Posts Tagged Descartes

Episode 24: Spinoza on God and Metaphysics

Discussing Spinoza’s Ethics (1677), books 1 and 2.

We mostly discuss his weird, immanent, non-personal conception of God: God is everything, therefore the world is God as apprehended through some particular attributes, namely insofar as one of his aspects is infinite space (extension, i.e. matter) and insofar as one of his aspects is mind (our minds being chunks or “modes” of the big God mind).

Also, if you’re not going to sell out and go for a university position in philosophy, should you instead grind lenses in your attic without adequate ventilation? (Hint: no) Plus, the Amsterdam of yesterday, whose heady aroma drove people to write like Euclid, property dualism rears its ugly head, and Mel Gibson as Rousseau!

Read along! http://frank.mtsu.edu/~rbombard/RB/Spinoza/ethica-front.html

One place to read the earlier Spinoza book I refer to, A Short Treatise on God, Man, and his Well-Being (1660), is http://www.archive.org/stream/spinozasshorttre00spinuoft/spinozasshorttre00spinuoft_djvu.txt. The Karen Armstrong book I keep referring to is The Case for God, and at the end Wes recommends Matthew Stewart’s The Courtier and the Heretic. Seth also brings up Giles Deluze’s Spinoza: Practical Philosophy. The dumbed down, non-geometric presentation of the Ethics that I talk about is here.

End song: “Spiritual Insect,” by Mark Lint and the Fake from the album So Whaddaya Think? (2000).

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2 Comments

Episode 21: What Is the Mind? (Turing, et al)

Reading articles by Alan Turing, Gilbert Ryle, Thomas Nagel, John Searle, and Dan Dennett.

What is this mind stuff, and how can it “be” the brain? Can computers think? No? What if they’re really sexified? Then can they think? Can the mind be a computer? Can it be a room with a guy in it that doesn’t speak Chinese? Can science completely understand it? …The mind, that is, not the room, or Chinese. What is it like to be a bat? What about a weevil? Do you even know what a weevil is, really? Then how do you know it’s not a mind? Hmmmm? Is guest podcaster Marco Wise a robot? Even his wife cannot be sure!

We introduce the mind/body problem and the wackiness that it engenders by breezing through several articles, which you may read along with us:

1. Alan Turing’s 1950 paper “Computing Machinery and Intelligence.

2. A chapter of Gilbert Ryle’s 1949 book The Concept of Mind called “Descartes’ Myth.

3. Thomas Nagel’s 1974 essay “What Is It Like to Be a Bat?

4. John Searle’s Chinese Room argument, discussed in a 1980 piece, “Minds, Brains and Programs.”

5. Daniel C. Dennett’s “Quining Qualia.”

Some additional resources that we talk about: David Chalmers’s “Consciousness and its Place in Nature, “ Frank Jackson’s Epiphenomenal Qualia, Paul Churchland’s Matter and Consciousness, Jerry Fodor’s “The Mind-Body Problem,” Zoltan Torey’s The Crucible of Consciousness, and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s long entry on the Chinese Room argument.

End Song: “No Mind” from 1998’s Mark Lint and the Fake Johnson Trio; the whole album is now free online.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

20 Comments

Episode 20: Pragmatism – Peirce and James

Reading Pragmatism by William James and “The Fixation of Belief” and “How to Make Our Ideas Clear” by Charles Sanders Peirce.

Is truth a primitive relation between our representations and things objectively in the world, or is it an analyzable process by which propositions “prove their worth” by being useful in some way, like by fitting well with other portions of our experience or being delicious?

Peirce, the inventor of pragmatism, focuses on the philosophy of science and thinks of inquiry as a way for us to just settle on any belief we can stomach. James, who popularized pragmatism, has a wider view that applies not only to science but to religious beliefs. If it makes you feel nice to believe in Hogwarts, should you do so?

The episode features guest podcaster Dylan Casey (previously from our quantum physics episode).

The readings are at http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/5116, http://www.peirce.org/writings/p107.html, and http://www.peirce.org/writings/p119.html. Another helpful link we talk about is the chapter from James’s book The Meaning of Truth where he responds to objections: http://www.brocku.ca/MeadProject/James/James_1911/James_1911_08.html

End Song: “Friend” from 1998’s Mark Lint and the Fake Johnson Trio; the whole album is now free online.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2 Comments

In Praise of Nigel Warburton

A few months back in response to a blog post where I lauded our podcast over/against other philosophy podcasts, Jon recommended Philosophy Bites, Little Atoms, and Philosophy: The Classics, among others.  Two of these have in common that Nigel Warburton is involved, which is a very good thing.

Nigel Warburton of the Open UniversityWarburton is a Philosopher and scholar of the history of Philosophy at The Open University and is involved in a number of other things (I won’t pretend to understand how all the Fellowships work).  From a media perspective, he’s a polymath, having published books; written, appeared in and produced television and radio programs; contributed to a multimedia museum presentation and recorded a number of podcasts.

Philosophy: The Classics is his reading of excerpts from his book of the same name.  Each episode is like a chapter summary, covering one philosopher and text.  Clocking in between 12 – 25 minutes or so, Warburton concisely and clearly explicates and explains the major themes in the work, gives some background on the philosopher and provides some criticisms.  As introductions for the lay reader, these are hard to beat, but even experienced students of philosophy will benefit from his framing of the motivations, problems, arguments and critiques of the texts.  For the topics we have covered in common, the diligent PEL adherent would certainly gain from listening to the corresponding episodes from P: TC (Aristotle, Machiavelli, Descartes, Hobbes, Hume, Mill, Kant) and the lazy PEL listener could even use his casts as a substitute for reading the texts.  Here’s the iTunes link.

P: TC is great, but it is through Philosophy Bites, however, where I feel Warburton is making a significant contribution to the world of philosophy that we inhabit, and the larger culture as well.  [Although he partners with David Edmonds, Warburton is the primary interlocutor so I'm giving him credit for what I like most about the podcast].  PB is a series of short, focused interviews around philosophical topics, specific philosophers as well as contemporary topics in ethics, politics, etc.  The interviewees are subject matter experts (SME) from the world of British academia, both current and past, with the occasional American or Aussie thrown in.

What is impressive about Warburton in each episode of PB is his deep understanding of the topic at issue as well as the SME’s point of view and his ability to turn that into concise, articulate and insightful questions which invite exposition and challenge the guest.  This skill is remarkably more difficult than it sounds and he does it phenomenally well – with genuine interest, reserve and occasionally, a bit of British wit.  While I am sure many of the interviewees are colleagues and acquaintances, it is not uncommon for them to express what sounds to me to be genuine surprise and delight at Warburton’s insightful questions that cut straight to key issues.  I get the sense that many are thrilled to have the opportunity to discuss something about which they are passionate with someone who cares enough not only to give them a forum, but also to be educated on the subject and, most importantly, rhetorically (or perhaps pedagogically) gifted enough to guide the conversation to cover issue, context, significance, position and challenges clearly in a short period of time.

There are well over 100 episodes covering a broad range of topics.  I enjoy most of the episodes about historical figures, have gained some insights through the more contemporary issue-focused episodes and have discovered a few personalities I didn’t previously know to whom I really like to listen (A.C. Grayling,  Quinton Skinner, Simon Blackburn).   Whether selectively or simply working through catalog as I have, I believe most PEL listeners will gain from checking out the podcast as well.

My admiration for Warburton’s style and commitment aside, let me enumerate a few of the ways that he is enriching our intellectual and cultural life:

  • He has created a bridge between traditional academia and ‘new media’, bringing philosophers and philosophical issues into broader consciousness with digital mass communication
  • Along with the Ideas themselves, he is exposing a broader audience to contemporary philosophy and in turn modern philosophers to an extra-academic audience
  • He is tremendously skilled at clearly framing questions and issues in such a way that they can be (mostly) understood by a lay audience in a digestible format
  • He’s generously sharing his knowledge of and respect for philosophy and the tradition
  • Philosophy Bites is a model for civil discourse, which is in catastrophically short supply not only in this field, but in social/mass media in general

A few of the limitations of the podcast, which are not criticisms:

  • It is fairly limited to the British/Analytic tradition and approach.  The majority of the participants are from British universities.
  • Depending on the topic and guest, there can be a lot of “-isms” thrown around.
  • Some of the dinosaur guests trot out the tired ‘clarity’ & ‘rigor’ refrain and do some continental bashing, which is tedious and unhelpful
  • Some of the topics may not have a lot of relevance for our peer audience (e.g. The Problem of Evil)

You’ll find that the comments on iTunes more or less reflect my opinion.  I want to reiterate, however, that Warburton through Philosophy Bites and other media is using his not inconsiderable skill, intellect, knowledge and experience as well as leveraging his network to bring Philosophy to a much broader audience and to do so in a way that hopefully will engage them.  It’s free and he’s demonstrated commitment over time and a generosity of spirit which is to be commended.  And so, I do.  Thank you, Nigel Warburton.

Seth

[ADDENDUM - Nigel sent me a very nice note of thanks and noted that David Edmonds is involved in the conception, structuring and editing of the interviews, the last of which is critical to making the episodes as coherent and smooth as they are.  We, certainly Mark, can appreciate that.

He also noted that there is a Philosophy Bites application now, which you can find here.  Use this code JFTH9NEXEHWL in the next couple of weeks for a free download.]

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

4 Comments

Ripping the Classics

An amusing article by Jeanette DeMain on Salon.com about Amazon one-star reviews of classic books caught my eye. Its thesis is that for every book our culture (or likely, you in particular) finds great, there’s likely a horrific review of it posted.

Now, of course many of these reviews are by semi-literate anti-intellectual assholes. Still, I think that history and other factors inevitably drive a wedge between current readers and classic works, and it requires getting used to a different style of storytelling, different cultural norms mixed up in the works, different agendas, etc. to appreciate the work.

So, yes, you can strive to learn enough to be a competent reader of Shakespeare, but there’s nothing wrong with admitting you don’t have the stamina to do that or that, despite how anti-intellectual it may make you look, you actually don’t enjoy reading Shakespeare, or Brontë, or Thomas Hardy or whomever your high school teachers tried to get you to appreciate.

I tend not only to “see” (i.e. abstractly recognize) the works I’ve given substantial time to in both a positive and negative light, but I feel (i.e. viscerally react to depending on my mood) these aspects as well. My “guilty pleasures” are not purely pleasurable, and (as should be clear from the podcasts) I find many of the works I admire to be painful. I think it’s a mistake to try to resolve this ambivalence. Yes, it’s rewarding to work past the barriers into appreciating something, but it’s also pleasurable to bitch about it. One can, without hypocrisy, do both.

I’ve only taken a second here to look up low-star reviews on philosophy works. Here are some amusing partial dismissals of Plato’s Republic. Interestingly, I couldn’t find any one-star reviews of the first few Plato listings at all apart from one person criticizing the vendor’s delivery practices.

I did, however, find a one-star review of Descartes’s Meditations:

Overly repetitious

This review is from: Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy, 4th Ed. (Paperback)
Descartes seems like the sort of guy who likes the sound of his own voice, not unlike a philosophy professor! He has only a handful of points, a few of them interesting but the majority pure academic fluff, and he spends over 100 pages just reiterating his ideas and logic behind them. It seemed like a modern editor would read the manuscript, and whittle it down to a maximum of 25 pages. I am not surprised that various classes on philosophy only use excerpts of Descartes’ work.

Feel free to reply to this post with anything amusing you run across.

, , , , , , ,

1 Comment

Episode 13: What Are the Metaphysical Implications of Quantum Physics?

Reading Werner Heisenberg’s “Physics and Philosophy” (1958), and talking about it with an actual former particle physicist, Dylan Casey.

What weird stuff about reality does quantum physics imply? Is Heisenberg (of the Uncertainty Principle fame) right that we need to reject “metaphysical realism” based on this very well established scientific framework? The discussion ranges over the uncertainty principle, relativity, wave/particle duality, Pre-Socratic metaphysics, why Kant is wrong about space, and lots of very weird things.

You can read along with us here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/13499208/PHYSICS-AND-PHILOSOPHY-by-WERNER-HEISENBERG.

Plus, we spend far too much time talking about an article by Thomas Nagel about Intelligent Design; you can read that here: http://philosophy.fas.nyu.edu/docs/IO/1172/papa_132.pdf. And the blog post by Brian Leiter that got us talking about it is here: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2009/12/thomas-nagel-jumps-the-shark.html.

End song: “Neutrino of Love,” written and sung by Dylan Casey, with backing and production by Mark back in 1997 or so (remixed and cleaned up just now). A different version appears on his Neutrino Sessions album.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

9 Comments

Episode 2: Descartes’s Meditations: What Can We Know?

Discussing Descartes’s Meditations 1 and 2.

Descartes engages in the most influential navel gazing ever, and you are there! In this second and superior-to-the-first installment of our lil’ philosophy discussion, we discuss what Descartes thinks he knows with certainty (hint: it is not you), the Matrix, and burning-at-the-stake.com. Mark and Wes agree to disagree about agreeing that they disagree. Seth had a long day and is very tired. Plus: Some listener feedback; whom is this here podcast aimed at? Why, you, of course!

To increase your enjoyment, download and read Descartes Meditations 1 and 2.

Here, also, is the Descartes chunk of Philosophy and the Matrix that Seth refers to.

End song: “Axiomatic” by New People (2009)

, , , , , ,

5 Comments