Podcast Episodes

For discussion and supplementary material on the episodes, look first at the trackbacks at the bottom of the episode post to see which other posts refer to it, or do a keyword search on the author’s name or other term, or you can use the Archives links to see posts put up immediately following the episode’s release date.

Comments (32)
Trackbacks (2)

#1 by Tommy on November 30, 2011 - 2:31 pm

The link for Leviathan takes me to Episode 2 on Descartes… I just read the Leviathan (well, as much as I could stand of it) and am looking forward to that discussion but it is nowhere to be found. Maybe someone can help me get the podcast or get the link fixed?

Reply Quote
#2 by Nigel Palmer on December 25, 2011 - 3:32 pm

Hi

Wow, just discovered this website ( after Googling for an interview with Patricia Churchland on Youtube ) and I just cannot believe that i`ve missed something so good for so long! I enjoy listening to philosophy stuff on the web, and thought I had discerned all the chief sites. How wrong I was!
Please keep up the good work, and do not for one second plan to terminate the podcasts any time soon. That is what happened after my last major find `Conversations From the Pale Blue Dot` – the guy responsible ( Luke Malthausser ) almost immediately decided to go off and do other things, Still, even if that happened again, there would be plenty of back episodes to listen to!
Thanks again for such a fascinating and informative podcast. Nige

Reply Quote
- #3 by Seth Paskin on December 25, 2011 - 8:11 pm
  
  Thanks Nigel! No worries, we are steaming along with a topics list as long as our collective arms to get through. We’ll be around for a while.
  Cheers,
  –seth
  
  Reply Quote
#4 by Rob on January 20, 2012 - 11:11 pm

Hey guys,

I love your podcast. I’m impressed with your textual/linguistic analysis. You treat, very honestly and sincerely, the method of finding the meaning or intention of the texts as an integral part of your dialog, and it creates a very thoughtful, and funny, podcast.

I would like to see you all try some other things. Drop the no name dropping rule for an episode or two, and embed philosophy in the outgrowths of it.

For instance, I’d like to hear a history/evolution of logic episode that emphasizes the drastic way in which clarifying the idea of logic as it was passed from philosopher to philosopher resulted in the computer – this will perhaps redeem some philosophers you give short thrift too, and could lead to interesting speculations about what the future might hold as we continue evolve logic. This topic may as well present, to a public who doesn’t always see it, why philosophy is one of the most important endeavors of humanity to achieving ‘prosperity’.

I like to see more philosophy of specific ideas, rather than just philosophizing about the ideas of specific philosophers. I think it’d be alright to take twenty minutes at the start for all speakers to outline the context they bring to a discussion of the philosophy of an idea, and so not feel like your leaving us listeners out of the loop.

And, maybe you could touch on hot button issues going on now, and philosophize on them, and name drop like hell to support your thoughts and feelings. Is what Anonymous is doing right now morally right? Are they terrorists? Are all terrorists bad (ie, the Weather Underground, Black Panthers, Occupiers, Abolitionists, Nazi Resistors, the Bolsheviks, the FBI, the CIA, etc…)? This would be a nice counter point to the analysis of specific philosophers grand systems of morality.

Finally (there’s actually a thousand other suggestions I’d like to offer, but this is only cause I like listening to you all so much), an idea that would just make me happy if you spent hours talking about it from every different perspective, but I haven’t noticed that any of you have a really deep interest in math/logic/linguistics; what is the difference between functions, algorithms, objects, relations, and formal systems, and why do we accept the historical notions that go along with these ideas? Is the vagueness/inconsistency in natural language not useful? What would be wrong with creating a formal system that is inconsistent, if there were a way to differentiate between how an expression was deconstructed to either of it’s binary values – ie, the number of deductive steps it takes to show an expression is 1 or 0? And, when humans make a linguistic expression to another person, should we be trying to understand their intention in making that expression, or trying to parse ‘literal’ meaning from it?

I only offer all this ‘criticism’ cause I’ve listened to nearly all your episodes at least one time through now, and want to listen to them a second time through, but feel I’ll eventually tire of the method you employ, and I’d rather listen to you all forever.

Sincerely,
Rob

PS – Do some stuff on George Lakoff, Douglass Hofstader, Lynn Margulis…some modern people with absolutely monumental idea – if not in the idea itself, but in the cultural response to their speaking. Hofstader is more popular than he is contributory, imho, but I’d so love to hear what you all think of him when you really try and get to the root of what he wants to say, do both Godel, Escher, Bach and I Am A Strange Loop when you analyze him.

Reply Quote
- #5 by Seth Paskin on January 21, 2012 - 10:06 am
  
  Thanks for the props and the detailed suggestions. To respond briefly:
  
  The name dropping rule is an outgrowth of our original intent to reach a broader audience. We didn’t want this to be a dry academic discussion about the fine points of disagreement between proponent of -ism A and -ism B. We wanted to focus on the ideas and their evaluation from the perspective of lived life, not the history of philosophy. Even though we don’t do an awesome job of that, it’s a core tenant and I don’t think we’ll try and change. That doesn’t mean that there couldn’t be separate discussions along those lines.
  
  You are correct, none of us is experts in logic or math, although Wes I think is pretty well versed. I find the topic interesting at a distance, but would have a hard time following and staying interested for a whole episode. Maybe you can suggest a guest that could help us out with that.
  
  I don’t see a distinction between the idea of a specific philosopher and a specific philosophical idea. They have to start somewhere and we are trying to introduce the ideas through the philosopher. It proves grounding and definition where an open ended discussion does not. Also, we cannot research the history of perspectives on a specific idea without some kind of grounding text – we have full time jobs, families and lives and need help getting the subject matter for a particular episode down to a manageable size.
  
  We specifically avoid talking about contemporary political events (although it comes out) because we want the discussion to have philosophical content, which arguing about Republicans vs. Democrats or whether Occupy is x, y, or z often doesn’t. I imagine this will begin to change as we move into our modern phase with Marx et. al.
  
  People have requested Hostader, Kuhn, etc. and we have them on our list.
  Thanks again,
  –seth
  
  Reply Quote
#6 by russ on January 25, 2012 - 5:35 am

The Deleuze dismissal – I look forward to an episode on A Thousand Plateaus! Very much enjoyed the Foucault episode, and looking forward to ZAAM.
Thanks.

Reply Quote
- #7 by Mark Linsenmayer on January 25, 2012 - 5:07 pm
  
  Deleuze is in the list; we have a guest lined up and everything. Probably late spring.
  
  Reply Quote
#8 by JC on February 12, 2012 - 5:24 pm

Are you guys going to do any more Schopenhauer? I really liked your episode on the Fourfold Root, even though I disagreed with some of your criticisms.

Reply Quote
- #9 by Mark Linsenmayer on February 12, 2012 - 6:18 pm
  
  What specific reading selection would you recommend?
  
  Reply Quote
#10 by JC on February 13, 2012 - 11:00 pm

Anything really. Maybe a book from the World as Will and Representation. He also wrote two interesting longer essays (which you allude to in the podcast) On the Freedom of the Will (which provides a unique take on the free will/determinism debate) and On the Basis of Morality (which fleshes out his ethics). Or you could do a shorter essay from the Parerga. I must admit that I already know quite a bit about Schopenhauer, and he is moreover my favorite philosopher, but my school doesn’t have any classes on him or professors knowledgeable about him. That is why I have immensely enjoyed actually hearing a discussion about his philosophy on your podcast, albeit by people who are new to him and who misunderstand some of his ideas.

Reply Quote
#11 by TotalPhiloNoob on February 14, 2012 - 2:48 am

Any chance you guys would someday discuss al-ghazali’s “the incoherence of the philosophers” ?

thanks

Reply Quote
- #12 by Mark Linsenmayer on February 14, 2012 - 10:02 am
  
  Not familiar with it, but I’ll take a look. Thanks.
  
  Reply Quote
  - #13 by Marc-Aurele on March 2, 2012 - 11:26 am
    
    al-ghazali wld be something interesting for you guys to cover.. u could do like a whole islamic philosopher deal.. there is ‘the incoherence…’ which is by al-ghazali. i believe he was an occasionalist which could translate to interesting discussion.. then there is a rebuttal ‘the incoherence of the incoherence’ where averroes (ibn rushd) takes on al-ghazali, defending the coherence b/w islam and aristotle.. actually, i think this was all put into motion originally by avicenna’s embracing of aristotelian philosophy with islam in the first place. this was all around the 11th, maybe 12th century.. and of course there is moses maimonides then also, which is like the jewish take on the aristotelian stick in the wheel of dogma..
    
    this could all be an interesting episode where you take on islamic and jewish dogma vs. aristotelian philosophy.. it def was a relevant conversation for quite a few ppl so you guys should def shed some light on it at some point.
    
    Reply Quote
#14 by Marc-Aurele on March 2, 2012 - 11:23 am

al-ghazali wld be something interesting for you guys to cover.. u could do like a whole islamic philosopher deal.. there is ‘the incoherence…’ which is buy al-ghazali. i believe he was an occasionalist which could translate to interesting discussion.. then there is a rebuttal ‘the incoherence of the incoherence’ where averroes (ibn rushd) takes on al-ghazali, defending the coherence b/w islam and aristotle.. actually, i think this was all put into motion originally by avicenna’s embracing of aristotelian philosophy with islam in the first place. this was all around the 11th, maybe 12th century.. and of course there is moses maimonides then also, which is like the jewish take on the aristotelian stick in the wheel of dogma..

this could all be an interesting episode where you take on islamic and jewish dogma vs. aristotelian philosophy.. it def was a relevant conversation for quite a few ppl so you guys should def shed some light on it at some point.

Reply Quote
#15 by Ben Salazar on March 7, 2012 - 8:05 pm

Are you planning on considering Ernest Becker at all? I revere Denial Of Death, and, it’d be good to get a semi-academic perspective on it.

Reply Quote
#16 by Brian Leon on March 15, 2012 - 2:10 pm

Don’t forget about Medieval philosophy! The influence of Christianity upon western philosophy is so immense and enduring that it would truly be a gross oversight to ignore it. Augustine’s ‘Confessions’ often surprises readers with it’s approachability and humane attitude. His was the first philosophical autobigraphy to be written in the western literature. Another giant of philosophy who would be indispensable to understanding the full sweep of western philosophy is Thomas Aquinas whose ‘Summa Theologia’ is a masterpiece which synthesized the thought of Aristotle with Christian revelation. Aquinas exerted significant influence upon mainline philosophy through Leibniz and even today is enjoying a revival among the catholic intellectual community.

Reply Quote
#17 by Adam on March 16, 2012 - 4:57 pm

Any chance of getting an episode on the critical theory of the Frankfurt school?

Reply Quote
- #18 by Mark Linsenmayer on March 18, 2012 - 8:17 am
  
  Adam, are you familiar enough with this to give us a recommendation re. some specific Habermas to read… or is there someone in your opinion more important to do before him? We’ve gotten enough Gadamer requests that I suspect we’d do him before this line, but I’m not clear as to whether there’s a progression there. Any thoughts?
  
  Reply Quote
  - #19 by Adam on March 18, 2012 - 10:18 am
    
    Well certainly before the Frankfurt school an episode on Marx would be necessary. As far as the Frankfurt school itself I think before moving to Habermas’ project it would make more sense to start with some of the school’s early writings particularly Walter Benjamin’s “Theses on History”, Horkheimer’s “Traditional and Critical Theory”, Horkheimer and Adorno’s “Dialectic of Enlightenment” particularly “the Concept of Enlightenment” and “Excursus I” and Marcuse’s “One Dimensional Man”
    
    For Habermas, I think that Gadamer is essential as well. Habermas attempts to create a tripartate system of knowledge interests in which Gadamer is important for the second of the three, viz. hermeneutic understanding…. Habermas is much harder as far as text recommendations go but I guess “Knowledge and Human Interests” is a good place to start as it was his first major attempt to develop his thinking systematically.
    
    Reply Quote
- #20 by dmf on March 18, 2012 - 9:52 am
  
  the diet soap interview along these lines with Martin Jay on the “dialectical imagination” in the history of the Frankfurt school was excellent.
  
  ML, I would think Gadamer on horizons before Habermas.
  
  Reply Quote
#21 by Lee Walsh on April 1, 2012 - 3:03 am

Brilliant podcasts, I really enjoy listening to your work, I hope you keep making these for a long time.

Reply Quote
- #22 by Mark Linsenmayer on April 1, 2012 - 6:24 am
  
  Thanks, Lee!
  
  Reply Quote
#23 by Adam Waldstein on April 4, 2012 - 1:33 pm

You mention that you have podcasts planed well into the future. But as far as I can tell you don’t list the proposed future podcasts (or the readings) anywhere on the site. Not until you have actually recorded and posted the podcast. How are we supposed to know what to read while anticipating your next delightful podcast? Are we to just wait until it’s posted and then decide if we should indulge in momentary self gratification and listen without having done the reading, or else to sublimate our urges reading the text before listening to more fully appreciate your musings?

In sum: post a list of planned future topics and readings!

Reply Quote
- #24 by Mark Linsenmayer on April 4, 2012 - 2:19 pm
  
  Hi, Adam,
  
  Good point. I’m trying at this point to post a topic announcement at least a few days before we record something so people who already know something about the topic (or just feel like spouting off) can get in some questions for us to consider as we’re going into it. Then after we record it, I put some more detail on the topic announcement post. This gives anyone who wants to read along with us a couple of weeks (which we invariably need for editing) to read the book if they want to (though I’m aware that this is rare).
  
  I’ve refrained from posting further in advance just because of how volatile the topics are; whenever I predict a couple ahead, we invariably change our minds, or more likely there are guest-scheduling issues that force this.
  
  Nonetheless, thanks to your comment, I’ve just added the next two to the bottom of our episodes page (http://www.partiallyexaminedlife.com/podcast-episodes/) and will attempt to keep this updated as things get nailed down. Given that we the podcasters have to take time to read this stuff, I might as well alert you when we actually start doing so, though I’m still going to resist the urge to post what we’ve already decided (tentatively) to cover AFTER those next readings.
  
  Reply Quote
#25 by Laura on April 4, 2012 - 6:08 pm

“As a single footstep will not make a path on the earth,
so a single thought will not make a pathway in the mind.
To make a deep physical path, we walk again and again.
To make a deep mental path, we must think over and over the kind of thoughts we wish to dominate our lives.”
-Henry David Thoreau

That’s how I feel about philosophy–think over and over and over–and I’m so grateful to you guys for helping me with that thinking.

Reply Quote
#26 by Anh-vu Doan on April 18, 2012 - 9:23 pm

Guys– I’m trying to find an episode where something peculiar happened. You were all wrestling over some concept or something (I think it must’ve been a continental reading) and eventually found yourselves trying to reason things out by speaking in formal logic (“for all x…”) and I distinctly remember Seth at that point getting a little frustrated and asking what this had to do with the text in question.

Do you remember which episode this was? I just found that scene hilarious and want to relisten to it.

Reply Quote
- #27 by Simon on April 19, 2012 - 6:59 am
  
  While I’m not sure which episode this is, I would like state that personally, those moments are my favorite. I recently went back through the first pragmatism episode because I wanted to hear the Seth’s frustration over the Kant derailment (and then Mark’s failed attempt to NOT mention Kant).
  
  Which is not to say I take pleasure in your frustration, Seth, I, in fact, appreciate your dedication to the works in question (“Did we read ‘The Thought?’ I just wanted make sure I was in the right podcast.”).
  
  Reply Quote
#28 by Steve on April 28, 2012 - 2:21 pm

Hey guys, I recently just found your site after some browsing, and found this to be just an incredible resource and really fun to listen to. I generally tend to read something but find it hard to remember without a certain discussion and elaboration, so this is a wonderful benefit for me. However, I did have one thing to say. I noticed that you have not touched upon, and probably with a legitimate amount of good reason, Slavoj Zizek. While he is a bit of a controversial figure that covers a broad variety of topics, I think it would be very interesting to see what you three intellectuals could make of some of his works. Also, maybe an episode regard Lacan? He is just an enigmatic figure worth at least a small amount of discussion.

Reply Quote
- #29 by Mark Linsenmayer on April 28, 2012 - 2:24 pm
  
  Thanks, Steve, both of those guys are on the list.
  
  Reply Quote
#30 by Ron Wilson on May 9, 2012 - 6:09 am

hi there. just recently fell upon your site. very impressed. difficult finding quality audio discussions on the love of wisdom but I think your range is good. I was actuall searching the net for audio stuff on Camus whom I have just discovered but already feel a strong personal connection so you can guess how pleased I was to listen to episode 4. thank you. I love the light-hearted approach to heavy topics! cheers.

Reply Quote
- #31 by Seth Paskin on May 31, 2012 - 8:21 am
  
  Thanks Ron!
  
  Reply Quote
#32 by manuel martinez on May 31, 2012 - 12:14 am

i would like that you talk about modal logic

thank you

Reply Quote

SetTextSize SetPageWidth

The Partially Examined Life

Podcast Episodes

Categories

Recent Comments

We Examine

Archives

Share with your friends on...