements on February 8th, 2010
To kick off our explorations in the area of aesthetics, we’ve taken the advice of our former classmate/now prof at Georgia State University Dr. Jessica N. Berry and “abandoned history” to look at a relatively modern writer, one of the leading voices in this field as far as we can tell.
The man is Arthur Danto, and the essay Dr. Berry recommended was “The End of Art,” which is in The Philosophical Disenfranchisement of Art, which is unfortunately not free on the web, but you can likely pick up a fairly cheap used copy at Amazon or somewhere.
So we’ll be reading the End of Art essay, and the title (first) essay, and the second essay as well (”The Appreciation and Interpretation of Works of Art”). They all originally came out in the early 80s and deal with the aftermath, as Danto saw it, of the modern art movement. He discusses things like Duchamp’s ready-mades, where he’d put a urinal in an art gallery and call it “Fountain” and make lots of money. …The point being that the same object can be art and not be art depending on its context. Also, why do philosophers like Plato diss art as an irrelevant, pale reflection of anything that’s important and real and yet seem to fear its apparent social power to corrupt? Plus, is art inherently progressive, and if so, can it actually achieve the goal that it’s progressing toward and so… well… not be progressive any more, and hence not actually be art any more?
These and many other ridiculous sounding but fun questions will be addressed!
Episode 14: Machiavelli on Politics
Posted by Mark Linsenmayer in Podcast Episodes on February 7th, 2010
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:33:23 — 85.6MB)
Reading Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince and Ch. 1-20 of The Discourse on the First Ten Books of Titus Livy.
What’s a philosophically astute approach to political matters? What makes a government successful? Should you keep that fortress or sell it for scrap? If you conquer, say, Iraq, do you have to then go and live there for the occupation to work out? Is it OK to display the heads of your enemies on spikes, or should you opt for a respectful diorama?
Besides the famous Prince, Mr. M. wrote, at about the same time, the Discourses on Livy which focus on republics instead of princedoms, so the combined picture is less out of sync with our time than you might think, meaning we talk about G.W. Bush for a bit (sorry).
Plus: An inspirational speech to play at middle school assemblies across the land!
Skim the texts at http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince00.htm and maybe at http://www.constitution.org/mac/disclivy_.htm.
End song: “Se Piangi, Se Ridi” (Mogol/Marchetti/Satti), recorded by Mark Lint in 2000.
Partially Naked Self-Examination Music Blog, Week 6
Posted by Mark Linsenmayer in Nakedly Self-Examined Music on February 5th, 2010
More video this week: http://www.youtube.com/user/MLinsenmayer#p/a/u/1/u3nNXdV8tbQ.
The linked song is one of two I’ve just put up there from a 1997 gig by The Fake Johnson Trio. This was the very last gig for that band, and one of the few played as an actual trio: I switched to bass for a couple of shows for that incarnation. The song is “Retrogress,” a cheery tune with lots of little arrangement nuances to screw up the band. It’s about not letting yourself get pulled back into moldy old modes of feeling.
Also now on my channel (http://www.youtube.com/user/MLinsenmayer) are songs by two different line-ups of Madison Lint.
Both of those bands (FJT and Madison Lint) had a good deal of turnover, which brings me to my topic: how much ownership do you have to have for an artistic project for it to feel fulfilling? From a young age, I was always someone who had to either lead the game, or I wouldn’t play. So though I’ve flirted with being “just a sideman” in bands, it would never stick: I like playing my own songs. I do enjoy my current situation as co-frontman, though; I am able to feel good about filling out my fellow New Peoplers’ songs, so long as that isn’t my only role.
So I’ve fundamentally never understood the sidemen I’ve played with. Why are you here? Why would you put up with being in your situation for very long? Well, they don’t. For some (drummers, mostly), playing in a band is like doing a sport, like intramural soccer or something. Few would SUFFER for a commitment like that in the way that is routinely required to play in a band (i.e. driving a lot, hanging around dingy clubs with bad sound, small crowds, long hours in the studio). Clearly, these guys were doing me a favor, and in return, I, the leader, was obliged to set up situations for them to enjoy themselves, which usually involved getting lots of good shows, which I was–through ineptitude or lack of patience or simply facing tough odds–seldom able to do, so of course these awesome musicians would wise up and move on for the hope of something more stable and rewarding.
…And, like a VH-1 Behind the Music special, I’m supposed to say now that that’s all behind me, and I’m in a good place, playing with people who do not see themselves as sidemen and so will not quit. So that’s what I’m saying. All is right with the world… for the moment.
Topic for #15: Hegel on History
Posted by Mark Linsenmayer in Topic Announcements on January 30th, 2010
Is history purposive? Are we progressing towards some utopian goal, like freedom for everyone and/or the dissolution of nations? Hegel, well, to be honest, doesn’t answer those questions, but instead wants us to assume that history IS governed by REASON, and that this assumption will be justified after a full exploration of history through his weird philosophical method. On this episode, we will by no means even hint at such an exploration, but will instead just talk about what Hegel had to say in introducing his philosophy of history, which it turns out is an easier entrance point than most into his very weird but pretty influential way of thinking.
If you dare, read pages 14-128 of http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/hegel/history.pdf or, for a somewhat less intimidating experience (and to read the same translation I have), just pick up a copy of the paperback of just the part we’ll be reading: http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0872200566/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&condition=used.
To clarify: Hegel didn’t actually write a book called “The Philosophy of History,” but he did give lectures on that topic, which were published (based on his notes and the notes of some of his students) after his death and have been issued in English in a few pretty different forms and translations, among which is the paperback called “Introduction to the Philosophy of History,” translated by Leo Rauch, which is the version I happen to have picked up during my school days, and seems easier to penetrate than the other versions I’ve glanced at.
Partially Naked Self-Examination Music Blog, Week 5
Posted by Mark Linsenmayer in Nakedly Self-Examined Music on January 28th, 2010
As January draws to a close, I made good on my determination to upload some more gig video, with a couple of songs from 1/16/10 New People show from the Alchemy Cafe. The song of the two by me currently visible (though I hope to have more up shortly) is at http://www.youtube.com/user/MLinsenmayer#p/a/u/1/_-9pPUESKN4, and from that URL you should be able to see the other I just uploaded (a tune by my cohort Matt Ackerman) and a few earlier posts (be sure to check out the “Love Is the Problem” video if you’ve not already).
The song in question is “Little Mina,” written mostly in 2003 when my daughter was a mewling shrieking biting baby, so the “Don’t bite me” is not a metaphor, or not merely a metaphor. The song morphed into something about trying to impart wisdom to your kids and how none of the really important stuff can be put into words.
But, I realize that the sound on the video is low quality and you likely can’t understand the words anyway, so let me rant instead about the absurdity of gigging.
A great concert in my experience as a spectator, for a band playing original music, is one where I already know most of the songs in advance, and where I can show up and clearly see and hear the band playing these tunes, with more excitement and spontaneity than what’s on the album, sitting with other people who also love the music.
As a performer, this rarely happens, first because venues usually either have a crummy sound system where you can’t make out the lyrics, or they crank it so loud that it’s unpleasant to be there (and you still can’t make out the lyrics). More importantly, the only people in the audience who know the songs will be friends that I or other band members have personally indoctrinated. Bar owners have long understood this: going to a friend’s show is like going to your kid’s school concert; you MIGHT enjoy it, but mostly you’re there to provide support to someone you know.
So, despite the fact that I’m supposed to be entertaining, i.e. providing a service, audience members are generally doing me a favor by being there, supporting my selfish desire to perform and my empty hopes of “making it.” Club owners recognize this, and typically see letting bands play there as an opportunity to have their dead nights filled with musicians’ beer-buying friends. Some clubs seem to go out of their way to ensure that no one that you didn’t personally bring to the show will possibly see you, and that the only way you can play in a time slot where people you didn’t invite might show up is if you can prove that you can bring in 100+ people in on, say, a Tuesday night at 7pm (or 2am) all on your own. It’s a sucker’s game.
As an adult, I’ve for the most part tried to avoid these situations and accepted the fact that the best I can do is to provide a pleasant place for those friends who come to indulge us a nice place to hang out and a convenient time slot, which means playing out less frequently (very few friends want to come to one of your shows every month) at places with no built-in crowd, but who will give us shows on Saturday nights, have decent enough facilities where we can make sure that the sound quality/volume is tolerable, and who don’t particularly care how many people we bring in. It’s like putting on a piano recital, except louder, usually with booze (though in Austin a couple of coffee houses became our preferred venues after a while).
The venue pictured in the video is a slight step up, in that it has a built-in crowd and (for our last show anyway) the sound quality was not TOTAL mush, and we seem able to play multiple Saturday nights there (this was our second show there in three months), so there is hope that with perseverance and an accessible show, one can incrementally move forward toward the Platonic ideal gig. …Or maybe I’m still just a sucker.
Partially Naked Self-Examination Music Blog, Week 4
Posted by Mark Linsenmayer in Nakedly Self-Examined Music on January 20th, 2010
This week’s entry is an entirely new recording: “Came Round.” On one or two days in the summer of ‘99 I wrote and recorded maybe five song fragments with nonsense lyrics that featured dual-vocals throughout the whole thing a la the Byrds. I was contemplating starting a folk duo that would feature collaborative songwriting and wanted to have some material that was purposely unfinished, with lyrics I had every intention of changing, so that the collaborative process could then polish them into songs. Well, of course I never ended up doing the folk duo, and my collaborative attempts in the future never made use of these. Still, I found the process of writing music with carelessly terrible lyrics and no obligation to finish developing the song idea very liberating and easy.
The first song from that batch proved to be something that really stuck in my head, with its bad lyrics intact: “You came ’round; I saw your shoes. You came ’round, and I felt used. You came ’round; I smelled your breath. You came ’round, I felt my death.” Well, at least those are a little cute, but the lyrics I had over the chorus were much worse, rhyming “crossing” with “lossing.”
Fast forward to the present, when the song has become one of the first things I play on my acoustic as a fun finger-picking exercise. How could I turn this cliche fragment with goofy lyrics into a full song? I determined while playing through it a couple of weeks ago that it should have a loud part in the middle starting on a G chord, but that’s as far as I got. Well, in the day before recording this, I wrote the bridge lyrics, wrote another couple of verse lines, decided to have the choruses be just instrumental, and, finally, figured out something to play under the loud part, which I’d originally envisioned as less repetitive chord-wise, but just kind of fell into being what it now is.
…and this brings me to my topic, which is related to last week’s: manufactured inspiration. Since completing this last week, I’ve gotten some comments that this is one of the best things I’ve come up with, that the intense part in the middle is especially rousing, which (quoting one friend of mine) “probably had something to do with the time I wrote it.” But here’s the thing: there’s nothing personal going on with me right now (i.e. when I wrote that part), or in 1999 for that matter, that justifies the level of passion I put in there. The lyrics draw on a couple of sentiments exaggerated from those I’ve either had in the past or have imagined someone else having, and I definitely was looking to recapture some of the magic of my last full acoustic album, “Spanish Armada,” recorded back in 1993 when I was young and angst-filled in the throes of unrequited love and loss and all. …But I’m not really feeling any of that now; instead, this was just fun and cathartic.
This is perhaps not such a great discovery. When an author puts drama in a book, or even more telling, when a filmmaker goes through the painstaking process of getting some emotional moment up on the screen, it’s not as if he or she is, through the many grueling hours required to do that, all choked with emotion about some personal tragedy. It’s imagined, and then manufactured and dressed up to get the imagined emotion out there, but with songwriting, we expect people to be writing passionately about their personal experiences, which in turn leads to the feeling that as an older person in a settled relationship and a generally happy situation, I should have nothing much interesting to write about, and for sure, my output and slowed tremendously now that I don’t need so much songwriting as therapy. So, unless I just want to be writing music as humor or social commentary or expression of the inevitable vague dissatisfaction that comes with living, then I have to make stuff up, but based on this song, at least, that seems to be a viable strategy, the “truth” of the matter be damned.
Unreasonable & Unrealistic: A New Year’s Resolution
Posted by Seth Paskin in General Announcements on January 16th, 2010
I am considered by family, friends and business acquaintances to be calm, level-headed, rational, analytic, thoughtful, etc. It was part of what made me successful in my many roles in corporate life. And something that has perhaps prevented me from honoring my feelings and emotions in my personal life. While I don’t think I fetishize reason and rationality, I seem to be coded to make them my primary mode of being (PEL is perhaps a reflection - or symptom?).
So my New Year’s resolution is to be more ‘unreasonable’. By that I mean not only cut down on the rational, analytical approach to things, the measured intake of data and attempt to view things from multiple perspectives, but also to stop being so accomodating to everyone else’s requests - to be a bit ‘unreasonable’. Open myself to interpersonal energy and the immediate Zeitgeist. And guess what world, that might mean I take more risks and am a bit more selfish. I’m 41 and I deserve it, so deal.
A corollary to this is that I am going to start setting unrealistic expectations and goals. Got this from The 4 Hour Work Week, but it seems to fit.
Unlike Mark, I’m not going to commit to either doing or sharing weekly with y’all.
Cheers, seth
Partially Naked Self-Examination Music Blog, Week 3
Posted by Mark Linsenmayer in Nakedly Self-Examined Music on January 15th, 2010
This week I’ve finished another tune from the same project as “Write Me Off,” namely “Once in a Great While,” which was originally called “Therapy Song #141.”
The song is one of several I’ve written about inspiration and its masochistic character. What I want from moment to moment is a feeling of warmth, of involvement. When I finish a great movie or book or come back from a great concert, “real life” feels naked and cold by comparison, and you want to fill it. When you’re at peace, there’s no reason to write a song.
I’m overgeneralizing, of course. You can be inspired by another work, like I’ve on occasion written some songs (lyrics, at least, and maybe the rhythm of the melody) basically while listening to another existing song over and over, so that what I come up with is essentially a child of whatever it is I’m listening to, even if no one else would notice that listening to the two back to back.
But I don’t want to talk about inspiration and its many varieties here, but only the kind where you’re amped up with emptiness, probably late at night when all around is quiet, maybe walking the dog, which is in fact how I’m pretty sure I came up with this tune, walking around my neighborhood in Austin on a warm evening in 1999. While the emptiness is vertiginous, it’s also exhilarating, and is probably the kind of productive sort of suffering that Nietzsche was always on about.
Like the previous tune, drums and electric guitars were recorded back in 2000, and I put down the bass that summer, I think, shortly after moving to Austin. I was surprised that Mark Doroba the guitarist, who recorded all of his parts on his own at his house onto my recording equipment, had not really recorded a lead guitar part on this one, and I pictured getting some really good classical player to do it. Instead, of course, I, just now, ended up doing it myself, which involved a lot of punching in and overdubbing, as it inevitably does when I play lead. I also recorded all the vocals just now, mostly very quickly, though I was somewhat lost for a bit as to how the whole key change near the beginning was supposed to work (I’m not sure what made me do that originally and likely wouldn’t have included that now.) I’m pretty sure that there was supposed to be more of an instrumental break instead of quite so many repeats of the choruses, but I’m pretty satisfied with how it sits now.
Partially Naked Self-Examination Music Blog, Week 2
Posted by Mark Linsenmayer in Nakedly Self-Examined Music on January 7th, 2010
This week’s newly finished recording is “Write Me Off.”
This is part of the “Sinking and the Aftermath” project; the story of my utter irresponsibility in not finishing these songs (from 1999-2000) earlier is told here.
This is one of my favorite songs of those I’ve written, and it’s gone around my head quite regularly in the 10 years since I wrote and partially recorded it. Why did I not finish it? Why is this blog even necessary? Well, perfectionism, for one. It’s easy to find excuses not to finish things when, in this case, you envision a full choir singing the goofy “ba-ba-ba-bah” backing vocals. I also only recently got a steel-stringed acoustic guitar in my house this year (and still don’t have a really adequate electric setup, though I’ll try to overcome that for one of the next weeks), and my classical just wouldn’t cut it on this one.
The other reason is also the main theme of the song, i.e. frustration with the absolute (or, OK, relative) indifference of any substantial number of people to whether any of my music gets made or not. Like most of my songs, the lyrics to this express some momentary, extreme sentiment that I captured and wrote down in all its snarly, pathetic glory. And yet, one of the reasons it’s been so resonant with me is the number of times when something like that sentiment recurs. Just like there’s a canon of philosophers and I feel like people look for any excuse with a newly heard-of figure to disregard that person so that they don’t have to expend the energy learning about him, the same thing goes on in popular music, and even I am no exception to this celebrity culture mindset.
What remains when you try to get past insecurity about the quality of your creative output is first, pleasing yourself, which is great and necessary, but doesn’t necessarily consistently motivate the great effort required to have a constant creative stream running over the majority of your life, and second, sharing with others: The immediate impetus for this song was discovering that a CD (that I’d worked my ass off to create) that I’d given to someone who I know was into music and whose approval I apparently sought had been sitting in his drawer unlistened to for like a year after I gave it to him.
Ultimately, the song is about whether you care what other people think of you or not, and as independent and self-assured as you’d like to see yourself as, it’s still pretty galling to be written off in the face of your best efforts. So there you go.
Partially Naked Self-Examination Music Blog, Week 1
Posted by Mark Linsenmayer in Nakedly Self-Examined Music on January 2nd, 2010
Per my immediately previous post, feel free to download and listen to the song “Space;” it’ll be at the very top of the visible window when you click here. Then come back here and read this post. (I’m not linking directly from these posts to the audio files to avoid their being sent out as part of the Partially Examined Life podcast feed.)
This song was written in 1997 or 1998 smack in the heart of my Texas grad school tenure. That’s what the reference to “Every day I get up about three hours late” is about; I tended to sleep until 11am in those days.
This is a song that seemed too sappy, simple, and uncool to do with any of my subsequent bands, and it in fact was the proximate cause to one of my band mates not wanting to work with me any more (he’d already quit the band earlier but was considering jumping back in to help us finish recording the album), with the sentiment “all Mark writes any more are goofy songs for Kim” (i.e. my girlfriend, now wife of over a decade).
Still, it stuck in my head, and was on the list of songs to record for an aborted solo album “The Cheese Stands Alone,” and I had the first drummer I played with upon moving to Madison in 2000 play this part against a guide guitar. The tape then sat and sat and sat along with the many other tapes that are the reason I needed to start writing this blog, but is something I have commonly played when screwing around on my acoustic guitar and whose lyrics I had almost entirely memorized without intending to, so it’s good to hear it now “done,” though I suppose it could still use a plunky lead guitar part to round it out if I end up sprucing this up for the revival of the “Cheese” album.
What is it about? Well, it’s a love song to someone who isn’t there, whether at the moment, or at all is left unclear. Maybe she’s dead. Maybe she left him (i.e. the narrator, who is not exactly me though has stolen my sentiments, as per my normal technique). Maybe she’s just at work while he lies around the house not working on his dissertation? What’s clear is that the environment is imbued with her, and that’s a good thing.
Thorough Musical Self-Examination: A New Year’s Resolution
Posted by Mark Linsenmayer in General Announcements, Nakedly Self-Examined Music on January 2nd, 2010
Yes, it’s a new year. Big, fat arbitrary deal. Well, yes, but I find it refreshing that something in our life of mostly culturally created pressures presents itself as an obviously merely cultural, arbitrary creation, as opposed to money, or romance, or politics, or your job, all of which, though largely if not wholly cultural, intrude in our lives in immediate ways that make them seem objective in some stronger way.
So, here’s my New Year’s resolution: I have a lot of recordings that need finishing, a lot of songs that I’ve never bothered to record decently, or at all, lots of recordings (video and audio) of old live shows and/or significant life events that I should digitize and put in an order such that if I die, then my relatives will be able to find things easily. I hereby resolve to fix, finish, or at least make progress on something 50 times (i.e. approximately once a week) over the course of 2010, and to prove it, I aim to post and possibly analyze to death at least some if this for the amusement of you, the kind readers of the world.
And I’m starting right now.
Philosophy & Comedy - Steve Martin’s “Born Standing Up”
Posted by Seth Paskin in Partially Examined Book Review on December 31st, 2009
I just finished reading Steve Martin’s autobiography Born Standing Up - a comic’s life, an honest and direct memoir about his youth and early life experiences which shaped the development of his unique comedic style. The book covers the time from his childhood through to his 30’s when he walked away from stage performing to do movies and other media. I am old enough to remember the phenomenon that was Steve Martin at his stand-up peak, having reached teenage awareness with liberal and progressive enough parents who allowed me to watch Saturday Night Live and got cable with HBO. No one who (over)used the catch phrases ‘Well excuuuuuse me!” or “I’m a wild and crazy guy!” or dropped a “Grandpa bought a rubber…..duck” in conversation can forget Martin’s truly novel and paradigm shattering form of expression - it hardly does it justice now to call it simply comedy or entertainment.
It is not my intention to give a full fledged review of this book. I’d like, rather, to partially examine something in the book that surprised me and is relevant to our PEL universe - Steve Martin studied philosophy in college during his ‘formative’ years and attributes a certain amount of influence to the discipline on his development. Although this is not a typical ‘reading’ and the topic might be somewhat unorthodox, I consider discussing Philosophy & Comedy perfectly legitimate and this a suitable text for the endeavor.
It starts, of course, with a woman. A young love named Stormie suggests that Steve read W. Somerset Maugham’s The Razor’s Edge. Martin sees the book as a quest for “[u]niversal, final, unquestionable knowledge.” That combined with the book’s glorification of learning inspires Martin to enroll in Long Beach State College (aka California State University at Long Beach) and major in Philosophy. While studying metaphysics, ethics and logic, Martin was building the core of his act at the Bird Cage in Knott’s Berry Farm and branches out to the aptly named venue, The Prison of Socrates, where he needs to expand his act. He gets exposed to Lenny Bruce, Nichols & May and Tom Lehrer through a friend.
The combination of these elements convinces Martin that he needs to be ‘original’ and all his existing material needs to be expunged. One approach to achieve this is observational humor with a twist - relate things that he’s seen that make him laugh as though they happened to him. Another is absurdist - do a dramatic reading of the periodic table of the elements. A third, and for this discussion the most important, is word play inspired by his study of logic.
Martin discovers during a logic class that Lewis Carroll, author of Alice in Wonderland, was a logician. Playing with the syllogistic form, he creates nonsensical demonstrations of the form which strike Martin as funny. The example he provides:
1) Babies are illogical
2) Nobody is despised who can manage a crocodile
3) Illogical persons are despised.
——————————————
Therefore, babies cannot manage crocodiles.
Finding the humor in word play and logic - precisely the opposition of logic and humor - opens up Martin’s conception of what comedy can be. He introduces logic and language inspired bits into his act (he even makes a reference to Wittgenstein later in the book - the ultimate gamer of logic and language) and launches what he sees as a new avant garde form of comedy.
Maintaining the elements of word play and logical form are what kept Martin’s style from being strictly observational or, at the other extreme, absurdist. Consider his bit about getting “small”. Martin would use the (at the time) counter-culture language of getting ‘high’, but substitute the word and concept of “small” for “high”. Martin would immediately create a sense of displacement for the audience by inviting them into the bit with a familiar grammar and dialogue, but then removing and replacing the central conceptual element. E.g. ‘the other day I got soooo small, I wasn’t sure I could drive.’ The audience couldn’t be sure if he was trying to introduce a new euphemism for being stoned, or if he really meant ’small’. He might then talk about having trouble reaching the steering wheel and pantomime standing on the seat reaching way above his head with both arms to drive.
The audience would realize he was ‘literally’ talking about being small and not stoned, but by maintaining the grammar of the stoner language and being faithful to the logic of the discussion and the conceptual substitution, he never fell into simple absurdism. The audience either didn’t get what he was doing (there’s no ‘joke’) or they were forced to make the conceptual leap with him. At that point it was either a funny ride, or perhaps an amusing curiosity. He even admits that he didn’t exactly know what he was developing or whether people would get on board - they did, although it took him years to establish himself and his comedic identity in mainstream media and venues.
There are other examples of how Martin used language and logical form to disrupt audience expectations such as his ‘Grandmother’s Song’, which starts out like a ditty about good behavior, etc. and moves to bizarre and nonsensical advice (’be tasteless, rude and offensive…Put a live chicken in your underwear’) or when entering a stage say ‘It’s great to be here!’ and then run to another spot on the stage, ‘No, here!’ or ‘It’s great to be here!’ Martin understood - at least in part by virtue of his philosophical studies - how to disrupt conceptual norms using language and grammar to comedic effect.
The key for Martin was to be clever while maintaining intellectual and performance discipline, which he did, helping to usher in a new wave of comedic entertainment (think Saturday Night Live) and the era of comedy as a legitimate, stand-alone art form. Born Standing Up is enjoyable and an easy read, with perhaps less detail about his later material and emotional entanglements than I would have liked to have seen but as a case study in Philosophy & Comedy it delivers enough for our purposes here. There is much more obviously about his musical influences and background in magic that I do not mention, but I strongly encourage you to check it out for yourself.
I would welcome other suggestions for readings/people to discuss along this line of thought.
Cheers,
–seth
Christian Realism and Holy War
Posted by Wes Alwan in Bits and Pieces on December 15th, 2009
“Christian Realism” — even Christians ought to struggle with David Brook’s latest invention. How delightful to juxtapose other-worldliness and practicality! But to really understand it, replace “Christian” with “love” and “Realism” with “War.” Meaning, “I love war, but I wage it only out of love.” It’s almost a self-parodying confirmation of Nietzsche’s critique of the human capacity for turning aggression into “love,” with Christian love as his prime example:
In my view, Dante was grossly in error when, with an ingenuity meant to inspire terror, he set that inscription over the gateway into his hell: “Eternal love also created me.” Over the gateway into the Christian paradise and its “eternal blessedness” it would, in any event, be more fitting to set the inscription “Eternal hate also created me” — provided it’s all right to set a truth over the gateway to a lie!
For what is the bliss of this paradise? . . . We might well have guessed that already, but it is better for it to be expressly described for us by an authority we cannot underestimate, Thomas Aquinas, the great teacher and saint: . “Beati in regno coelesti”, he says, as gently as a lamb, “videbunt poenas damnatorum, ut beatitudo illis magis complaceat” ["In the kingdom of heaven the blessed will see the punishment of the damned, so that they will derive all the more pleasure from their heavenly bliss."]
For David Brooks, such reversals fit his standard recipe for praising the opposition: it’s not enough merely to agree with a policy or like a speech; one must incorporate it into one’s sanctimony. In this case, Brooks likes the pro-war speech Obama gave while accepting a Nobel Peace Prize. Therefore, it is an example of Obama’s profound decency. Profound decency, in turn, means engaging in precisely the policies that liberals would thing of as inhumane by cloaking them in the garb of tough love, democracy-spreading war, etc. Further decompose such conservativism into its religious rationale: there is evil in the world, and it must be opposed. We must take Christian love to mean war, not peace!
Add to this the pleasure of one particular bit of aggression towards those Godless Europeans — that of using a Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech to justify war. But again, turn this hubris on its head and remind us that combating evil requires super-Obaman humility. And just as Obama imposed it on the Swedes, this humility can be imposed on entire countries — in its institutional form, as Democracy — at the point of a sword: Democracy is ”the only system that fits humanity’s noble yet sinful nature.”
So you see, when we wage these wars we may not be forceably converting Muslims to Christianity, as Michelle Malkin would have us do; but it all comes to the same thing. Democracy just is an institutional expression of Christianity. Freedom-wars just are “Christian Realism” … just are holy war.
Seth Bait
Posted by Wes Alwan in Bits and Pieces on December 14th, 2009
Brian Leiter skewers Chronical reporter Carlin Romano (yet again) for a piece that calls Heidegger a “provincial Nazi hack.”
Podcast Equipment Nerdfest
Posted by Wes Alwan in Bits and Pieces on December 14th, 2009
After some problems with atrocious audio quality, I went a little overboard on a new mic/accessories:
- Audio-Technica AT2020 USB Condenser USB Microphone
- Samson SP01 Shockmount Spider Mount for Condenser Mics
- On Stage Tripod Microphone Stand (7701B)
- OMNITRONICS EPF-15A Cad Mic Pop Filter


It’s in: most philosophers accept or lean towards compatibilism
Posted by Wes Alwan in Bits and Pieces on December 14th, 2009
From a poll of 438 “professional” philosophers. (The idea of philosophy as a profession still amuses me).
Of course, that leaves the question of whether one can “lean towards” freely.
Philosophical Powers
Posted by Mark Linsenmayer in Partially Examined Web Site on December 7th, 2009
This site (http://homepages.nyu.edu/~iav202/powers/powers.html) by Ian Vandewalker at Indiana University provides many awesome fake philosopher trading card images and stats, like:

Episode 12: Chuang Tzu’s Taoism: What Is Wisdom?
Posted by Mark Linsenmayer in Podcast Episodes on December 6th, 2009
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:50:14 — 101.0MB)
Discussing the “Chuang Tzu,” Chapters 2, 3, 6, 18, and 19.
It’s the second-most-famous Taoist text and the most humorous, with anecdotes about people singing at funerals and jumping out of moving coaches while drunk. What could it possibly mean to “make all things equal?” and how is the Taoist sage different from our other favorite paragons of virtue (hint: magical powers)?
Featuring special guest panelist Erik Douglas, another U. Texas philosophy grad school dropout now living in England, who knows more about Eastern philosophy than we do.
Read along at http://www.terebess.hu/english/chuangtzu.html.
The end song requires explanation: I had a “New Age” period where I investigated Eastern philosophy, tried to be cheerful all the time, and was generally insufferable. This song, “Pass Time Incorporeal,” is an artifact of that time, with lyrics from early fall 1989; the recording is from 1993. It finally slipped out on a 1996 album of similar goofiness rejected from my “real” albums called “Black Jelly Beans & Smokes.”
Book Review: “Small Gods” by Terry Pratchett
Posted by Mark Linsenmayer in Partially Examined Book Review on November 26th, 2009
This is the 12th in the “Discworld” series, a British humor/fantasy bunch of books comparable in style to “Hitchhikers’ Guide to the Galaxy,” but it’s only the setting (a flat world resting on the back of four elephants resting on the back of a turtle) that’s consistent, not so much the characters, so it’s not necessary to read the previous ones, though a couple of the jokes are running gags or references to the previous ones.
Why I’m bothering to review this is its picture of gods and how they work, and what this exemplifies about the treatment of the metaphysical in popular, fun fiction, and really, what good religion is to us in these modern times. Plus, there’s a whose section of the book that takes place in a fictional version of Athens with a lot of fine jokes about ancient philosophy, a brand of humor that I’ve not seen in a whole lot of other places.
It’s been posited before in fiction that gods get their power from the attention and belief of their believers. This is a flippant response to the obvious goofiness of why gods (modern or ancient) would have any interest in our belief, let alone worshiping and groveling and sacrificing lambs and such. Were I a god, all this fawning would make me pretty uncomfortable, but of course gods were invented in an age of crushing despots, where the god is super-king and often serves to reinforce the rule of the king.
Well, “Small Gods” explores that line of thought, with the premise that there’s an entire nation (Omnia) devoted to one big god (Om), but the church has become so institutionalized (with a violent “Quisition” torturing and killing anyone even smelling of heresy, or anyone else that its leaders feel like), that in fact almost no one actually believes in Om any more, with the consequence that when Om decides to become an animal and visit the earth for a bit, instead of a big fiery bull or something, he becomes a tortoise, with the mentality and approximate abilities of a tortoise, and it’s only when the SOLE believer left in the country, a low-level monk and gardener, happens to pop by, that Om is able to communicate with him, have some rational self-reflection, and do some minor god-like acts (e.g. lightning bolts on par with a bad static electric shock), and so he wants to use said believer as a vehicle to get his powers back, and so hilarity ensues.
So, what’s the philosophical import? Well, first, religious history is filled with good stuff to make fun of, and however much or little you may think it applies to your modern belief system, that whole “I’m a jealous god and will kick your ass” thing from the old Testament and Greek mythology and such is pretty amusing. So, it sure is fun to play with such ideas, and my reading tendencies have favored this direction (e.g. Mike Carey’s comic book series “Lucifer” is another example, as well as its parent series, Neil Gaiman’s “The Sandman,” as well as most of the rest of what Neil Gaiman’s ever written).
…And it’s not just the internal content of old belief systems that’s strange and fun, but the relationship of belief to ordinary life, to technology, to politics, that makes for many a fine plot. I won’t pretend that “Small Gods” has anything profound to say about morality (e.g. that you should not kill in the name of belief) or philosophy (that most of it is useless, except that one idea out of 100 that creates some new massive technological boom), but like any good philosophical fiction, it gets ya thinkin’, which is, really, the best we can hope for, even from a source that claims to be serious, and moreover, the thinking is brought about in a way that is actually enjoyable, unlike most philosophical texts or more ham-handed and less reflective attempts at philosophical fiction (like, say “Brave New World”). Pratchett is working in the tradition of Voltaire (”Candide”), with the added benefit of the advance in years/thinking/distance from the time when religion dominated the earth. So, yes, I recommend the book.
Film ‘Review’: District 9
Posted by Seth Paskin in Partially Examined Film Review on October 30th, 2009
First, let me say that this will not be as long as Mark’s epic stream of consciousness review of ‘Stupidity’. Second, let me say that this was a very odd movie that took me by surprise, but I think posed some interesting philosophical questions and so is appropriate for this forum.
A quick recap that will get you through the first 10 minutes of the movie without giving anything away: 20 years ago, a giant spaceship comes to earth and settles over the city of Johannesburg, South Africa. And that’s it. Nothing happens. After a couple of months, people decide to go up and take a look. Commandos board the ship and cut into it and find thousands of aliens inside, starving and aimless. The aliens kind of look like 7 ft tall praying mantises (in any case bug-like). The humans ‘rescue’ the aliens and put them in a restricted zone on the outskirts of the city called District 9.
The suggestion is that the aliens have a ‘worker bee’ like mentality and they are missing their ‘brain bugs’ - so they can’t fix their ship or take care of themselves. This also means that even though they have limited cognitive and language abilities, they can’t really integrate with human society. There are tensions and violence between humans and aliens and the District becomes in effect a militarized refugee camp. That’s the lead-in to the story and the beginning of the movie sees a documentary crew following a qausi-government organization that has been tasked with relocating the aliens from District 9 to a camp much further away from any human settlement.
One of the first questions that presents itself is whether and what ethical position the humans should take vis-a-vis the aliens. Given that they have space travel, they are clearly an advanced race of sentient beings. From a common sense perspective, I would think we would consider them as ‘ethical equals’ or at least acknowledge some kind of responsibility to treat them as we would other human beings (as opposed to insects or animals). And I suppose this means that we would expect the same of them.
But do we treat them as ‘equals’ with ‘human rights’? Bracketing out the issue of political rights for a second (they are, after all, not citizens of the Earth, much less South Africa) we have to ask ourselves whether we have the same moral obligation to them as we do to a fellow human being. If so, why? They are, after all, not human. Do we assume that ‘human’ has really been a placeholder for ’sentient being’ and that what we consider to be ‘human’ rights are really for anything that fits some criteria for sentience and perhaps other cognitive functions?
If you can even resolve this issue satisfactorily, the film further complicates the discussion by having humans only interacting with the ‘worker’ types from the alien race, who are more insect/animalistic and do not demonstrate the necessary cognitive function and awareness to be considered ‘equals’. Beyond meeting criteria for ethical status, the aliens also really aren’t able to enter into a ’social contract’ with us. So we have a sense that we might have an ethical obligation to the aliens really only by inference to the parts of their race that must have been capable of building the space ship, but the actual aliens we are dealing don’t have that capability and don’t appear to be able to breed or develop into it.
Needless to say, the conscious or unconscious decision that the humans make regarding these questions dictate how they treat the aliens both at a ‘policy’ and a ‘personal’ level. And, if you are like me, you will find yourself reacting to the events as they unfold in visceral, emotional ways that are clues to how you answer the questions above.
District 9 forces reflection on the nature of ‘natural’ or ‘human’ or ‘inalienable’ rights. And while there is a clear social message (I read the film at least in part as making a commentary on the treatment of ethnic minorities or aboriginal cultures in Africa and elsewhere), I think the movie elegantly challenges our assumed anthropocentric concepts of ethical agency and philosophical justifications for moral positions based on rationality or sentience.
OK, I lied. This is as long as Mark’s post. I guess we are equally prolix.
Episode 10: Kantian Ethics: What Should We Do?
Posted by Mark Linsenmayer in Podcast Episodes on October 19th, 2009
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 2:05:03 — 114.6MB)
Discussing Fundamental Principles (aka Groundwork) of the Metaphysic of Morals.
We try very hard to make sense of Kant’s major ethical principle, the Categorical Imperative, wherein you should only do what you’d will that EVERYONE do, so, for instance, you should not will to eat pie, because then everyone would eat it and there would be none left for you, so too bad.
Also, Kant on free will, “things in themselves,” our duties to animals, and prostitution! Plus: Should you go to grad school?
The Kant reading can be found at http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/5682. The Allen Wood article “Kant on Duties Regarding Nonrational Nature” is here: http://www.stanford.edu/~allenw/papers/Nonrational.doc.
End song: “Stop” by Madison Lint (2003).
PEL Merch
Posted by Mark Linsenmayer in General Announcements on October 8th, 2009
The Partially Examined Life now offers a fine selection of overpriced T-shirts and a mug. Who will be cooler than you when you are sporting one or all of these on your person? Who? Tell me, please, as I’m honestly curious as to your no doubt mistaken apprehension on this topic. You having failed to give a satisfactory answer, I will provide one for you per my nature and/or perogative: No one, that’s who.
Partially Examined Film Review: “Stupidity”
Posted by Mark Linsenmayer in Partially Examined Film Review on October 7th, 2009
We are exuberant fellows and have long discussed using this blog as a BLOG and not just as a podcast accompaniment, so I’m going to initiate an idea I’ve been wanting to try out, sort of…
You see, I’ve wanted to go beyond the bounds of the podcast and tell folks about the philosophy books I’ve stumbled over of late, largely in trying to figure out things for us to talk about on the podcast, but in most cases I only finish part of the book, and it seems unfair to “review” a book given that. However, let me be frank: I’ve got a big bookshelf of philosophy books, and how many have I read ALL of? Not many, not many at all. Most courses only assign select chapters, select papers; there’s never time to discuss it all. That there Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason? Took a semester course just on it, and still didn’t finish it. Being and Nothingness? Didn’t come close to finishing. Dewey’s Experience and Nature? Searle’s Intentionality? Bernard Williams’s Descartes? No no no. Yet I deign to have opinions on most of this stuff anyway (or at least I did when the bits I had read were fresh in mind). So, you likely deserve my only partially informed ramblings on the books I’ve lately gotten out of the library, read the first couple chapters of, let sit for 3 months while I renewed them, and then returned. You’re welcome!
Now, if that doesn’t sound amateurish enough, right now I’m going to give you a review of the first 3/5 of a movie, because after 41 minutes, I’ve got opinions I can no longer keep in check.
The movie is “Stupidity,” a documentary from 2003 that I stumbled over sitting at my computer looking at Netflix’s streaming options. I just spent about 10 minutes writing about the format of the documentary just to give you some background but erased it. It’s a documentary! …and not the kind that has to actually follow someone interesting around or go shoot difficult footage, but just lots of talking heads and overlaid graphics.
The film points out that most people have ill-defined notions of stupidity, and hence intelligence, and talks to some people who have written books about the subject and who otherwise seem to have opinions, and of course the point is that America is dumb, rejoices in dumbness, and it’s largely the media’s fault. I find it ironic that a film that complains about people’s short attention spans feels the need to, just like a music video, cut away to a different image every three seconds maximum to avoid audience boredom. And yet, for me, it’s not enough. This is basically an informational piece, and there’s some real information in it, such as the historical, clinical definitions of “idiot,” “imbecile,” and “moron,” but I find myself wanting to just be reading the damn thing on Wikipedia, such that I could get all this publicly available information in three minutes rather than an 41.
After this sort-of interesting historical stuff is out of the way, then the movie just shows a bunch of people complaining about idiocy without doing anything to really add to my understanding of it. Yes, I understand that media editorial departments enforce an “audience target age” that means that not too many big words can fit in there. Yes, I understand that some TV shows are created simply as escapism, and, if poorly made, do so via a very limited number of tricks, i.e. murders, big guns, jiggling asses, people getting lit on fire, etc., but this all sounds to me like complaints about the 80s, where media were limited.
I have of late myself become addicted to big stories, whether in print or on film or whatever, which means, for instance, that I’ll get ahold of a season (or five) of a TV show with a continuous plot (like The Wire, Babylon 5, or Dexter) and watch it compulsively until it’s done. This kind of TV is very different from the Diff’rent Strokes and Three’s Company of my youth that was created purely to kill time and sell advertising, and yet, for me, it’s still passive, vegetating time on the couch, i.e. the putting oneself into a stupor that the film Stupidity objects to.
Likewise, after philosophy grad school, as an adult with some nice pretentious literature behind me, I went through a Stephen King phase… a writer read by many a dumbass who uses violence as titillation and consciously avoids any language (big words and such) that would trip anyone up and so interfere with the storytelling, and I’ll tell ya what: it generally works. I get sucked in, and I think I’m deadened enough to described violence that it just seems like some of the flavor of it to me… something that creates the mood but which could just as well be switched to something else to create a different, equally compelling mood.
So I’m not going to defend my country and my era against stupidity, and the film reminded me of the topic and provided me with some nuggets of information, but my view on the topic is about the same as when I started, which I’ll just tell you: Intelligence is a cultural myth, a reduction of a lot of very different capacities and behaviors to a one-dimensional scale that doesn’t make much sense. It’s not just “book smarts” vs. “street smarts” or “common sense” vs. “intellectualism;” there are just certain sets of things that make a given individual’s brain hurt when he or she tries to think about them, and so he or she generally DOESN’T, and philosophy is often one of those things, though not generally for me. I, however, have plenty of experiences of terminal inattentiveness, feeling “too tired to think” about some topic whenever it comes up, just not being able to get my mind around things, poor memory, etc. I’m convinced that these experiences are not fundamentally different than those had by someone pretty unambiguously dumb, and there are a lot of factors that go into how we each individually deal with those feelings. Do we have faith that even though this math stuff or Kant or investment crap or sports statistics or whatever seems so hard that we COULD figure it out with effort? It often depends on how we’ve dealt with such things in the past; my little nephew who doesn’t know his own limitations will ALWAYS volunteer to take a crack at anything you’re having trouble with, no matter how obviously inappropriate for a seven-year-old. Self-confidence is a lot of it, and practice is most of the rest. Yes, some people do a lot better on standardized tests, some people think better on their feet, some people can read Nietzsche while driving, but they’re all basically the same breed of dumbasses as the rest of us.
I’ve still got plenty of questions about stupidity: some positive puzzles brought up by some of the Nietzsche I’m reading for Episode #11, like what basic, necessary errors are necessary for us to live, or what crap we’ve inherited from our culture that we just can’t see past, or what can we possibly do to turn this era around and make it less stupid, but “Stupidity” doesn’t give me any insight on those questions. (Well, maybe it does at the end, but my prediction says no.)
So, there you go, a half-assed film review that’s now made me too tired to bother to see the rest of the film, told you not that much about the movie, and ended with a painfully inadequate account of one of my own half-formed views that you didn’t actually ask for. Again, you’re welcome!
Episode 9: Utilitarian Ethics: What Should We Do?
Posted by Mark Linsenmayer in Podcast Episodes on September 18th, 2009
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:59:04 — 109.1MB)
Discussing Jeremy Bentham’s An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation chapters 1-5, John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism, and modern utilitarian Peter Singer’s “Famine, Affluence, and Morality.”)
Going full tilt on the Greatest Happiness principle, with talk of gladiators, consensual cannibalism, and illegal downloads. How many Pleetons were in your last orgasm? Should animals count in the utilitarian calculus? What is Bentham’s skull up to nowadays? This extra long episode (patched together from two recording sessions, as Seth’s audio track got toasted for most of the first one) is disgustingly thorough and only occasionally internally redundant.
Read along at http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/bentham01.htm, http://www.utilitarianism.com/mill1.htm, and http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1972—-.htm (Also, for some more information on Singer’s view of animal liberation, see http://www.utilitarian.org/texts/alm.html.)
End song: “So Whaddaya Think?” by Mark Lint and the Fake (2000).
Episode 7: Wittgenstein’s Tractatus: What Is There and Can We Talk About It?
Posted by Mark Linsenmayer in Podcast Episodes on August 19th, 2009
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:27:08 — 79.8MB)
Discussing the beginning (through around 3.1) of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Mr. W. wrote that the world is made up of facts (as opposed to things) and that these facts can be analyzed into atomic facts, but then refused to give even one example to help us understand what the hell he’s talking about, and so Wes and Mark argue about it per usual while Seth corrects our German pronunciation. The first 3/4 of this episode was recorded off-site from our regular equipment, making the audio quality relatively sucky. Enjoy!
One online place to find the reading is http://www.uweb.ucsb.edu/~luke_manning/tractatus/tractatus-jsnav.html.
For a clearer explanation of fact-based ontology, see this short introduction by Bertrand Russell to his lectures on logical atomism: http://www.hist-analytic.org/RussellLAfacts.pdf.
End song: “Facts for a Moment (What You Are to Me),” recorded in 1992 and released on the Mark Linsenmayer album Spanish Armada, Songs of Love and Related Neuroses.
Episode 6: Leibniz’s Monadology: What Is There?
Posted by Mark Linsenmayer in Podcast Episodes on July 31st, 2009
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:39:03 — 90.7MB)
Have some tasty metaphysics, in mono!
Leibniz thinks that the world is ultimately made up of monads, which are like atoms except nothing at all like atoms, because they’re alive, and mindful, and eternal, and windowless, placed in the best kind of harmony at the beginning of time by God. Is there a concept album in all of this?
Plus, does reading philosophy make you a better conversationalist, or just get you ostracized?
Get the reading at http://www.philosophy.leeds.ac.uk/GMR/hmp/texts/modern/leibniz/monadology/monadology.html
End song: The soothing “Healthy Song” by The MayTricks, from the 1994 album Happy Songs Will Bring You Down.
Episode 0: Introduction to the Podcast
Posted by Mark Linsenmayer in Podcast Episodes on July 25th, 2009
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 10:06 — 9.3MB)
Listen to this here episode first. A priori, that is. Before experiencing the world yourself.
Why should you bother to go through the trouble of downloading and listening to one of the full length episodes? Who are we anyway? Why shouldn’t you just go listen to some philosophy lectures posted by university professors instead of this thing? Do you need to listen to the episodes in order? Do you need to already know a lot about philosophy to get anything out of this podcast? Should you listen to it while pleasuring yourself? Most of these questions will be answered here!
End song: “New People” by New People.
Episode 5: Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics
Posted by Mark Linsenmayer in Podcast Episodes on July 16th, 2009
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:41:17 — 0.0KB)
Discussing Books 1 and 2.
What is virtue, and how can I eat it? Do not enjoy this episode too much, or too little, but just the right amount. Apparently, if you haven’t already have been brought up with the right habits, you may as well give up. Plus, is Michael Jackson the Aristotelian ideal?
You can read the text discussed at http://www.constitution.org/ari/ethic_00.htm.
End song: A newly recorded cover of Billie Jean by Mark Lint and the TransAmerikanishers. (Hear it by itself here.)
PEL written up in Madison’s Isthmus magazine
Posted by Mark Linsenmayer in General Announcements on July 13th, 2009
The big weekly entertainment magazine in Madison, WI included a writeup of the podcast in this article: http://www.thedailypage.com/isthmus/article.php?article=26356&sid=f8b220e5953615e25217a596b717e6fd
We’re mentioned at the end of the first section, then have a couple of paragraphs under “Talk Talk” near the end, plus the “Gallery” includes the excellent caricature that Ken Gerber did for us. (Incidentally, you should check out Ken’s blog at http://cartoonstand.wordpress.com/ if you haven’t already.)
A new place for discussion: urbanphilosophy.net
Posted by admin in General Announcements on July 8th, 2009
In addition to our Facebook page, we now have dedicated forum/discussion space on UrbanPhilosophy.net: http://urbanphilosophy.net/pel/. Participating there requires registering for an account, but it’s a simple and quick procedure that doesn’t cost anything or require to enter any more personal information than your e-mail. Also, Seth has posted an article there on Judaism, if you’re interested in that.
Updated FAQ/bio pages
Posted by Mark Linsenmayer in General Announcements on June 22nd, 2009
If you’re new to the podcast/blog or just wanted to know a bit more about who we are and why we’re doing this, check out the expanded “about the podcast” and the new “about the podcasters” pages. (Wes took a while to get his biography text to me, so I had exerpts from Hitler’s biography up there as a placeholder for a bit, but it should be mostly accurate now, except for the part about Seth being an intelligence spontaneously emerged from the Internet itself existing simultaneously in all of the Earth’s computers. (…this is not quite true because, of course, not all computers are connected to the Internet.)
Episode 4: Camus and the Absurd
Posted by Mark Linsenmayer in Podcast Episodes on June 22nd, 2009
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:37:18 — 89.2MB)
Discussing Camus’s “An Absurd Reasoning” and ”The Myth of Sisyphus.”
Does our eventual death mean that life has no meaning and we might as well end it all? Camus starts to address this question, then gets distracted and talks about a bunch of phenomenologists until he dies unreconciled. Also, let’s all push a rock up a hill and like it, okay? Plus, the fellas dwell on genius and throw down re. the Beatles, the beloved Robert C. Solomon and Malcom Gladwell’s Outliers.
An abridged version of the reading covered with most of the good stuff in it is here: http://www.humboldt.edu/~jwp2/sisyphus.htm. An unabridged version of “An Absurd Reasoning” is here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/3223928/Albert-Camus-The-Myth-Of-Sisyphus.
End song: “My Friends” by Mark Lint and the Simulacra (2000).
Episode 3: Hobbes’s Leviathan: The Social Contract
Posted by admin in Podcast Episodes on June 7th, 2009
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:38:15 — 90.0MB)
Discussing Hobbes’s Leviathan, Chapters 13-15.
Have we implicitly signed a social contract whereby our native right to punch other people in the face is given to the President? Hobbes does things that eventually result in the U.S. Constitution and makes Wes nauseous. Plus: Star Trek and the Bible!
You can get the reading from http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-c.html
End song: “The Villa” by Mark Lint and the Fake Johnson Trio (1998).
Now on iTunes!
Posted by admin in General Announcements on June 2nd, 2009
You can now find us in the podcast section of iTunes. Go subscribe!
Episode 2: Descartes’s Meditations: What Can We Know?
Posted by admin in Podcast Episodes on May 13th, 2009
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:39:04 — 90.7MB)
Discussing Descartes’s Meditations 1 and 2.
Descartes engages in the most influential navel gazing ever, and you are there! In this second and superior-to-the-first installment of our lil’ philosophy discussion, we discuss what Descartes thinks he knows with certainty (hint: it is not you), the Matrix, and burning-at-the-stake.com. Mark and Wes agree to disagree about agreeing that they disagree. Seth had a long day and is very tired. Plus: Some listener feedback; whom is this here podcast aimed at? Why, you, of course!
To increase your enjoyment, download and read Descartes Meditations 1 and 2.
Here, also, is the Descartes chunk of Philosophy and the Matrix that Seth refers to.
End song: “Axiomatic” by New People (2009)
Part 2 of Episode 1: “The Unexamined Life Is Not Worth Living.”
Posted by admin in Podcast Episodes on May 13th, 2009
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 45:00 — 41.2MB)
More discussion of Plato’s “Apology.”
Incidentally, the “celibacy society” that Seth refers to at one point in here has a T-shirt.
Part 1 of Episode 1: “The Unexamined Life Is Not Worth Living.”
Posted by admin in Podcast Episodes on May 12th, 2009
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 42:11 — 38.6MB)
Discussing Plato’s “Apology.”
This reading is all about how Socrates is on trial for acting like an ass and proceeds to act like an ass and so is convicted. Big surprise. On this our inaugural discussion, Mark, Seth, and Wes talk about how philosophers are arrogant bastards who neglect their children, how people of all political stripes don’t usually examine their fundamental beliefs (but probably should), why it might be better to know you know nothing than to only think that you know nothing, and how Plato was a super genius all of whose texts you should worship uncritically. Plus : podcaster philosophical origin stories, like when Wes was bitten by a radioactive Anaxagoras.
To increase your enjoyment, download and read Plato’s Apology.

Share with your friends on...