• Log In

The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast

A Philosophy Podcast and Philosophy Blog

Subscribe on Android Spotify Google Podcasts audible patreon
  • Home
  • Podcast
    • PEL Network Episodes
    • Publicly Available PEL Episodes
    • Paywalled and Ad-Free Episodes
    • PEL Episodes by Topic
    • Nightcap
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Pretty Much Pop
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • (sub)Text
    • Phi Fic Podcast
    • Combat & Classics
    • Constellary Tales
  • Blog
  • About
    • PEL FAQ
    • Meet PEL
    • About Pretty Much Pop
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • Meet Phi Fic
    • Listener Feedback
    • Links
  • Join
    • Become a Citizen
    • Join Our Mailing List
    • Log In
  • Donate
  • Store
    • Episodes
    • Swag
    • Everything Else
    • Cart
    • Checkout
    • My Account
  • Contact
  • Mailing List

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

May 13, 2009 by Mark Linsenmayer 72 Comments

http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/traffic.libsyn.com/partiallyexaminedlife/PEL_ep002_5-6-09.mp3

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:39:02 — 90.7MB)

On 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 this online version of the text or buy a copy.

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

End song: "Axiomatic" by New People from The Easy Thing (2009).

If you enjoy the episode, please consider supporting us through making a donation. A recurring $5 donation will get you access to episodes no longer available to the public, an online learning community, and more. Learn about PEL Citizenship.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Filed Under: Podcast Episodes Tagged With: Descartes, Descartes Meditations, epistemological, epistemology, illusion, Matrix, philosophy podcast, reality, University of Texas

Comments

  1. Sam says

    January 7, 2010 at 6:27 am

    I just took philosophy 101. I look forward to listening to this.

    Reply
  2. Wes Alwan says

    January 11, 2010 at 7:58 am

    Thanks Sam — hope you enjoy it.

    Reply
  3. Geoff says

    March 29, 2010 at 8:33 pm

    I just got through listening to the episode. Though I can’t be certain.

    It was quite odd. I was just this morning, on my way to work, thinking about the nature of colour, and what it means for something ‘to be red’ and so forth.

    Anyway, I have listened to the first couple of episodes now and just wanted to say thanks, I think.

    Reply
  4. Seth Paskin says

    March 29, 2010 at 11:12 pm

    Thanks Geoff, we appreciate that you are enjoying the podcast and care enough to tell us. I should inform you, however, that you are dreaming. Mark is the Evil Demon.

    Reply
  5. Geoff says

    March 30, 2010 at 4:29 am

    Really? Mark?

    I was sure it was my neighbour’s cat.

    Reply
  6. Colin says

    April 11, 2011 at 9:35 pm

    What’s the best, or at least, officially recommended PEL translation of the Meditations? Just found the podcast, and your description of the book as good reading has me wanting to check it out, but not sure which (English) translation to check out.

    Reply
  7. Seth Paskin says

    April 12, 2011 at 7:33 am

    @Colin
    This is the most common version of which I’m aware:

    http://www.amazon.com/Discourse-Method-Meditations-Philosophy-ebook/dp/B004L628V8/ref=sr_1_49?ie=UTF8&qid=1302611315&sr=8-49&tag=theparexalif-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0198245971

    Sorry I can’t make the link more readable – you can get it in paperback or Kindle and it’s not expensive.
    –seth

    Reply
  8. kjc says

    May 9, 2011 at 2:31 pm

    enough with the supercasual intro! it’s boring when you try to be interesting. just talk about something besides the podcast.

    Reply
    • Mark Linsenmayer says

      May 9, 2011 at 2:58 pm

      The scan forward button works nicely, as does the “listen on double speed” feature on iPhones and probably other things.

      Reply
  9. Brian says

    February 6, 2012 at 12:45 am

    In light of all the talk about how the radical skepticism and chasing after certainty is unrealistic and intellectually damaging and unnecessary, it’s really interesting to note (and I was surprised to read it myself) that Descartes himself in some sense seems to agree with that practical sentiment. As he writes,

    “But it is not sufficient to have made these observations; care must be taken likewise to keep them in remembrance. For those old and customary opinions perpetually recur– long and familiar usage giving them the right of occupying my mind, even almost against my will, and subduing my belief; nor will I lose the habit of deferring to them and confiding in them so long as I shall consider them to be what in truth they are, viz, opinions to some extent doubtful, as I have already shown, but still highly probable, and such as it is much more reasonable to believe than deny.”

    Also, Descartes submits that his conclusion that 2+3=5 could be the result of a deception everytime he does the addition. But I don’t see how this kind of fallibility of reasoning can be stopped from being absolutely global. What if Descartes is merely deceived every time he forms the clear and distinct judgment “I think therefore I am”? What is it about this judgment that is infallible in a way that 2+3=5 is not?

    Reply
    • David Clark says

      February 6, 2012 at 1:51 am

      Also, Descartes submits that his conclusion that 2+3=5 could be the result of a deception everytime he does the addition. But I don’t see how this kind of fallibility of reasoning can be stopped from being absolutely global. What if Descartes is merely deceived every time he forms the clear and distinct judgment “I think therefore I am”? What is it about this judgment that is infallible in a way that 2+3=5 is not?

      If Descartes is being deceived, here… who is being deceived? Someone who exists, no? Being deceived requires being, I think?

      I don’t think the cogito earns its keep either, but for a different reason – what if ‘I think’ is said by a fictional character?

      As with everything I’ve ever thought, it turns out it’s been figured out by someone else already – here’s a fun tour of the cogito of fictional characters by Nicola Ciprott, from the astonishingly unlikely “Icelandic E-Journal of Nordic and Mediterranean Studies”:

      Reply
      • David Clark says

        February 6, 2012 at 1:52 am

        Aaaand, the link didn’t work. Maybe this one will.

        Reply
      • Brian says

        February 6, 2012 at 4:04 am

        If Descartes is being deceived, here… who is being deceived? Someone who exists, no? Being deceived requires being, I think?

        I get the argument, I just don’t think that it survives the kind of radical skepticism Descartes applies to statements like “2+3=5” or “a square has four sides”. The same basis for being skeptical about statements like these would seem applicable to *any* statement. For instance, perhaps Descartes’ logical argument about the cogito and its attendant feelings of clarity and definiteness are themselves a deception caused by an evil deceiver, just as he says his analytic/mathematical truths and their attendant feelings of clarity and definiteness could be attributed to such a deception. So I’m not critiquing the cogito as much as I’m critiquing what seems like an incongruity in Descartes’ application of skepticism.

        Reply
  10. Ryan says

    February 6, 2012 at 11:35 am

    I read the cogito not as a rational argument in itself, rather as an event that happens to take place. It is a clear and distinct certainty that where thoughts occur, there is some form of thinking being involved. The cogito is not only an old and customary opinion, it is also happening to you right now and always, but if that were to unimaginably stop being the case, Descartes would be ready to reject it too.

    His other beliefs are not subjected to the same radical skepticism. There is only an incongruity if you are already on board with the cogito, but can’t accept the very next move toward God, which is always involved in his other beliefs that require justification.

    Reply
  11. Ben says

    May 26, 2012 at 11:54 am

    Just a clarification…as far as I know, the meditations is not an argument. At least, it is an ambiguous question whether or not to call it an argument with no clear consensus in professional circles. Perhaps this is easily overlooked because philosophy is so strongly associated with argumentation, and because Descarte makes clear applications of logic in his meditations. Some believe that the meditations may be an enthymeme, an informal argument with an implied premise, but this too is unclear…

    Reply
    • Seth Paskin says

      May 26, 2012 at 7:13 pm

      That seems a rather dry point. If Descartes really thought it was a throwaway speculation he wouldn’t have spent so much time in the Letter of Dedication covering his ass.

      Reply
  12. Merima Dz says

    November 6, 2012 at 11:52 am

    Thank you for your activities!! I’m so happy that in the world there are really a lot of people who are still passionate about true and ultimate questions which can always be revived, we should really have some more methodological doubth in our lives! Greetings from Podgorica, Montenegro!

    Reply
  13. Conor says

    November 8, 2012 at 1:56 pm

    This has genuinely rekindled my love of philosophy all over again! Thankyou!

    Reply
  14. JJ says

    March 11, 2013 at 7:01 pm

    I just wanna make add that mby 1/10 of the world population has already considered the notion that all this might be an illusion, being that view the one expressed in the end of the bhagavad gita.

    thanks for sharing your thoughts guys !

    Reply
  15. Gabrielle says

    June 26, 2013 at 6:11 pm

    Thank you so much for this Podcast. I listen to it on my way to work and it just lights up my whole day!
    Keep on the good work
    Greetings from Montreal!

    Reply
  16. Brendan says

    November 16, 2013 at 2:23 pm

    Just wanted to recommend another free source for the text. I found it after trying the ubiquitous John Vietch translation of Descartes’ Meditations (which I found fairly awful). The translation from http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/ was much clearer to me, in particular the presentation of segments of the text as dialogue. I found this interesting as Seth had commented in the podcast that he could imagine parts of the text as dialogues.

    This website has versions of some the other texts from your podcast that might be useful to listeners.

    Reply
  17. Stan says

    January 13, 2014 at 3:08 pm

    So glad I found this show. I only took philosophy 101 in college but I am a philosopher at heart. Looking forward to rest of the shows. Thanks!

    Reply
  18. Seung says

    October 14, 2014 at 8:34 pm

    Hi,
    Admitted intramural philosopher – love your podcasts. You guys recently sustained me through an excruciating 35 mile bike tour, where I stared at my wife’s rear wheel for 4 hours. Granted, maybe vodka and biking are dangerous bedfellows, but adding philosophy to the mix – downright immoral. Suffice it to say, I’m actually looking forward to another bike ride in the future.

    I seem to agree more with Wes and Seth, rather than Mark, on the pragmatic value of Descartes questioning of what we can know is real. If we take a look at the really momentous changes in human thought throughout history – the earth being round for example, quantum mechanics, the theory of evolution – it had to challenge a previous notion so fundamentally accepted as truth – it may as well be likened to debating with Mark, whether his keys are in fact on top of the table.

    It’s not the actual truth of whether everything is an illusion or not the actual value of Descarte’s questioning, but perhaps just the exercise and willingness to question everything has value in science and human society –even if it is just for the pragmatic result of sailing around the world.

    Reply
  19. Kris Vang says

    February 4, 2015 at 7:05 am

    Please give me some resources on understanding what you said regarding infinity, modern propositional logic, and Frege.

    Reply
    • Mark Linsenmayer says

      February 4, 2015 at 8:27 am

      How about our episodes here on Frege, Wittgenstein (the Tractatus) and Russell?

      Reply
  20. Bruce E says

    September 9, 2015 at 9:47 am

    I know I’m WAY late to this party, but I’ve recently started listening to your podcasts starting from the very beginning, and this morning I’m only up to the first part of Hobbes Episode 3.

    On the off chance you still attend to these older posts and may read and respond to this, I’d like to make some observations you may find either useful or stupid.

    First, I really (so far at least) enjoy the tone, the goals, and the level of content of these podcasts and am looking forward to making you a part of my daily commute and run/walk exercise rhythm.

    Second, there was something one of you (Seth, I think) hit on in the first Plato’s Apology episode regarding the importance of engaging other people in this process of self-examination we want to call philosophy. I think this is perhaps the most-important line in the sand one can draw. It brings into focus that tension between truth and “mere” rhetoric, between idealism and “mere” pragmatism, between ethics and “mere” politics.

    I think, in the context of Descartes first two meditations, it would have been best if you continued with this idea, perhaps made it a primary “theme” of The Partially Examined Life project you’ve got going here, and focused a bit more on the tension that one of you (Seth again, I think) saw between the “introduction to the reader” section and the rest of the treatise. The idea is this — Descartes’ programme of methodological doubt does not actually treat belief and doubt as the psychological and emotional phenomenon that is the common-sense intuition that people associate with words like belief, doubt, certainty, and conviction.

    In the emotional/psychological sense, Descartes betrays a pragmatic belief (assumption?) in the introduction: someone else exists (a reader who is not himself). In the Meditations, however, he starts by establishing the existence of himself, and then to God, and then to a non-deceitful God, and then finally to a justification of trust in our senses — and this trust is supposed to be the foundation of science. He never grounds a belief in the existence of other people.

    However, like the self-examination Socrates says is necessary to make life worth living, science is not a solipsistic endeavor. The foundations of science, in fact, are ethical rather than ideological. Scientific method and the repeatability of experiments is predicated on the idea that doubt derived from wondering if the senses are reliable or if it is illusion is mitigated by checking with others to see if their senses tell them the same thing.

    In this sense, perhaps, the introduction is more-important than the rest of the meditations, because it grounds the fundamental ethical nature of all of scientific and philosophical endeavors pragmatically, perhaps “self-evidently” in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, without subjecting the existence of others to this methodological doubt.

    Early on in Hobbes there is a similar issue, where Hobbes grounds this “state of nature” in a solipsistic myth, pretending each individual is isolated by their own self-interest and not only having the right but the responsibility to protect their own self-interests, completely ignoring the reality of how we come into this world — utterly dependent, and defenseless except for the protection of others who place our preservation high enough on their list of priorities (in some cases above their own self-preservation) to keep us alive and to raise us to a state where we are capable of some amount of self-protection.

    It’s this idealistic Athenian myth that the individual (e.g. Rand’s Howard Roark) is born fully-formed and independent and able to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps that is an exaggeration of Descartes’ methodological doubt where he can only establish his own existence and must predicate the remainder of his epistemology on that existential fact. The convenient forgetfulness of Descartes’ introduction, where the predicate of his own life and the predicate of the treatise itself (the existence of others) is as obvious as it is unstated is used in modern times to justify the likes of Ayn Rand and other solipsistic/idealistic/self-centered mythologies such that his methodological doubt becomes the blunt instrument that nihilists use to justify the worst kinds of global skepticism, and also informs modern religious movements such as “your own personal Jesus” where the Church is no longer needed because I can deal with God all by myself and don’t need anyone else (see, it says so right here in the Bible, that book that I can read because someone taught me to read it but I’ll forget about their role in all this…).

    Anyway, good stuff. Hopefully you have the time to respond to this and I might have hit a chord. Looking forward to continuing your podcasts. You may see more comments of mine in here as I catch up.

    (Minor point I’d like to close with: the method of reductio ad absurdum in something like geometry is not best-described as “assume the theorem you want to prove is true and use that assumption to create a contradiction.” It is better-described as “assume a very-specific negation of the theorem you want to prove and use that assumption to create a contradiction.” It’s a very specific kind of negation that produces results, and it’s also extremely interesting when that method is used on something like the parallel postulate to derive the non-Euclidean geometries.)

    Reply
    • Mark Linsenmayer says

      September 9, 2015 at 9:52 am

      Thanks, Bruce, welcome to the party! Very good point about D’s introduction. You sound like a great potential Aftershow or Not School participant, so by all means, get a bit more caught up and jump into the current goings on!

      Reply
  21. Caleb G. says

    August 13, 2016 at 2:40 pm

    I just came across this wonderful podcast when googling ‘philosophy podcast’ of all things. Great podcast guys!

    Soon, when i get landline internet as opposed to just my mobile, i look forward to becoming a PEL citizen.

    I really enjoyed the exchange about identity and would like to add a little food for thought.

    ‘God’ says “i am who i am”

    Reply
  22. Greg Gauthier says

    September 4, 2016 at 3:28 am

    What’s beautiful about these podcasts, is that they’re essentially evergreen. This material is as fresh now for me, (because I’m working on a paper on the cogito), as it was when it was recorded in 2009.

    THANK YOU, guys, for all your hard work.

    Reply
  23. Nick says

    November 4, 2016 at 9:31 am

    Regarding the realistic dream scenario, I have had a few experiences where I could not tell the difference between dream and reality while asleep. In some cases, I even questioned in the moment if it was a dream, but was convinced it was reality. Some memories I’m not even certain whether they actually happened or if they were just from dreams. That’s just my personal experience.

    Reply
  24. Akshay Kant Mishra says

    April 2, 2017 at 2:58 am

    I really appreciate you all working and making it easy to understand philosophy in such an easy manner. Keep up the great work.
    From India!!!

    Reply
  25. Christopher Morse says

    May 9, 2017 at 1:17 pm

    Gentlemen, I love your podcast. I discovered it just a few weeks ago and have been listening to the archives incessantly ever since. You bring an intellegent discussion forward even on volatile topics, and it is appreciated.

    So, my question right now is, has any progress been made using Descartes’ meditations to actually build that more sound foundation for empirical science he set out to do?

    I’m having trouble finding anything of significant value searching on my own, and posing this question in other online forums invariably devolves into chaos.

    There seems to be a great divide between science and philosophy (especially amongst my peers) that I think is unnecessary, and which I think could be resolved with a little effort. So, I have given myself the task of helping accomplish this, but I would rather not reinvent the wheel if I don’t have to.

    Reply
    • Christopher Morse says

      June 3, 2017 at 5:43 am

      Not that I expected a response to my random comment to a podcast from so long ago, but I take it to mean that the answer to my question is “no, not really.”

      Descartes left a huge gap between “Cogito Ergo Sum” and Empiricism, and as far as I can tell, no one ever bridged it. Fast forward to today, and Elon Musk, reportedly with other wealthy individuals, has assembled a think tank and is financing an actual investigation into the possibility of our living in a simulation (see the link below if you’re not already aware.).

      Wealthy eccentric behaviour? I don’t know, but I think it’s a great thing, I wish I was invited to be part of the investigation. Since I wasn’t, I will just make my contribution in the form of a self-published book.

      To be clear, no, I don’t think we’re living in a simulation, but it would awesome to get paid to prove or disprove it.

      https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/02/elon-musk-tesla-space-x-paypal-hyperloop-simulation

      Reply
Newer Comments »

Trackbacks

  1. Topic for #31: Husserl’s Phenomenology | The Partially Examined Life | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    November 29, 2010 at 12:10 pm

    […] sounds like, he uses a parallel structure to Descartes’s method of doubt as depicted in the Meditations), we’ve got a transcription and elaboration of some lectures Husserl gave in 1929 (lectures […]

    Reply
  2. "Prima Facie Weirdness?" | The Partially Examined Life | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    June 20, 2011 at 10:46 am

    […] like the ambivalence we P.E.L. podcasters sometimes exhibit about philosophy: yes, thinking about whether this chair is really here or about the foundations of arithmetic is pretty weird and esoteric, and we surely wouldn’t […]

    Reply
  3. Metaphors of Deception in "The Matrix" (incl. Plato's Cave) | The Partially Examined Life | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    July 18, 2011 at 10:27 am

    […] in our Descartes episode, we brought up the movie The Matrix as an example of the kind of situation whose possibility […]

    Reply
  4. Partially Examined Life Podcast Topic #43: Arguments for the Existence of God | The Partially Examined Life | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    August 9, 2011 at 8:31 pm

    […] of God itself is supposed to necessitate that such a being exists. The most famous versions are by Descartes and St. […]

    Reply
  5. Timothy Brennan On Baruch Spinoza and Giambattista Vico | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    April 25, 2012 at 9:21 pm

    […] “polemically embraced” Vico as a “counter to the philosophical strands found in Descates and Spinoza that were then asserting themselves in literary and cultural theory, then being the […]

    Reply
  6. Topic for #62: Voltaire’s Novel “Candide” | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    August 3, 2012 at 11:29 am

    […] tendencies that Voltaire most deplored… were those that he associated most powerfully with Descartes who, he believed, began in skepticism but then left it behind in the name of some positive […]

    Reply
  7. Dallas Willard on Nietzsche and Jesus | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    September 3, 2012 at 2:55 pm

    […] so instead you have to argue that without it, we can’t know anything. Willard cites Descartes as an early proponent of this view, though (amusingly) describes him as falling victim to a common […]

    Reply
  8. Topic for #74: Lacan on the Self/Subject | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    March 18, 2013 at 9:43 am

    […] While most of your grade-A philosophers of the past hundred years or so agree that it’s not a Cartesian Cogito, i.e. an immortal soul characterized by continuous consciousness, the alternatives are many and […]

    Reply
  9. “Conceptual Primaries” (Rand vs. Deleuze) | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    May 24, 2013 at 11:29 am

    […] “Consciousness exists.” As with #1, this is highly ambiguous. If it implies, following Descartes, that the knower here is fundamentally different than the known, then that’s going […]

    Reply
  10. Descartes meditation: What can we know? | Caroline+Kühn says:
    October 31, 2013 at 6:57 pm

    […] What can we know?  […]

    Reply
  11. Topic for #85: John Rawls’s Theory of Justice | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    November 10, 2013 at 12:00 pm

    […] it signals an abandonment of any pretense at a foundationalist picture of knowledge, where a la Descartes we we’re supposed to start with unassailable foundations and build on them. Instead, […]

    Reply
  12. Nick Mount on Samuel Beckett and Existentialist Drama | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    November 21, 2013 at 10:02 am

    […] for Beckett himself, he said that when he did read philosophy, it was Descartes that he went to, not the existentialists.  Though he knew Sartre peripherally, he said that both […]

    Reply
  13. Topic for #89: Bishop George Berkeley’s Empiricist Idealism | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    February 18, 2014 at 1:58 pm

    […] of the doctrine of idealism as “ideas are all that exist,” for Berkeley (as for Descartes), when you have an idea, you of course have a thinker, a Spirit who has that idea. So his idealist […]

    Reply
  14. Partially Naked Self-Examination Music Blog: | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    June 14, 2014 at 9:40 am

    […] version posted way back in 2009 on episode 2 (for Descartes, whose whole philosophy was modeled to replicate proofs in geometry) was from the […]

    Reply
  15. Episode 2:  Descartes’s Meditations: What Can We Know? | sojourning mendicant says:
    July 15, 2014 at 4:13 am

    […] http://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2009/05/13/episode-2-descartess-meditations-what-can-we-know/ […]

    Reply
  16. Philosophy of History Part I: The Enlightenment | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    July 16, 2015 at 7:10 pm

    […] and which we might contrast with deduction based on logic, the method of Plato, Spinoza, and Descartes. The inheritors of the first method we call empiricists, and of the second we call […]

    Reply
  17. Philosophy of History, Part II: Giambattista Vico, Philology, and the Origins of Historicism | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    July 23, 2015 at 7:00 am

    […] inspiration for Giambattista Vico’s (1668–1744) philosophy of history was the work of Rene Descartes (1596–1650), who boldly declared that he would believe nothing that could not be demonstrated […]

    Reply
  18. Madness as Ontology: Catching Foucault’s Quote Mining | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    August 6, 2015 at 6:04 pm

    […] That said, in his book Writing and Difference, Derrida delivers a rather cogent interpretation of Descartes's Meditations on First Philosophy, an interpretation that remains faithful to something as suspect […]

    Reply
  19. Descartes’s Horror? | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    August 20, 2015 at 6:26 am

    […] World, I found myself returning again and again to that most canonical and unsexy of philosophers, Rene Descartes. Worse, I kept returning to his famous proposition "Cogito ergo sum" or "I think, therefore I am," […]

    Reply
  20. Computer Games and the Solipsistic Fantasy | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    September 8, 2015 at 7:00 am

    […] have also served to breathe new life into some of the oldest attacks on realism. For example, Descartes imagined that everything he experienced as "real life" might theoretically be illusions produced by […]

    Reply
  21. Philosophy of History Part XV: What Is Historicism? | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    October 23, 2015 at 4:18 pm

    […] Vico arrived at his philosophy by inverting Descartes, whose universalism and rationalism he opposed. According to Descartes, mathematics is the […]

    Reply
  22. Partially Examined Life Podcast Topic #47: Sartre on the Self | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    October 30, 2015 at 6:04 pm

    […] also, peripherally, experiencing that it is I seeing this dead mouse (you can see the connection to Descartes's "I think about dead mice, therefore I am" […]

    Reply
  23. Topic for #129: Is Religious Faith Rational? | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    December 13, 2015 at 9:28 pm

    […] have evidence for, exactly, but rather we take these as basic. Strictly speaking (think back to Descartes), we only have these sensations, and yet we assume as basic the belief that these appearances in […]

    Reply
  24. Intro Readings in Philosophy Series Starting Now(ish)!!!! | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    March 2, 2016 at 6:57 pm

    […] Concerning First Philosophy, Preface–Meditation III (as covered in PEL ep. 2, with the God argument covered in ep. […]

    Reply
  25. Humor and Infinite Responsibility: Can Levinas Use a Little Stand-Up Comedy? | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    September 13, 2016 at 5:24 pm

    […] and Infinity (1979) and "The Idea of Infinity" (1987: 47–60), Levinas draws comparisons to Descartes’s Third Meditation (1641) to explain how the relationship between the I and the Other is […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

PEL Live Show 2023

Brothers K Live Show

Citizenship has its Benefits

Become a PEL Citizen
Become a PEL Citizen, and get access to all paywalled episodes, early and ad-free, including exclusive Part 2's for episodes starting September 2020; our after-show Nightcap, where the guys respond to listener email and chat more causally; a community of fellow learners, and more.

Rate and Review

Nightcap

Listen to Nightcap
On Nightcap, listen to the guys respond to listener email and chat more casually about their lives, the making of the show, current events and politics, and anything else that happens to come up.

Subscribe to Email Updates

Select list(s):

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Support PEL

Buy stuff through Amazon and send a few shekels our way at no extra cost to you.

Tweets by PartiallyExLife

Recent Comments

  • Evan Hadkins on Ep. 309: Wittgenstein On Certainty (Part Two)
  • Bibliophile on Pretty Much Pop #143: Pinocchio the Unfilmable (Yet Frequently Filmed)
  • Mark Linsenmayer on Ep. 302: Erasmus Praises Foolishness (Part Two)
  • Mark Linsenmayer on Ep. 308: Moore’s Proof of Mind-Independent Reality (Part Two for Supporters)
  • Mark Linsenmayer on Ep. 201: Marcus Aurelius’s Stoicism with Ryan Holiday (Citizen Edition)

About The Partially Examined Life

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

Become a PEL Citizen!

As a PEL Citizen, you’ll have access to a private social community of philosophers, thinkers, and other partial examiners where you can join or initiate discussion groups dedicated to particular readings, participate in lively forums, arrange online meet-ups for impromptu seminars, and more. PEL Citizens also have free access to podcast transcripts, guided readings, episode guides, PEL music, and other citizen-exclusive material. Click here to join.

Blog Post Categories

  • (sub)Text
  • Aftershow
  • Announcements
  • Audiobook
  • Book Excerpts
  • Citizen Content
  • Citizen Document
  • Citizen News
  • Close Reading
  • Combat and Classics
  • Constellary Tales
  • Exclude from Newsletter
  • Featured Ad-Free
  • Featured Article
  • General Announcements
  • Interview
  • Letter to the Editor
  • Misc. Philosophical Musings
  • Nakedly Examined Music Podcast
  • Nakedly Self-Examined Music
  • NEM Bonus
  • Not School Recording
  • Not School Report
  • Other (i.e. Lesser) Podcasts
  • PEL Music
  • PEL Nightcap
  • PEL's Notes
  • Personal Philosophies
  • Phi Fic Podcast
  • Philosophy vs. Improv
  • Podcast Episode (Citizen)
  • Podcast Episodes
  • Pretty Much Pop
  • Reviewage
  • Song Self-Exam
  • Supporter Exclusive
  • Things to Watch
  • Vintage Episode (Citizen)
  • Web Detritus

Follow:

Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | Apple Podcasts

Copyright © 2009 - 2023 · The Partially Examined Life, LLC. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy · Terms of Use · Copyright Policy

Copyright © 2023 · Magazine Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in