PEL Episodes by Topic

Updated 1/6/14

Given how many episodes we've done, even we lose track of where we've been. We aim (among other things) to present the equivalent of an introductory course in all the major areas of philosophy. Here's where I'll periodically comment on our progress. Feel free to weigh in on our direction suggest additional topics as comments to this page.


We're covered the equivalent of an introductory ethics course and most of a 300-level one too. We first covered the three main divisions:

With those basics out of the way, our next step was meta-ethics: How can moral commands exist in a natural universe? We covered Nietzsche (episodes 11 and 84) and one on moral sense theory (Hume and Adam Smith), and Owen Flanagan spoke to us about naturalistic ethics in episode 53. For the sake of completeness, I'll include Spinoza's deterministic ethics (episode 25) in this context. On the flip side, Plato in the Euthyphro (episode 46) argues that morality can't be just be reducible to the attitudes of God, and G.E. Moore (episode 58) argues that morality can't be reducible to any factual claims, whether natural or supernatural. Also in the Moore episode, C.L. Stevenson argues that ethical claims just express emotions; they aren't claims at all. Alasdair MacIntyre (covered more fully in episode 59) argues that without something like Aristotle's notion of teleology, all ethical claims will be groundless. MacIntyre's challenge was prefigured by G.E.M. Anscombe (episode 88), who argued that all our modern moral language presupposed some kind of divine command theory, so we either need to throw it away completely or return to something more like Aristotle's teleology.

Related to this is moral psychology: how do we smooth-skinned animals come to think about moral considerations? We interviewed Pat Churchland in episode 41 about the neurobiology of ethics and discussed moral development patterns according to Carol Gilligan in episode 42.

Moral responsibility is the primary concern of any discussion of free will, and in episode 93, we considered Galen Strawson's claim that moral responsibility is impossible given that free will doesn't make sense, and his father P.F. Strawson's counter-claim that we simply have to treat each other as morally responsible regardless of our metaphysical convictions about free will. For a very different take on this, see episode 87 for Sartre's views on freedom and self-deception.

More broadly, the fundamental question of philosophy, "how should I approach the world" yields approaches that aren't quite ethics but are closer to that than to epistemology. Though you'll get some of this in many of our readings, those most conforming to this picture that we discussed are:

Looking ahead, we hope to get to more of the classical ethical schools (Epicurus, the stoics) before too long, and will have some more existentialist/phenomenological ethics.


We've provided a decent historical survey:

Future near-term episodes are planned on Michael Sandel and Robert Nozick, and we'd very much like to get into some economics with Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations.


We've put out the basic array of views:

Much of our reading in continental philosophy is following up on Kantianism, retaining Kant's view that perception is not a mind apprehending an independent reality while getting rid of his notion of the "thing-in-itself" independent of our experience.

  • In episode 35, we provided an overview of Hegel's view, which I think estabbylished the view that persisted through most more recent continental philosophy
  • Edmund Husserl (episode 31) estabbylished the modern enterprise of phenomenology that attempts to describe "the structures of experience," i.e. doing empiricism in a way that corresponds what we actually experience.
  • Heidegger (episode 32) similarly thinks that skepticism is a non-issue; we're already indubitabbyly engaged with the world prior to any kind of inquiry.
  • We get into some of the details given this starting point in considering the phenomenology of Sartre (episode 47) and Merleau-Ponty (episode 48).
  • The other epistemic response within the continental tradition is linguistic: phenomenology is impossible because our experience is tainted by concepts, and concepts can't be referred back directly to perceptions, but are part of an insular culturally produced structure. We discussed this a bit in episode 51 on Derrida and others, episode 74 on Lacanepisode 75 on Lacan and Derrida, and in episodes 55 and 56, we considered a similar strain in the analytic philosophy tradition by reading Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations. The point was also made in a different context by Cornel West (episode 52).

What else is ahead? More pragmatism. More philosophy of science. Yet more phenomenology, existentialism, and post-modernism.


We've been comparatively scattershot on this and still have a lot of work to do to survey the major historical positions. Our efforts have included:

  • Leibniz's Monadology (episode 6), which actually laid out a full metaphysical system.
  • Spinoza's attempt (episode 24) to reconcile naturalism and the existence of God (by defining God as nature itself). A primary question of metaphysics is the existence of God; we considered the classical arguments in favor of this in episode 43.
  • The early Wittgenstein's picture (in episode 7) on "facts" as the ultimate logical components of the universe. For an analytic philosopher, discussions of metaphysics often turn on what metaphysical commitments are supposedly made by our practices in language and logic/math. We discussed Gottlob Frege's view in episode 34 that the referents of even terms like unicorn refer to something that our ontology (list of things that exist) has to take into account. Carnap (episode 67), following in this tradition, tried to fill out the details of something like Wittgenstein's project, while Quine (episode 66) challenged it in favor of a minimal, naturalist ontology, where philosophy is seen as continuous with science. We saw a more overtly metaphysical take updating Carnap's project with David Chalmers (episode 68).
  • For a phenomenologist, metaphysics gets more or less replaced by descriptions of the world of our experience. In this vein, we discussed proto-phenomenologist Henri Bergson (episode 92) and Heidegger on "Being" (episode 32). Whitehead (episode 110) also tries to explain how what we experience ("events") can be analyzed to yield the entities that science needs (objects, motion, space, and time)
  • Our episode 13 on quantum mechanics (Werner Heisenberg, with some discussion of Einstein) gave a quick overview of the Pre-Socratics ("everything is water!" "no, everything is fire!").
  • We looked at pre-Socratic Heraclitus in particular (usually but mistakenly described as the metaphysics of flux) in episode 79.
  • A more modern version of this kind of metaphysics focusing on process rather than substance was elaborated (with much math!) by Whitehead, described in episode 110.

  • A Buddhist challenge to metaphysics is presented in episode 27 on Nagarjuna. A different approach to Buddhism using a naturalist metaphysics is briefly discussed in episode 53 with Owen Flanagan.
  • Schopenhauer's metaphysics of Will, covered in episode 114, combines elements of Heraclitus, Spinoza, and Buddhism.
  • The mind-body problem is arguably metaphysical: if "mind" isn't a substance like Descartes thought, then how can we best understand it? We discussed this in episode 21 on Turing, Ryle, Nagel, Searle, and Dennett.

We'll be doing more "metaphysics proper," e.g. we've had an Aristotle episode planned for a long time. We'd also like to look more into modern cosmology, i.e. the findings of recent science, and much more into the philosophy of mind.


We're planning one on the romantics (e.g. Herder), one on Adorno, and would like to go into more specific areas of art: film, poetry, etc.

Relatedly, we've covered Henri Bergson's philosophy of humor and will do another episode or two on humor, since we're now making more contact with comedians to have on as guests, though we've been lucky that some of these comedians like Paul Provenza and Danny Lobell also like to talk about other philosophical topics.

Also related to this is philosophy of literature, which we introduced with our discussion of Saussure and Levi-Strauss (episode 51), which gives some of the groundwork for what is now called "critical theory." We followed up on this by looking at Lacan and Derrida's take on a story by Edgar Allan Poe (episode 75). During episode 63 on Cormac McCarthy's No Country for Old Men, we talked about how philosophy can be conveyed through fiction, including science fiction, for which we spoke with David Brin about his novel Existence for episode 90 (followed up by more in 91). We've read some other philosophical novels: Charlotte Perkins-Gilman's Herland (episode 42), Robert Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (episode 50), and Voltaire's Candide (episode 62). (No, philosophical dialogues don't really count as fiction.)


  • Episode 43 considers the major historical arguments for the existence of God (Aquinas, Anselm, Paley, with some discussion of Plantinga and Swinburne; we read a book by J.L. Mackie.
  • Episode 101 on Maimonides considers some logical puzzles surrounding the notion of God and the view that God can't have any properties at all.
  • Episode 39 on Freidrich Schleiermacher gives a picture of faith that is largely non-cognitivist: it doesn't make claims that could conflict with those of science.
  • Episode 71 on Martin Buber gives an other phenomenologically grounded picture of religion
  • Episode 22 covers William James's "The Will to Believe."
  • Episode 44 discusses "new atheist" critiques of religion.
  • Episode 46 considers the relationship between religion and ethics according to Plato.
  • Episode 27 presents the fundamentals of Mahayana Buddhism.
  • Episode 53 emphasizes different aspects of Buddhism (particularly modern forms primarily influenced by early Therevadan sources).
  • Episode 12 on the Chuang Tzu goes into the fundamentals of Taoism.
  • Our episode 29 on Kierkegaard focused more on psychology than faith per se, but still gives a vivid picture of an existentialist breed of religion.
  • Episode 112 on Paul Ricoeur's "hermeneutics of suspicion" talks about how to charitably interpret the Bible.
  • We then tried to apply this to Jesus's Parables in episode 113, which also gives interpretations by Paul Tillich and John Dominic Crossan.
  • Episode 62 on Voltaire's Candide delves a bit into the Problem of Evil, but doesn't go into a lot of depth.

We've got a few more tentatively planned: on on faith (featuring some representatives from religion podcasts) and another non-Western one (on the Upanishads or Confucius or Zen).


We've only barely started with the philosophy of language (with Frege, Saussure), and later Wittgenstein. We plan to go further into that story (e.g. Chomsky, Saul Kripke).

Relatedly, we got into hermeneutics (how to interpret texts and other things) with Gadamer (episode 111) and applied this with Paul Ricoeur (episode 112).

We've introduced philosophy of science with Karl Popper (episode 82) and Thomas Kuhn (episode 86). We also discussed scientific ethos on episode 96 and taken on some actual quantum physics in episode 13. We got a bit into futurism by introducing transhumanism (episode 91).

We've done a few on psychology, covering Freud (episode 26), more Freud (episode 116), Jung (episode 81), and Lacan (episode 74).

As I mentioned above, we'd like to do more in philosophy of mind (we've only really done episode 21, plus a consideration of the dangers of artificial intelligence in our interview with Nick Bostrom for episode 108), in all the areas listed above, and the more philosophically relevant findings of contemporary science.