About the Podcasters
The podcasters were all graduate students in philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin back in the Clinton years. They all left the program at some point before getting their doctorates and have consequently since had time to get outside that whole weird world of academia and reflect on it and the various philosophical topics with a different, and probably much more lazy, perspective.
Mark Linsenmayer has lived in Madison, WI since 2000, has two little kids, and works from home writing about transportation research. He’s got a band called New People, a big catalog of work with previous bands, and dabbles in fiction (read this. When in grad school for philosophy, he mostly studied continental philosophy and philosophy of mind, with interests in phenomenology and explanations of consciousness. He more recently taught an ethics course for several semesters at Lakeland College.
After growing up as an Air Force brat, Seth Paskin went to Reed College in Portland, OR for undergrad and UT @ Austin in 1992 for grad school. After taking a leave of absence from his dissertation, he never went back and has spent 12 years in various roles in the technology industry. Seth is strongly committed to the Austin community, recently retiring from the Board of Crime Prevention Institute, an area non-profit that serves ex-offenders. In grad school he focused on German philosophy, particularly Martin Heidegger, and spent some time looking at the intersection of Jewish and Western thought.
Wes Alwan (wesalwan@gmail.com) lives in Boston, Massachusetts, where he works at home as a writer and researcher. Born in Savannah, GA, he spent part of his childhood in England and Ireland, and has also lived in Maryland, Texas, Manhattan, Maine, and Virginia. In grad school he focused on Ancient philosophy and then Kant and Nietzsche. For his undergraduate degree he attended a small liberal arts (“great books”) school in Annapolis Maryland, called St. John’s college, where he studied the history of science and mathematics, philosophy, and comparative literature.
Dylan Casey studied physics and political philosophy as an undergrad at Michigan State University and experimental high energy particle physics as a graduate student at the University of Rochester, working primarily on the Dzero experiment at Fermilab in Illinois. For the past ten years he’s been on the faculty at St. John’s College. He has abiding interests in pragmatism, field theory, and the notion of authority. He’s currently on leave, living in Middleton, WI, working for Accuray, Inc. He’s also Mark’s brother-in-law. Dylan is the newest “regular” on the ‘cast, but appeared as a guest as far back as episode 13.
You may also read blog posts here by occasional guest Daniel Horne; he also helps with our Twitter feed and is entirely responsible for our YouTube presence. Daniel lives in San Francisco with his wife and cat and practices immigration law for a living. He provides pro bono legal aid through the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and AILA’s Military Assistance Program. A philosophy dilettante, his sole undergraduate exposure to the subject was reading too much Camus and Sartre. He turned to philosophy later in life after developing an interest in ontology, and is currently obsessed with Wittgenstein. He speaks Japanese poorly.
We include guest participants on many of our episodes, and can often rope those folks into contributing to this blog as well. To learn about any of these people, just do a search on this site to find the episode the person appeared on, which will typically link to his or her blog or other web page. If you would like to appear on the ‘cast and/or contribute to the blog, you can pitch yourself to us via e-mail.
"I’ve never before heard my work discussed like that, and rarely as intelligently ... I listened to the whole podcast, and felt exalted afterward." -- Arthur Danto
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. Discuss episodes and provide feedback here or via our Facebook group. You can also e-mail comments to mark@marklint.com or wesalwan@gmail.com.
Subscribe, rate, and read reviews on iTunes. 
Five Stars after 200+ iTunes Ratings.
"Intelligent and funny -- a rare combo. The best philosophy podcast on iTunes. In fact, one of the best podcasts on iTunes." More Reviews.
#1 by Andres Erazo on December 31, 2009 - 2:14 pm
I fell asleep to your “Kant and ethics” cast. Not because it was boring but because it was so long. I wasn’t prepared for it. I like hearing new shit when going to bed. I will probably hear them all but my question is or maybe just a comment: Can you guys discuss some Foucault. I have enjoyed rereading his Madness and Civilization and wonder if you make references to him in any other of your p-casts. I wonder if it is really worth learning french just so I can read him better. This philosopher in particular likes to play with words.
#2 by Mark Linsenmayer on December 31, 2009 - 2:44 pm
Yes, the podcasts can be long… still shorter than an actual graduate seminar, but we do get into it. I’m not sure if spreading it over multiple listening sessions makes you lose the thread…
Foucault is definitely on the list, though it may be a while before we get to him. After Husserl and Heidegger, for sure, to make it comprehensible.
Thanks for your comment, Andres!
-ML
#3 by Seth Paskin on January 2, 2010 - 12:03 pm
I haven’t fallen asleep yet while we are recording an episode, but I suppose there is that possibility…
I’m a fan of Foucault, very much enjoyed The Order of Things and Discipline and Punish (particularly the latter). Perhaps we can use one of his published lectures as a text.
By all means learn French for any number of reasons, but I think there is much to get out of Foucault in translation.
#4 by Wes Alwan on January 2, 2010 - 6:46 pm
And check out this debate between Foucault/Chomsky — lots of fun. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WveI_vgmPz8
Chomsky hates postmodernists (Foucault of course would deny being one), but he respected Foucault and apparently they were friends.
For a quick course in French for reading: http://www.amazon.com/French-Reading-Knowledge-Joseph-Palmeri/dp/096618436X
#5 by Daniel Horne on March 3, 2010 - 5:44 pm
Great great podcast, you guys. I think you could expand your listenership even further were you to set up a PartiallyExaminedLife Twitter.com account. You laugh, but clever leveraging of the “#” hashtags, will double your listenership within 3 months. (I’ll buy a mug if I’m wrong!) I just checked; Twitter has hashtags like #phenomenology, #heidegger, #camus, etc. It’s just a thought – you guys perform a great and rare service, and I want to see your project succeed!
#6 by Wes Alwan on March 5, 2010 - 3:35 am
Hi Daniel,
Thanks very much — I think Mark has been looking into this but I’m not sure how far we’ve gotten; and the hash tags are good advice. If it works we’ll buy you the mug!
Wes
#7 by Greg Wilson on March 6, 2010 - 1:01 pm
Gentlemen,
This is just a quick note to thank you for creating your podcast. Your conversations bring me a much richer understanding, humor and practical application to what have been otherwise difficult to interpret subjects.
I trust that future conversations will include Russell, Popper and Sartre among others. Please keep it going and know your efforts are truly appreciated.
Greg Wilson
Sarasota, FL
#8 by Wes Alwan on March 7, 2010 - 3:21 am
Thanks very much Greg!
#9 by Linda OReilly on March 18, 2010 - 9:49 am
I was pretty sure that I’d died and gone to heaven when I found your p-casts.
Substantial, humorous, up to date.
Bless your hearts,
Linda
Tacoma, WA
#10 by Wes Alwan on March 18, 2010 - 10:07 am
Thanks Linda — much appreciated!
#11 by Kathleen Ryan on April 24, 2010 - 7:47 am
I started listening to your podcasts with a predisposition to hate them, to think you’d tend to go off in unnecessarily trivial directions (like the phil. classes I’m taking now at a graduate level). Esp. when I noted how long they were. Also thought I’d hate 3 potentially “a-hole” guys shooting off their mouths as though they owned the world (also similar to my phil. classes). Was I dead wrong! You guys are very substantive, and really try to make things clear and comprehensible, even/esp. as you try to unwrap your disagreements. PLUS: you all sound like really wonderful people (how little I know; I recognize the problem here
)))). So my complements to you. Plan to listen to everything you’ve got now, instead of just picking and choosing what is coincidentally related to my grad school course plan. Many thanks to your making life (though not necessarily MINE!! 
)) ) worth examining.
#12 by Seth Paskin on April 24, 2010 - 12:19 pm
Thanks Kathleen! I won’t try and read into your ‘predisposition to hate’ based on your current phil. classes but suspect I understand where you are coming from. In any case I am glad you find us substantive, clear and suspect we are ‘wonderful’.
I won’t disabuse you of any of those views – but check back in after a couple more episodes and let us know. Also, let us know topics you might be interested to have us address and share where/what you are studying, if you care to.
–seth
#13 by Wes Alwan on April 26, 2010 - 2:46 pm
Kathleen, that’s a great compliment — I love the redemption of going from asshole to wonderful in a few minutes! Like Seth, I hope other episodes don’t disappoint.
#14 by Jonathan on May 10, 2010 - 9:15 am
Let me begin by saying that I have almost actively avoided philosophy in my academic exploits. However, as I get older (26) I am seeing that, especially in political science, a good philosophy foundation is imperative. I cycled through so many dry and academic podcasts, articles, journals, and videos until I stumbled upon your podcast on open culture. I cannot thank you guys enough for finally giving me a good launching pad. I love the fact that I do not agree with any of you all the time and I never disagree with anyone all the time. As my first comment, hopefully not my last, I just wanted to ask Seth about what exactly he does with his non-profit? I have been bouncing around trying to find my direction and am currently disgusted by how our system of higher learning is set up. I have been recently reading a lot about mass incarceration and the issues surrounding it, including of course getting ex-prisoners adjusted back into society. I was hoping maybe Seth could help explain a little about his work, it sounds very interesting. I also want to say that sometime soon, after reading some Peter Singer, I will surely comment on the failure of current aid strategies because I think you guys missed a few points on the limitations and successes that could come from global initiatives. Thank you guys again and I hope that I can jump in an contribute to the discussion even as a mere novice.
#15 by Seth Paskin on May 11, 2010 - 9:33 am
Jonathan–
I’ll give you the short answer here – we can correspond privately if you’d like to dig deeper. The organization I work with is Crime Prevention Institute (www.cpiaustin.org), which provides case management and transitional services to offenders in the state jail near Austin and a women’s prison about 2 hours away.
The bulk of our clients are the men, so I’ll focus on them. The type of crime committed determines where offenders are housed. The state jail typically houses guys who commit non-violent drug and property crimes and are habitual repeat offenders. These are the hardest guys to work with, caught in the proverbial ‘cycle of crime’.
Ironically, in addition to having no systemic pre-release treatment to try and rehabilitate them, Texas also does not provide post-release help to these offenders. In other words, there is no ‘parole’ program for these guys – when their 6 month to 2 year sentences are up, if no one comes to get them, they are simply bussed downtown and dropped off.
Many have no state issued ID, no family or no way to contact them, no money and only the clothes on their back. It’s not hard to see that many easily fall back into the patterns of behavior that got them arrested in the first place (drug use, theft), perhaps some of them intentionally.
Our organization attempts to break into the cycle by working with the offenders directly, 1×1, starting up to 6 months prior to their release. Clients are self-selecting as there is no court or jail mandated requirement to join our program. We help them to examine behaviors and past experiences, understand the environmental and psychological triggers that cause their behavior, teach them how to do things like fill out a job application and take an interview and, when released, get them transitional housing, clothing, ID and help them find a job.
Employment is the #1 counter-indicator for recidivism, so our post-release program is focused on the guys getting jobs and keeping them. We provide financial ‘bonuses’ at certain milestones if they can get and keep a job. CPI was originally founded specifically for this purpose.
In any case, that’s a thumbnail sketch. If you’d like to explore further, let me know.
–seth
#16 by Fernando Rossello on July 30, 2010 - 11:27 pm
Dear Mark, Seth and Wes,
My name is Fernando Rossello. I am a PhD student and I live in Mlebourne, Australia.
Thank you all for the podcast and information posted within, I really enjoy it and find it entertaining and clarifying.
I do not know whether this is the right place to write what follows and I am sorry if it is not.
I am a about to submit my PhD thesis in plant molecular biology and, from the 2nd. year of my PhD, I realised that I am not enjoying what I am doing at all and do not see myself working in this field in the future.
I have always been interested in Philosophy and I have been reading general introductory books, plus some epistemology, since I was an undergraduate.
My question/s is/are whether you think there is a chance for me to start/do Philosophy? Do I need another PhD? Is there any chance to start even though I come from a completely different background?
Thanks in advance.
Kind regards,
Fernando.
#17 by Mark Linsenmayer on July 31, 2010 - 12:40 pm
Hi, Fernando. Thanks for the kind words.
Re. your dilemma, my personal advice would be to (of course) finish your current PhD since you’re that far already (congratulations!), get some kind of non-academic job that uses the skills you’ve acquired, and take at least a year or two in that to see how much you miss academia and to build up some cash, which philosophy will not get you in any case. There are certainly some philosophy-related jobs like Dylan Casey’s at St. John’s that don’t require a philosophy degree, i.e. he has a particle physics PhD and worked in that for a couple of years, but I expect they are few and far between.
So, get a livable life using these livable skills you’ve already learned, then use that as a foundation for learning more philosophy, whether that means taking classes or learning more on your own or whatever. Yes, I imagine that getting a PhD in philosophy would require mostly starting over as far as your academic credits are concerned, though maybe you could chop a year off or something, but that’s a question for your guidance counselor. As a PhD, I also imagine that you should be able to get into a philosophy program, and likely you could gain some philosophy credits at your current institution that would help… heck, if it’s only a matter of another year or two for a M.A. and you can afford the time and expense, check with your administration there if you can jump right in and earn that.
Good luck!
#18 by Fernando Rossello on July 31, 2010 - 7:21 pm
Thanks for your advice and enthusiasm Mark. I really, really appreciate them. Sometimes I am kind of lost and find it hard to hear sensible arguments.
Thanks again.
Fernando.
#19 by Wes Alwan on August 2, 2010 - 1:17 am
Fernando — I say go for it. You’ll need another degree if you want to teach it at the college level, although as Mark points out there are exceptions such as St. John’s. But I think that those degrees would make a great combination — and there are lots of departments who will be interested in someone with a doctorate in biology.
#20 by Fernando Rossello on August 2, 2010 - 3:03 am
Thanks Wes! I’ll start exploring these options while I finish my writing up. I have less than two months till my submission deadline (lots of fun).
I really appreciate all your suggestions.
Fernando.
#21 by Simon on September 2, 2010 - 11:05 pm
Hello guys!
I’ve listen to the first episode but I think you guys may have influenced my future and career position. Indeed, Im 18 and became a philosophy fan last year. Like you, I believed philosophy was the base of every science and that I would be a better person. Slowly, I have gained a sort of intellectual arrogance. I was really interested to study philosophy in university. By listening to this podcast, I felt angry at first. Suddenly, I discovered that a life over-examined wasnt really worth it. I lost my passion…in 40 min. Is it true? Is there really no money to be made? Should philosophy be partially part of my life instead of becoming one? I feel worthless…(sry I know this is not a therapy)
#22 by Seth Paskin on September 3, 2010 - 8:22 am
Simon–
I recently had a conversation with someone from a much bigger, much more successful company than the one I’m trying to run. The gist of it was ‘just because we couldn’t do it, doesn’t mean someone else can’t.’
I’ll pass that advice along to you and add that, you might want to wait to pass judgment on an academic career until you have the opportunity to try it. We are partially examined – that’s just us – but we have many colleagues from school who made a go of it and are happy and successful. Take our couple of hours of tongue wagging with a grain of salt. In two years, your outlook may be completely different.
–seth
#23 by Simon on September 8, 2010 - 11:02 pm
Well what I had in mind was to be like the other past known philosophers and publish crazy ideas but I guess this is not really realistic
I guess this obsession for wisdom will fade when I grow older and that philosophy will become a smaller part of my life. I’m just sad that our system that we’re living in can’t satisfy me both financially and intellectually.
#24 by Don on September 30, 2010 - 2:04 pm
So I’ve been working my way through the podcast after discovering it through enthusiastic word of mouth a month or so ago. Just now making it to the Danto on Art episode, I was struck by the intro conversation on your views regarding philosophy, specifically Seth’s discussion of just how much time and effort you guys put into doing this. I just wanted to say how much I appreciate that effort. Your podcast/blog is incredibly interesting and entertaining and I hope you find the energy to keep it up. I studied philosophy in college and, having graduated a couple of years ago now, miss it dearly. You guys go a long way toward keeping life interesting and frequently provoke late-night sessions of drunken philosophizing among other recent grad friends of mine. Fantastic work.
#25 by Wes Alwan on September 30, 2010 - 10:31 pm
Hi Don — thanks very much! It’s that kind of feedback that keeps us going.
#26 by Seth Paskin on October 1, 2010 - 12:22 pm
@Don – that we are inspiring other people to independently have late-night sessions of drunken philosophizing justifies the efforts. Thanks!
#27 by Robert on October 23, 2010 - 4:54 am
Thanks for taking the time and effort to put this show out guys. My wife and I really love it, and it makes commuting a whole lot easier.
Have you thought about a Kierkegaard podcast? As a student I discovered him through Sickness unto Death and in his Journals and it completely changed my philosophical direction and still to this day is a huge influence on me.
Joseph Campbell (though not a philosopher in the strict sense) could also be an interesting idea for a show, specifically the concept of the hero with a thousand faces.
#28 by Seth Paskin on October 23, 2010 - 10:47 am
Thanks Robert – ask and ye shall receive! Our next podcast (that we are preparing for, not the one in the can that we are editing for post) will be on Kierkegaard, The Sickness Unto Death. Should be done in about 5 weeks.
–seth
#29 by Robert on October 23, 2010 - 11:38 am
Great! We look forward to hearing it. Thanks Seth.
#30 by Michelle on October 28, 2010 - 6:48 pm
Hi guys. Thank you so much for this show. It means a lot to me. Here’s the story – I was dating and fell for this PhD. (guy) in philosophy. Long story short, he dumped me for another girl after a year together. I was hurt, of course. But, one of the things I missed most were our long, philosophical conversations (mostly over a beer) and reading together. I hadn’t had much exposure to philosophy before him and felt intimidated by it as an undergrad. So, you guys have sort of been acting as a surrogate and it has brought a lot of joy and fulfillment to my life that I was afraid i had lost for good. Now, I know I can pursue this on my own, in my free-time. thanks again! Michelle
#31 by Seth Paskin on October 28, 2010 - 10:33 pm
Thanks Michelle! We know how hard it is to resist Philosophy grad students…:)
I’m glad if we are contributing in some small way to rekindling the fire!
–seth
#32 by Andrew on December 13, 2010 - 8:08 pm
Seth,
I’ve been really enjoying your podcasts recently. Although I only started listening about a week ago I have already gone through ~5 episodes.
I was wondering if you have ever listened to “Conversations from the Pale Blue Dot”? It is more of an interview context with a new guest and topic each episode, seems like something you might enjoy.
To get to why I addressed this specifically to you, Seth, (other than the fact the you are the heart and soul of the show) is because I recently relocated to Austin, Texas & although this might be an awkward forum for this, I was wondering if your business EstaNoche was hiring by any chance?
I attempted to find application information on the site but was unable to, I hope this isn’t too out of line.
Keep up the good work!
#33 by Andrew on December 14, 2010 - 12:05 am
One more quick question.
For some reason I’ve been trying to teach myself predicate logic recently… I want to say something witty to make that not sound as nerdy as it is, but I can’t.
Anyway, since I believe at least one of you have studied this, I was wondering if you could tell me if I formulated the following correctly:
[(B ∈ A)*(A = ¬V(C))*(E ∈ D)*(D ∈ C)]–>(B = ¬V(E))
(1) If PHYSICS a member of the PHYSICAL SCIENCES
(2) And the Physical Sciences are defined as not investigating Living Systems
(3) And a Living Human must have a Mind
(4) And a Living Human is a Living System
(5) Then Physics does not investigate the Mind
A = Physical Sciences
B = Physics
C = Living Systems
D = Living human body
E = Mind
V = Investigate(x)
Is that close to how it works? Or am I WAY off?
#34 by Anh-vu Doan on January 15, 2011 - 1:47 am
Andrew- Two little nitpicky problems with the terminology you use. (3), what your formulation really says is “and a mind is part of a living human” and (4) “a living human is part of a living system”.
#35 by Tim on January 23, 2011 - 8:05 pm
what do you think about http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffriMne_kXQ&feature=fvw
#36 by Seth Paskin on January 24, 2011 - 8:15 am
Nice!
#37 by Tom McDonald on February 1, 2011 - 3:43 pm
Kudos to you guys for putting together such excellent programs. What makes them such a pleasure is the balance you guys strike between substantive engagement with the material and the humor, which is also conducive to insight. Looking forward to more.
Cheers,
Tom
http://zuhanden.com/
New York, NY
#38 by Rémy Fortin on February 22, 2011 - 3:23 pm
Hey guys, just wanted to say that I really enjoy the podcast, and keep up the good work.
I was a philosophy student for my first year of university before switching to music, and in the 8 years that have flown by since I have kept on reading but I have often felt like I don’t get much of a chance to discuss those readings. Your podcast gives me a chance to actually reflect on some of these readings, as your perspectives on a lot of this material are usually quite enlightening and help to widen my understanding of the subjects I’ve already encountered, and it also allows me to have a way to approach works that I may wish to read in the future.
Again, great job, and many thanks for the work that you do!
#39 by Mark Linsenmayer on February 22, 2011 - 10:03 pm
Thanks, Rémy!
#40 by Rémy Fortin on February 23, 2011 - 2:43 pm
Hey guys, I’m writing a second message because there was something I forgot to mention in the first one. I hope this is the right place to do so.
I was wondering how familiar you guys are with Voltaire’s ideas on religious tolerance and religious freedom (I’m thinking mainly of his “Traité sur la tolérance” and his “Dictionnaire Philosophique”), and if you would consider it a good topic for one of your discussions? In particular I would be curious to see what your take is on how his views contrast/convene with the Western world’s current attitude towards multiculturalism and the special treatment that is often accorded in the name of religious freedom.
I’ll admit I haven’t yet listened to the Spinoza episodes (which I’ll be doing shortly), nor have I familiarized myself too much with Spinoza’s works, so I don’t know if it would be too redundant or not, but in any case I was curious to get your take on it.
I would be more than overjoyed if you would consider doing an episode on it, but just getting you guys opinion on it would mean a lot.
#41 by Seth Paskin on February 24, 2011 - 7:44 am
Rémy–
I can’t say I’m familiar with Voltaire and I’d venture to guess that if any one of us is, it would be Wes. His name has been mentioned by listeners before and maybe now that we’ve cracked the ‘canon’ and done Montaigne, we’ll find a place for an episode on him. I can say that we have a pretty full slate for the next couple of months.
I don’t think you’ll find that the Spinoza is redundant. Thanks for the input and I’ll talk to the other guys about Voltaire.
–seth
#42 by Rémy Fortin on February 24, 2011 - 6:55 pm
I might not have chosen the right word by saying redundant, which sounds a bit harsh. What I meant was that it might not be as interesting for you guys and for the listeners to have an episode on Voltaire from a religious perspective if his ideas where too similar to those of Spinoza. I’ve actually had a chance to listen to the first Spinoza episode, and it is quite far from redundant.
In any case, thanks for the reply Seth, and I’ll certainly be listening in regularly no matter what the topic!
#43 by Wes Alwan on March 1, 2011 - 1:24 am
Thanks Remy — I’ve only read Candide (great of course), but I’ll check out the works you mention ASAP. Right up my alley.
#44 by Megan on March 6, 2011 - 9:12 pm
Hey guys!
I found your podcast by randomly searching for “philosophy” on Zune — I just graduated from St. John’s, and was hoping to think about philosophy without having to talk to other Johnnies, which usually devolves into reminiscence/gossip. Needless to say, I laughed out loud when Wes started talking about SJC in the very first episode! Also just listened to the episode with Mr. Casey — so funny. Is the philosophical community really that small and incestuous?
Anyway, I just wanted to say that I enjoy your podcasts very much! It’s refreshingly informal after the kind of philosopher-worship common at SJC. Keep up the good work!
Megan
#45 by Wes Alwan on March 6, 2011 - 10:32 pm
Thanks Megan! Very glad to hear from a Johnnie
.
#46 by Owen Cantrell on March 7, 2011 - 10:26 pm
Hey guys, love the podcast. I have an undergraduate degree in Philosophy and am currently working on a PhD in English but I do miss it sometimes. Have you considered a Frankfurt school episode? I would love to hear a more philosophically-derived take
Cheers,
Owen
#47 by Wes Alwan on March 10, 2011 - 3:29 pm
Thanks Owen — yes, we’ll get around to the Frankfurt School eventually. Perhaps it’s time for the Culture Industry and all that.
#48 by NeilE on March 11, 2011 - 8:16 am
Hey Wes, I just clicked on the ketchupandcaviar.com link above and it looks like someone in India has hijacked your blog URL. Have you relocated somewhere else?
#49 by Wes Alwan on March 11, 2011 - 1:24 pm
Thanks for the heads up NeilE – I took that link off the page (I stopped using that blog some time ago).
#50 by Luis on March 13, 2011 - 10:43 am
Guys,
Though not a philosophy student nor desiring to be one, I enjoy the great (!?) thinkers of the past. Your postcasts fill a wide gap in my readings and done with a great sense of humor. There are many like us that find a little philosophy here and there enrich our lives. Thanks for sharing it.
Any Marx or Ortega Gasset? What about the irrational daoist philosophy?
Keep it up. I love your pods!
#51 by Mark Linsenmayer on March 13, 2011 - 1:37 pm
Thanks, Luis. What Ortega y Gasset would you recommend? I’ve looked a bit at him…
Marx will happen some time before the end of summer for sure.
#52 by saralynn on April 9, 2011 - 7:12 am
I just discovered your podcasts and I’m thrilled. Never took a philosophy course in my life, but, became a jolly existentialist in the 60′s because it was just so cool. I guess I’m still an existentialist, but no longer jolly. Maybe, by listening faithfully to you guys, I can find a new philosophy to endorse that will comfort me as i slink forward toward the grave.
#53 by Mark Linsenmayer on April 9, 2011 - 9:56 am
Thanks, saralynn!
#54 by stephen on April 20, 2011 - 12:36 pm
So anyway, I was going to post again in the “Hegel and Self Consciousness” thread, but I guess I formulate my thoughts too slowly and anyway the discussion is long dead at this point. I just wanted get sort of meta about the discussion you guys were having and maybe bookend things by saying a little something about the show. It seems to me that Hegel uses Platonic dialogue, philosophic discussion, in other words, as a kind of normative ideal. It’s not called dialectic for nothing. Not to over state things, but mutual recognition, the rational community of sentient beings, seems to be his ultimate good. In keeping with Hegel’s project of finding transcendence in immanence, you might say that the best example of his ultimate end is Socrates from the Symposium, the philosopher as the spirit of love, the selfless citizen speaking out of hte agora, earnestly reaching out to people, trying to help them and improve them.
Philosophy both brings about and is this good, not because of any of the particular theories one might put forward, but rather at the performative level. A good discussion of philosophy requires mutual trust, good will and transparency among the participants. It requires, above all, that they enter into a genuine dialogue with otherness. Sadly, that kind of a discussion seems all to rare in contemporary American life. Language reflects the common life of its speakers, and our contemporary language is so infected with baloney, fakery, puffery and pretentiousness only because our common life seems to be going through a particularly unsettled and disordered part of its history at the moment. One gets so tired of listening to people talking past each other, or looking for the cheap and easy ego boost. The chance to listen to or participate in a good discussion is all too rare nowadays.
Not to be too corny or long winded about things, but I am trying to articulate (hopefully in appropriately Hegelian terms) what it is that I like about your show. They are good discussions, and remind me what it is that I loved about philosophy in the first place.
#55 by Tom McDonald on April 20, 2011 - 2:07 pm
Really well said Stephen.
I think I appreciate the show Mark, Seth, and Wes have put together for the same reasons. Just compare the informality and life of Plato’s dialogs to the formal, technocratic, straitjacketed, career-driven character of most modern academic philosophy.
It’s the smart but informal character of the show that makes it attractive compared to much of the other philosophy discussion out there. It might seem a cliche to say that it’s the authenticity of a philosophical discussion that is not career-driven, but then it would be a cliche because it is partly true.
BTW, I really like your description of Hegel’s project. While the postmodernists have copped Hegel’s emphasis on the community of mutual recognition, they unfortunately leave out the rational part of his description (even though for Hegel rationality is a normative rather than metaphysical concept). And on the other hand most liberals, libertarians, and scientists (in the United States at least) think that the ‘life of reason’ means technical optimization or utility maximization rather than the discourse of ideals.
- Tom McDonald
#56 by stephen on April 20, 2011 - 9:19 pm
Absolutely. That is what Hegel gives and what we need, a normative account of reason. The postmodernist idea of trying to escape reason itself into some kind of vague, new agey, feel good togetherness doesn’t seem like any kind of solution. Without that account, the culture of reason destroys the ethical norms that hold society together and becomes self destructive. (BTW, Lee Smolin makes a similar point about how the lack of community among physicists has stalled progress in fundamental physics in the last part his book The Trouble with Physics. )
What we have now in modern science and technology is hyper developed means logic (“How do I get A?”), but without an adequate ends logic (“Should I desire A or B?” Where A may mean, for example, nuclear missiles and tanks and B better schools and a lower poverty rate). Not to go all Adorno on everyone, but without ends logic, the development of reason leads straight to Auschwitz. Those, I think, are the mistakes.
Now, what has to happen in order there to be such an ends logic? For isn’t it the truth that many human communities have existed throughout history, and each have had their own ideas about how people should live and act? Doesn’t that show ideas of good and right are all relative, and that none is ultimately better than any other?
In other words, what makes the development of a viable ends logic so difficult is that our epoch is burdened with the knowledge of historical contingency. We are midgets walking around in a cemetary of decaying monuments. We can read their inscriptions and the story of their lives and know that they didn’t live and believe as we do. Who believes anymore that the capital “T” Truth, eternal and immutable, is out there anymore?
Hegel’s answer seems necessary to me. If the truths of historicism are real, but the capital “T” Truth about the Good and the Beautiful and the True really exists, than it has to in some way include time and change as something essentially a part of itself. If history is inescapable but reality is rational, than history must itself be rational. There must be some kind of progress. We must be going somewhere, and all the losses that happen, the atrocities and tragedies of history, must be redeemed in the end. If not, then everything is for naught. In fact, I will venture to say (perhaps repeating Allan Bloom’s point at the end of his intro to Kojeve), that the basic choice in philosophy today is one between Hegel and Nietzsche’s more somber historicism.
Now of course, one can be skeptical at this point and say, “Well, I’d like there to be progress, but I just don’t think that the world works that way.” A natural enough reaction, but one that, in a way, misses the point. Hegel is preeminently a performative thinker, a thinker of the truth as performative, as the result of the subject’s activity rather than something that we find passively “out there”. To say “I don’t believe it’s true” misses the point that for Hegel ethical truths become true by becoming a part of the life of the community. We make them true by believing in them together, and by convincing others to believe as well. That is Spirit.
Perhaps this will be incomprehensible to the people of a society whose idea of a great ethical thinker is John Rawls, but to me, Hegel is precisely trying to get us to believe that the world really is going somewhere, and all this suffering and pain will not be in vain. He is the great Post-Christian philosopher poet preaching that out of love of the world we must believe this.
#57 by Zachary Beers on May 4, 2011 - 3:33 pm
I just wanted to extend a thank you for your podcast. I recently graduated from York University with a Philosophy degree, and have to admit, I relied on your podcast to help spark a lot of insight into the issues I was studying. In fact, your discussion of philosophy of mind, and specifically the objections to Dennet, were crucial to a paper I had the honor of presenting at a conference today (you’d be proud Wes, I did my best to dismantle him thoroughly). Just thought you might like to know that an undergrad in Toronto has been following your works with great pleasure for a while now. keep up the good work!
#58 by Wes Alwan on May 5, 2011 - 12:53 am
Thanks Zachary, much appreciated — and glad the episode helped! Could you send me your paper?
#59 by Lucie Novotna on May 27, 2011 - 1:45 pm
Hi, i just wanted to thank you for the podcast. I study philosophy in czech republic and our university does not offer lectures about some themes (f.e. about Hegel, pragmatism..) so i am listening you guys like an introduction for reading and it really helps me a lot..
i recomended your podcast to all my friends. We start writing a bachelor thesis, so its really helpful to get a bigger overview than our university can provide..
#60 by Mark Linsenmayer on May 27, 2011 - 8:35 pm
Thanks, Lucie! So what sort of philosophy is big in the Czech Republic?
#61 by Lucie Novotna on May 28, 2011 - 4:18 am
Well, my university is new and really small.. We are just 3rd class of graduated philosophers in here.. I wouldnt generalizated that to a whole czech republic…
I think that bigger universities like Charles uni (one of the oldest unis in europe) can offer lectures about every theme.. 
But our small university is concerned much more on Analytical paradigm and Philosophy of mind.. It s alarming, we are not more in pragmatism, which i think can say a lot to that.. We are kind of rolling around.. well and we have great teacher for New age philosophy.. I was totally amazed by Spinozas philosophy.. hes my favourite one 
i like your 2 episodes about him.. You had a big discusion about his third kind of knowledge… Well as he go back to whole god thing in the end, i think he wanted just to point out, that somehow we can understand the God.. becouse if you are beleiving in god, its not a part of your life, like “ok today is the time to go to the church..” its a different point of view, you have a different attitude to reality.. You are taking it differently.. in a contrast to atheist, its quite obvious.. but it was not the topic of spinozas era, but i think that to understand god as he did, you really have to look at the whole world differently.. beacouse in this sense god is the Being, immanent, but hes not a brutal pantheist, it s really a different point of view.. Its a kind of intuitive.. Its not a knowledge like rational, or empirical, it something which you know, but you cannot share it.. it sounds like some religious esoteric feeling, but i dont mean it like that… Kind hard to write about something like that and in english also.. 
Hope, you understand even a part of what i meant.. 
#62 by Charles Blackmar on May 31, 2011 - 10:39 am
Hey guys, thanks for bringing a lighter side of philosophy. I enjoy the depth of talk, but being able to laugh at Philosophy is great. I have been studying this for years. I did my undergrad in Philosophy at University of North Florida and just obtained my MA in Theological Studies at Asbury Theological Seminary. I only name drop because I would love to get into a conversation of such that your group does. Keep it up.
#63 by Wes Alwan on May 31, 2011 - 12:56 pm
Thanks Charles!
#64 by Shawn on May 31, 2011 - 11:22 am
Howdy,
Absolutely love the work you are doing on this podcast. Interestingly we live in a world that has the capacity to produce you boys as well as Jersey Shore and Snooki. Hmmm. Can you explain this to me?
#65 by Wes Alwan on May 31, 2011 - 12:57 pm
Thanks Shawn — no philosopher has cracked the Jersey Shore phenomenon.
#66 by Shawn on May 31, 2011 - 6:49 pm
add “yet” to the end. I have been asking around and so far I have gotten the sense that the Jersey Shore people are living in what Hobbes would see as a pre social contract state (state of nature)…and that for a huge portion of the population watching Jersey Shore is like watching a train wreck in slow motion…
#67 by kathy on June 22, 2011 - 2:16 am
Is episode 10 still available? Ta, Kathy.
#68 by Mark Linsenmayer on June 22, 2011 - 9:04 am
Sure. http://www.partiallyexaminedlife.com/2009/10/19/episode-10-kantian-ethics-what-should-we-do/.
#69 by BDL on June 23, 2011 - 7:42 am
Please hurry up and do a wpodcast about Gadamer – I have to teach a course on philosophy of interpretation.
#70 by Mark Linsenmayer on June 23, 2011 - 10:05 am
I’m doubting that’ll happen before 2012. However, your confession here makes you a potential podcast guest candidate for that topic. E-mail me if you’re interested: mark@marklint.com.
#71 by Dai on June 30, 2011 - 10:28 pm
Hey guys, I really enjoyed the episode on Nagarjuna.
One question I didn’t feel was resolved by either Nagarjuna or your discussion of him is:
If there is no self, what is there to reincarnate?
#72 by Charles Vermette on December 14, 2011 - 4:33 am
Awesome podcast guys. It’s nice to hear other people discuss Hegel without either “Russelling” him into the ground, taking him to be the “manipulative” intellectual freak of the 19th century, OR discussing his philosophy only in Hegelian terms, engaging in discussions which, if taken seriously, end with the two interlocutors realizing they are “identical-in-difference” to each other, as well as the turkey sandwiches they are eating. Doing programming homework while listening to your podcast is akin to religious experience.
Keep it up!
#73 by Mark Linsenmayer on December 14, 2011 - 9:28 am
Thanks, Charles! No, our instruction on Hegel in school was too good to permit that kind of thing; trying to talk about continental philosophy in understandable English is one of the most fun and I think needed parts of this enterprise.
#74 by Jo on February 19, 2012 - 5:51 am
A little late but I have an answer to the Nagarjuna question.
There is a conventionally existent self. There is no ultimately existent self. So the self talked about as incarnating is conventional.
Simple.
#75 by Ben on July 1, 2011 - 7:02 pm
Howdy, I’ve only just discovered your podcast and having listened to the first few episodes I’m sold. It seems like a podcast which makes philosophy entertaining and palatable to the layman but also interesting and entertaining to somebody with some pre-existing knowledge of the subject is long overdue, and you guys do a fantastic job of it. The episode on Descartes really helped me generate some thoughts on his ideas (as an undergraduate philosophy major who has never taken enough interest in the French rationalist tradition) and sparked an interest for me to investigate further (at least as far as Spinoza and Leibniz).
Apologies if you’ve answered this question before (which I suspect you have many times, I’m just too lazy check through prior comments), but I was wondering if you’ll be doing anything on French thought deriving from the poststructuralist/postmodernist movement – Derrida, Foucault, Debord, Baudrillard etc?
Keep up the good work (and forgive me for signing off with a clichéd platitude).
#76 by Seth Paskin on July 3, 2011 - 6:59 pm
Thanks for listening and I’m glad you enjoy it!
We’ve discussed covering Foucault, Merleau-Ponty and some others. We want to work through some of the other stuff you need to understand their projects first. Check out our FB page for several interminably long comment threads about topic requests.
–seth
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_78865634659&ap=1
#77 by Robert Smith on July 16, 2011 - 12:49 pm
You guys were are a bunch of rich kids.
#78 by Seth Paskin on July 17, 2011 - 9:31 am
What to infer from Robert’s (at least not anonymous) statement? Is this a good thing or a bad thing? How is it a judgment on PEL? What’s the point of making this comment?
I can only perform the inference, Robert will have to speak for himself on the latter three. I assume he means that we were spoiled, having the luxury to go to grad school and spend time on a frivolous pursuit like philosophy, as rich kids are wont to do. In reality, rich kids usually go to better schools and study things like business and finance, so they can continue to be rich. Perhaps what Robert meant to say was that we were are [sic] like Berkeley trust fund kids, which implies the means and the spoiled without the compulsion to grow the family legacy via industry.
Would that it were true, dear Robert! Would that my family connections enabled me to go to an Ivy League school and that I didn’t have to teach and work while I was there, or apply for grants and fellowships, or actually begin a career starting from the bottom when I left. As it is, the kinds of people you meet in the military are – not surprisingly – more military folks. And they generally are not connected to the upper class, old-boy, spoil their kids culture to which I think you are referring.
There is no trust fund for me, I’m not a legacy at a top 10 university, there are no residence halls or science buildings named after my family. My grandfather, the first of my family born in the US, was a teacher in the NY public school system for 30 years. My dad was in the military. I chose to study philosophy at the schools I to which I applied and to which I was accepted. Now I work as a professional in technology.
So I dispute your assertion without having a fucking clue what you were trying to say with it or why you felt motivated to post. And now I feel somewhat angry with myself that I took the time to respond instead of letting Mark just delete it like he wanted to. Next time contribute something useful or interesting or save us the trouble instead.
#79 by Dylan McCombe on July 22, 2011 - 4:39 pm
Hey guys,
Thanks for doing this. It’s nice to listen to people discuss philosophy whom don’t sound like they played tennis with William Buckley.
For a possible topic -one I’d love to hear discussed- I suggest an examination of David Foster Wallace’s Amherst thesis, which criticized, and possibly disproved, fatalism. DFW, throughout all his writing, Infinite Jest, Consider the Lobster…, presents a wide breadth of possible topics, and a great way to culminate many of your past podcasts and show their contemporary uses.
Thanks guys, keep it up.
#80 by Charles Myro on July 30, 2011 - 11:50 pm
Hi Charles Myro here,
In answer to Dai up top on Nagarjuna,
let me take a stab at what Nagarjuna meant.
Reality is basically two things: the manifest and the unmanifest. The unmanifest gives rise to the manifest. Without the unmanifest there is no manifest. The manifest is not apart from the unmanifest but of the same substance as the wave is with the sea, but when the manifest goes the unimanifest remains. The unmanifest may be described within manifestation as unchanging being and love like a vast space. Beyond the manifest it has no qualities since it is unmanifest and qualities are of the manifest. It is the source of all the world manifest. The unmanifest is not a personality–rather it gives birth to all personality and all individuality and all entity.
This includes the sense or notion of “I”. The “I” is not independent from the unmanifest source source and does not exist independently of its source. There is no independent entity corresponding to “I”. All, including the “I” is the manifestation of the source only and nothing separate from it.
Thus the sense or notion of a separate self is only a manifestation of the source and is a kind of fiction, since in actuality there is only the unmanifest, being– if you will, which produces all the world. There is nothing of the world that has independence from the unmanifest or is self existing. There is no existence at all except the unmanifest and it alone is self existing.
And the manifest is entirely separate and untouched by the unimanifest.
The “I” is not self existing either;
the “I” is also a kind of fiction, for there is no separate “I”. When a thought of self arises saying, “I am this” or “I want this” or “I did this” or “I fear this” or “I will avoid this”, there is no separate entity there corresponding to the “I”. All separation is fiction. –all is only the operation of the manifest. Death then, is not the death of a separate individual entity but death is a manifestation of the unmanifest only. No independent separate entity has died because there is no such entity.
If there is survival of something of a personality or memory after death then this again is just the manifestation of the unmanifest and nothing else–there is no independent entity.
ANd this is why reincarnation does not imply a
self –as an independent entity separate from the being, the unmanifest—anymore than the person who died implies a separate entity.
It is as though the unmanifest represents itself as persons, creates the fiction of a separate person in a separate world to engage in a drama.
As waves upon the sea.
The Rishis of India say the highest realization is to realize that there is no separate self–only the unmanifest. To realize that one is unknowable yet one is, is to realize that one has always been free of all things and yet one is all things at the same time, and this is moksha– liberation.
Nisargadatta, a Kalicut sage said that when he looked within he realised he was this unknown, and when he looked outward he realized he was everything and between these two poles he lived his life.
At once completely absent and completely present. Yes, it is paradoxical. Part of the manifest dream of separation is to see this unknown being as a nothing, for it is the end of all knowing, all subject object relation. But the sage recognizes this as home, as the unchanging truth, complete, needing nothing (unlike the manifest world, which is based upon ever new desire and aim).
You could say that each of us is a dream of separation being dreamt by the unmanifest. Strip away all the dream and the unchanging being remains.
There is my stab at it, according to my understanding. Hope it helped.
#81 by Mark Satta on August 15, 2011 - 11:47 pm
Hey guys,
I was directed to your podcast earlier this spring and have really enjoyed and benefited from listening to your material. I’m starting grad school in philosophy this fall (ironically, I guess I’m a guy who at one point considered doing something other than philosophy for a living and then thought better of that. Although, somewhere in my currently anticipated 5 years of grad school I may change my mind once again).
I did my undergrad work at a school where analytic philosophy was the dominant focus so much of your commentary on continental philosophers in particular has provided a lot of useful insight (the Heidegger podcast being a great example).
So thanks. I look forward to continuing to listen.
#82 by Seth Paskin on August 16, 2011 - 8:19 am
Thank you Mark and congrats on going to grad school!
#83 by Frank W. Callo on August 19, 2011 - 6:41 am
Hey guys
Just wanted to say I love your podcast. Like you, I studied philosophy with an eye to entering academia. by the time I got through my undergraduate work, (with a few side tracks), I decided that academia was the last place I wanted to be, especially doing philosophy. I am now a gardener and homemaker.
I have especially enjoyed your podcasts on Chaung Tzu (who I adore) and Freud. Looking forward to listening to the one on Schopenhauer.
Thanks
Frank
#84 by Seth Paskin on August 19, 2011 - 8:26 am
Thanks Frank!
#85 by stable on August 23, 2011 - 12:20 am
You guys come across like you were a bunch of smart kids. I know not to mess with you guys or else either deletion or a smack down of Will Hunting competence is what’s in store. I’m a fan. Rich kids? Perhaps it is just a little typical indicator/reminder of the fact that America is still very much what’s been called, for lack of a better term, anti-intellectual? And why can’t poor kids have casual in depth and informed conversations about ideas and abstract systems of thought? “You must be some ‘elitist’ spoiled left-coaster”. Sad comment
#86 by Seth Paskin on August 29, 2011 - 8:25 am
I still think of myself as a smart kid.
#87 by Sharon on August 26, 2011 - 11:38 am
You guys are awesome!! I just listened to your podcast on Heidegger. I read him about four years ago. I didn’t get to go to college – I’ve been struggling to understand all this philosophy stuff for 30 years on my own. Being and Time was really tough. I checked it out four times from the library. Each time I had it for weeks and oh! what the fines cost me. I don’t know why I was so compelled to read him but the fourth time was the charm. It took forever. I had to sit with a dictionary and sometimes could only get through one paragraph in a day because of all the notes you have to read to just understand all his meaning on words like “dasein”. But, it changed my whole world view. For as long as I can remember, I’ve woken up each day wondering “what is this?!? this “thisness”? this experience?” Heidegger helped me understand something about this question at a very fundamental level. It changed so much for me and was worth all the work. I’ve so often wished I could talk to others about what I learned. I wished for a teacher to help me make connections and get the most out of it. That’s you guys!! And, you’re giving it away for free!! I love listening. Thanks.
#88 by Seth Paskin on August 29, 2011 - 8:30 am
Sharon–
If it’s any consolation, that was my experience with Heidegger as well (although I bought the book so didn’t incur the library fines). One of the things that I hope comes across through what we do is that if you approach a text with a generous heart and open mind, you will find that walking the path with the thinker is much more rewarding and enlightening than seeking to criticize or extracts ‘ideas’.
What I find by taking this approach is that some thinkers really reward such attentiveness and some don’t. It becomes clear very quickly which are which. Heidegger, Hegel, Kant, Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Wittgenstein to name a few are in the former camp.
–seth
#89 by trekker on August 30, 2011 - 12:15 pm
Seth,
I really appreciated reading your comment “if you approach a text with a generous heart and open mind, you will find walking the path with the thinker is much more rewarding and enlightening than seeking to criticize or extract ‘ideas’”.
Thank you for that. If only I had heard that as a young undergrad wanting to understand philosophy. I’m glad you are back. I wish you guys many, many, more years of sharing your insightful and entertaining dialogue.
#90 by Seth Paskin on August 31, 2011 - 8:16 am
Thank you trekker, it is much appreciated and a very, very nice way to comment to start my day!
#91 by Bob on September 4, 2011 - 3:04 pm
Hi Guys,
I’d just like to thank you for the nice podcasts. I enjoy them very much and also learned quite a lot. I wish you all the best and hope you will be able to continue for long!
If I can put a request I’d liek to here more about odern philosophy (say post war until now). I am a physicist interested in philosophy and while it’s easy to get lot’s of info from Aristotle to Wittgenstein, I don’t really have a overview of contemporary stuff… (Kripke maybe?) I know you covered a few guys and I just want to encourage you to do more!
My other wish is a bit harder. I very enjoyed the first episode, when you talked bit about leaving academia… I just a got my PhD and even found a really great post-doc, but yet… I have very serious doubts, how long I can carry on… I love science and have no illusions about “real” jobs… but leaving is a very serious possibility… I very much appreciated you talking about this a bit and seeing clever guys going on outside academia gives me hope, I guess… I realize this is not really in the mold of the podcast, but if you guys feel like talking more about this period of your life, I am sure I wouldn’t be the only one interested to hear about it.
Thanks in any case for the podcast and good luck in the future!
#92 by Seth Paskin on September 5, 2011 - 9:34 am
Thanks for the kind words Bob and we’re glad you are enjoying PEL. We do have a long list of ‘to-dos’ including post-war philosophers, although we will probably be focusing on so-called Continental thinkers in the near term (as there has been a lot of demand from our listenership.
Rather than have us talk more about our experience, why don’t you share your doubts and point of view on our FB page and see what others have to say.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/78865634659/
Thanks again,
–seth
#93 by Daniel on September 21, 2011 - 5:16 am
Any chance that you will do a podcast on Alfred North Whitehead and process philosophy?
#94 by Mark Linsenmayer on September 21, 2011 - 8:35 am
Yep, it’s on the list. Probably not in 2011 though.
#95 by Laura on October 14, 2011 - 9:59 pm
I just think you guys are so amazing. I’ve just started listening to your podcast which I plan to do completely and in consecutive order. I’ve developed a passion for philosophy recently (yes it was my favorite class in college) as I’ve turned away from lawyer work and been writing a novel. But the search for meaning haunts me then I found your podcast! And was thrilled to listen to super intelligent guys who made this search fun and…well, hopeful. Recently finished your 1st two podcasts and I can’t tell you how enjoyable it was to listen to everyone’s struggle to lead an “examined” life particularly the great clash between the contemplative life and the “real world”. Oh how I long for that peaceful life of contemplation–well, peaceful is a matter of perspective I guess…thanks so much guys! (though this probably not the last you’ve heard from me…haha)
Laura
#96 by Jonnie on October 15, 2011 - 7:01 am
Thank you! From a prodigal philosopher considering returning to the fold…
#97 by Mark Linsenmayer on October 16, 2011 - 10:35 am
Thanks, Laura and Jonnie! Great to hear from you. I’m definitely interested in the impressions of those just jumping in now who choose to go back and hear our progression through 45 discussions: how ya’ll like the directions things have taken, whether the old stuff is sticking with you as we take it for granted in discussing the later stuff (or the degree to which we ourselves lose track of what we already talked about as the years pass and new people jump into the mix).
Best, Mark
#98 by Jonnie on October 16, 2011 - 6:14 pm
Hey Mark, i found the podcast a few months back and have been cherry-picking episodes that attract me, which are generally those that look at the more Analytical topics, rather than going through sequentially. Having exhausted these, I’m now checking out the old-timey and Continental stuff. I’m a fan – like the way you guys are going with it. Best, Jonnie
#99 by Laura on October 18, 2011 - 8:34 pm
So I have a question: you mentioned in one of your first podcasts doing a discussion on technology and how it’s destroying our lives (joke though only partly)–anyway, I think this would be a fascinating talk–I think there are very important issues here regarding privacy and whether the Internet and its tangled arms of influence is hurting or helping our consumption and retention of knowledge (I have 12 partially read books on my iPad–concentration issue? Hmm)….though this veers a bit from the philosophy realm I am concerned about technology today vs twenty years ago, the internet’s effect on our brains biologically and thus our minds.
Hope everybodys good!
-Laura
#100 by Mark Linsenmayer on October 19, 2011 - 11:21 pm
That would be a fun topic; I think we’re just not sure what exactly to read in that area for an episode. Heidegger has an essay about technology that maybe we’ll look at at some point.
#101 by Laura on October 25, 2011 - 8:03 pm
Well, this may be an interesting start:
http://www.salon.com/2011/10/23/why_chomsky_is_wrong_about_twitter/
This is from the article: “Claiming that certain styles of communicating and knowing are not serious and not worthy of extended attention is nothing new. It’s akin to those claims that graffiti isn’t art and rap isn’t music. The study of knowledge (aka epistemology) is filled with revealing works by people like Michel Foucault, Jean-François Lyotard or Patricia Hill Collins who show how ways of knowing get disqualified or subjugated as less true, deep or important.
And this is where it gets more interesting than Chomsky seems to realize.”
and
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/books/review/Lehrer-t.html
Though Nicholas Carr, author of The Shallows, is not a philosopher, the effect of the internet on our brains and ultimately on the nature of knowledge is critical, I think at this time in history….
more to come…
-Laura
#102 by dominic on February 7, 2012 - 12:19 am
Laura (#30) At this point i think ive read/listened to every word Chomsky ever spoke/wrote (not really , but you get the idea), and i must say, he’s getting crotchity in his old age. Ive noticed he’s dismissive and rude to people all the time now
, and these people are usually his supporters/admirers! This twitter thing, i think, is him scoffing at his inability to understand the culture of the young. I dont know, my two cents i guess
#103 by Billy on October 25, 2011 - 8:36 pm
thank you
#104 by Laura on November 3, 2011 - 9:00 pm
Like chess…philosophy instantly turns hard and difficult to master.
#105 by Laura on November 11, 2011 - 5:32 pm
Not sure where to post this: but…
“…you talk to God, you’re religious. God talks to you, you’re psychotic.” –G. House
I just thought of this because I was reading about Freud’s atheism in The Question of God (which I believe was caused by the abandonment of his first nanny) and I thought House and Freud would have been thrilled with one another.
I am not sure where to post to just talk.
#106 by Mark Linsenmayer on November 11, 2011 - 6:09 pm
Oh, anywhere’s fine, but on the Facebook page will immediately get you a mass of replies.
#107 by Brian on January 10, 2012 - 12:54 pm
@Laura. The writers of House stole (borrowed?) this from Thomas Szasz.
#108 by Laura on November 12, 2011 - 7:50 pm
Well I’m not on Facebook, mostly because I have always had a problem with how they’ve handled user privacy issues–I’m a bit of a privacy nut and am fascinated to see how this rapidly changing techno-global world addresses individual privacy–really, what else do we have if not our personal privacy…..seems like everything else is compromised….anyway, if anywhere’s fine then I’ll say whatever here….thanks………………
#109 by Shaun Rieley on December 13, 2011 - 6:18 pm
Hey guys,
I just wanted to say that I really enjoy the podcast. I randomly discovered the podcast browsing through itunes looking for something interesting to listen to for my commute to work. Imagine my surprise when one night, driving home from class at St. John’s College (I’m a graduate student there), when I heard Wes say that he had attended there for undergrad studies! Anyway, I just wanted to drop a line and say that I enjoy listening (even if I don’t always agree – I’m a conservative and a Christian of sorts). Keep up the good work!
#110 by Seth Paskin on January 5, 2012 - 11:41 pm
Thanks Shaun! Dylan has a St. John’s connection as well. We’re literally sick with Johnnies around here…
#111 by Wes Alwan on January 2, 2012 - 2:47 am
Thanks Shaun – glad you’re enjoying it!
#112 by Steven on January 5, 2012 - 8:42 pm
After reading a few recent reviews, I’m nodding in appreciation of the well written comments and compliments preceding me. The PEL team is a dream team, as far as I’m concerned, and after listening to about seven of your casts, I add my admiration and thanks to the rest. Great job, guys, and may I add, I enjoy your whimsy! (Isn’t that de rigeur around here?)
#113 by Seth Paskin on January 5, 2012 - 11:49 pm
Thanks Steven, that’s high praise! And yes, whimsy is always welcome.
#114 by Brian on January 10, 2012 - 12:56 pm
Noting the quote by Danto at the masthead. I hope this does not mean he was experiencing aesthetic pleasure at any time short of the New Jerusalem.
#115 by dominic on February 7, 2012 - 12:13 am
Been listening to your podcast for few months now but just started navigating your webpage. Its uncanny how much you guys (and occassional gals) have filled a gap in my intellectual pursuits, i was made my way through the Entitled Opinions catalog and was feeling totally lost and empty! Your discussions are simply perfect for me, you explain things very well that I was struggling with before (especially with Heidegger and Kierkegaard) and you validated some of my frustrations (especially with Nietzche). And i thought I was just a lone nerd watching youtube clips of Hubert Dreyfuss and EGS and Zizek lectures on youtube, but there are others like me!!! Also, your website is an invaluable resource. Keep up the good work, Now, this isn’t necessarily a request, but I would say the most seemingly nonsensical, difficult to follow book i’ve ever had the misfortune to try and read was A Thousand Plateaus. This book was, on the one hand, given to me by friend who called it the “best philosophy book he’s ever read,” (he’s getting his PhD in philosophy), and on the other hand, it is held in high regard by the intellectual anarchist community, a group I feel a certain affinity with. You guys mention Deluze a lot, i’ve noticed….any chance you could make it intelligble? There is a lot of Manual DeLanda on youtube and he makes Deluze sound like the simplest thing in the world (i suffer from a tendancy to ramble, sorry).
#116 by dmf on February 7, 2012 - 8:31 am
Deleuze, like Derrida, is probably not really accessible without a great deal of background philosophy as he assumes much in his writing and is fond of coining new terms that play against and or build on older ones. But for some sense of where he fits into the history there are a number of decent discussions on abc:
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/philosopherszone/who-was-gilles-deleuze-part-1/2998408
#117 by Wes Alwan on February 16, 2012 - 11:26 pm
Thanks Dominic! We’ve gotten a few requests for Deleuze and perhaps will get him at some point — although I’m not sure how intelligible one can make him!
#118 by bryan on February 22, 2012 - 5:08 am
Seth,
Unfortunately I don’t recall the episode, but I know you mentioned something about the ten commandments being the last instructions/interaction with his people, I’m not challenging you by any stretch, but am very interested in a SOURCE for that comment. If you have time to for a very brief email just giving me the book and I can do the ground work.
Bryan
#119 by Seth Paskin on February 24, 2012 - 9:52 am
bryan–
I don’t remember which episode it was either, perhaps the one on proofs for the existence of God, but I was trying to articulate the difference between the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants and how the relationship to God changes between them for a person like me.
Check out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_%28biblical%29
–seth
#120 by John on March 7, 2012 - 10:14 pm
Love the podcast! I am a PHIL major a Texas A&M (hopefully no hard feelings) and I have found this podcast an indispensable resource for many of my essays. I do not know how I would have gotten through Hegel without you guys.
Also, just to put my mind at rest, theres not some looming threat of you guys not continuing PEL…. right?
Definitely go on an NPR -esque begathon before any drastic decisions!
En route to zazzle to buy a shirt.
Thanks!
#121 by Wes Alwan on March 14, 2012 - 10:05 pm
Thanks John! We’re continuing indefinitely, don’t worry!
#122 by Dan on March 8, 2012 - 9:41 pm
Have you guys talked at all about Alvin Plantinga at all on the podcast? I know he is really prominent Christian philosopher. He’s written a book on Epistemology and the ontological argument, and was the head of the philosophy department at Notre Dame for a few years.
Also, awesome show. This is my philosophy fix since I decided not to do my undergrad in it.
On a personal note. One of you guys mentioned you had went to St. John’s for your undergrad. I was looking at Grad schools as a stepping stone for my doctorate in English, would you recommend it? I really like the idea of the Great Books program.
#123 by Dylan Casey on March 8, 2012 - 10:12 pm
Glad you enjoy the podcast, Dan. Thanks for listening.
Wes attended SJC as an undergrad (late 80s I think). I’ve been a tutor there since 2001, though I’ve taken a leave through 2013.
The grad program is great. Many students use it as a “stepping stone” (maybe better, a fruitful sidetrack) before pursuing a more traditional graduate degree. Among the big differences is that the typical advanced degree is a kind of professional degree in the subject of study; it’s not meant to be done “for the sake of it.” The SJC graduate program is _not_ professional, though it is challenging, interesting, and worthwhile. You should check out the website: http://www.stjohnscollege.edu/GI/program.shtml It has a good summary of the program, its aims, and its structure. If you’re within driving distance of Annapolis or Santa Fe, you should really make a visit and visit a class. The best way you’ll know it’s for you is if you need to tape your mouth shut to keep from speaking out during the conversation.
Good luck!
-Dylan
#124 by Craig on March 13, 2012 - 4:24 pm
Hi there fellas, I’m from Warwick England , I’m a 37 year undergrad at the University of Warwick studying Sociology, wrote a research paper on “Indirect Self – Abnegation by way of Higher Education and its negative affect on critical theory and the Sociological Imagination” needless to say I got a shit mark. But when I listened to your Decartes podcast, the penny dropped. I am now gonna spend the rest of my days in bed avoiding work. Keep up the good work as I now need the company…
#125 by Wes Alwan on March 14, 2012 - 10:04 pm
Thanks Craig! — I’d like to know what about the Descartes podcast made the penny drop.
#126 by Craig on March 15, 2012 - 4:16 am
Hi there Wes, I feel more lucid today and I must apologise for my grammar (Descartes and 37 years of age) The point at which the penny dropped was during ‘Episode 2: Descartes’s Meditations: What Can We Know?’ was 13 minutes into the podcast when Seth talked of the disabuse of prejudices that Descartes experienced through the experience of travelling and mixing with different cultures, and that Descartes, when he had reached maturity had filled his life with all this experience could finally sit back and do Philosophy.
It actually made me start writing:
Knowing it all without knowing a single thing.
Is it all or nothing?
Politics, philosophy, sociology, psychology, you name it I’ve not done it and yet I still know more than my contemporaries. I know more than my predecessors can ever know and what’s more is that I’m an expert in my field, a field that does not exist because it cares not to.
So is this philosophy? No it is not, am I theorising or expressing profound ideologies? No. So what exactly am I doing? The answer is simple…nothing, I am…
Ask me a question and I will give you an answer not the answer, ask me…(I have decided to lay this writing to rest)
On a lighter note Wes, I suffer from chronic DPD, know to some as the ‘philosophers disease’, I am, again, being screened for Schizophrenia which I have always refuted as having. I have not the energy for polemic discourse with self proclaimed Experts. I love your podcasts and find they bring me back to reality, so I appreciate what you guys are doing.
#127 by Wes Alwan on March 26, 2012 - 10:43 pm
Sorry about the illness Steve — I’m glad our podcasts help.
#128 by Joe on April 20, 2012 - 2:03 am
Love your conversations! I’m a psychotherapist with a background in existential phenomenological psych. Studying Emmanuel Levinas was the highlight of my graduate program. Any fans among you? Would love to hear you discuss thoughts and reactions to his ethical call to the “face of the other”, a refreshing departure from the darkness of nietzsche and the dryness of some of the older dudes. Keep up the good work!!
#129 by dmf on April 20, 2012 - 7:56 am
if you take the theological aspects of Levinas away than his ideas about the compelling ethical nature of the other tend to lose their force, but a related work by Lingis on the “Imperative” might provide us with a philosophical text to work with on such matters.
what is the “darkness” of Nietzsche?
#130 by Joe on April 20, 2012 - 11:35 am
I think I know what you mean about “theological aspects”. Being raised catholic that’s what I like about his writing. There’s a bigness there, like vaulted cathedral ceilings. My own personal pref I guess. Also no hide and seek with his ethical stance, pretty clear about it as he eloquently describes important aspects of relationship with each other ( important to me as a therapist). I have a love hate rel with nietzsche. Maybe “heavy or cynacle” better than “dark”. Sometimes I just want to be nice to someone without worrying about my uncon. motivations of power. I don’t know lingis. I’ll check it out.
#131 by Chris Langley on April 21, 2012 - 4:01 pm
Hey guys. I just wanted to say I absolutely love this podcast. I actually go to that “some school in Atlanta” where Jessica Berry teaches. She hosted a lecture with us in the art department a few weeks ago, and that Danto podcast was very helpful.
#132 by Gregory on May 3, 2012 - 9:26 am
Hey guys, I have to say that after listening to my professor rant for hours, I indeed perfer your podcast on philosophy. I really enjoy it!!
#133 by Wes Alwan on May 5, 2012 - 5:41 pm
Thanks Gregory!