• 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

PREVIEW-Episode 25: Spinoza on Human Nature

September 10, 2010 by Mark Linsenmayer 13 Comments

http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/traffic.libsyn.com/partiallyexaminedlife/PREVIEW-PEL_ep_025_8-17-10.mp3

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 31:57 — 29.3MB)

This is a 32-minute preview of a 1 hr, 38-minute episode.

Buy Now Purchase this episode for $2.99. Or become a PEL Citizen for $5 a month, and get access to this and all other paywalled episodes, including 68 back catalogue episodes; exclusive Part 2's for episodes published after September, 2020; and our after-show Nightcap, where the guys respond to listener email and chat more causally.

Discussing Books II through V of the Ethics. Continues the discussion from Ep. 24.

What is the relation between mind and body? How do we know things? What are the emotions? Is there an ethical ideal for us to shoot for? What is our relationship to God?

Our rational nature prevails over urges to scream, sleep, or slap each other as we plow to the end of this strange and thorny text.

Read a free version online or purchase the book.

End song: "When I Think of You" from The MayTricks' Happy Songs Will Bring You Down (1994).

Looking for the full Citizen version?

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Filed Under: Podcast Episodes Tagged With: Baruch Spinoza, emotions, epistemology, Ethics, philosophy of mind, philosophy podcast, virtue ethics

Comments

  1. burl says

    September 11, 2010 at 12:55 pm

    I am not clear about what you guys concluded on Spinoza’s attitude about animals.

    I think you indicate he is similar to Descartres – may he suffer for eternity at the fangs of famished wolves and non-omnivorous cows – with an anthropocentrism based on that highly vaunted capacity for rationalization inherited from Aristotelian and Scholastic thinkers.

    Reply
  2. burl says

    September 11, 2010 at 6:10 pm

    Correction: meant to say the cows should be non-herbivores (it really doesn’t matter, as the wolves alone should take care of things).

    Reply
  3. Mark Linsenmayer says

    September 11, 2010 at 7:10 pm

    Burl, I think S’s position is closer to Kant’s. Whereas Descartes thinks animals don’t feel, Spinoza and Kant think that they do, but think that moral obligation isn’t grounded in the victim’s ability to feel.

    The difference is that Kant is being consistent in his position, in that our duties are to rational agents in virtue of their rationality. For Spinoza, arguably, good and bad are rooted in pleasure and pain (as for the utilitarian). However, for Spinoza, our obligation to others comes from our perceiving them as the best means for ourselves to be happy, whereas animals are ungrateful bastards, so we can use them. But, of course, this argument shouldn’t apply to animals of a sort that can help us out, give us affection, etc., i.e. pets, and as Wes was saying, their similarity to us as far as their mental lives go should make us on Spinozan grounds have some affection/respect for them.

    Reply
  4. burl says

    September 12, 2010 at 4:10 am

    Thanks, Mark. I forgot the Jant comparison. Of all the famous philosophers, I guess it is Hume who came down most favorably for animals probably because he did not place rationality as being so special. I love his “Of the Reason of Animals” from _An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding_;
    The Harvard Classics. 1909–14. at http://www.bartleby.com/37/3/13.html

    When I see reason being used as a cleaver (knife of reason – ratio-dialectic-division) to separate humans out as a species so special that the others are nearly negligible, I focus on the term ‘rationalization’ and ask if what we do with reason fused with primate emotions geared to deception is all that damn noble.

    Reply
  5. Henri says

    September 18, 2010 at 11:49 pm

    nice podcast but…WHERE’S THE FREUD EPISODE!

    Reply
    • Wes Alwan says

      September 19, 2010 at 7:39 pm

      very soon!

      Reply
    • Mark Linsenmayer says

      September 20, 2010 at 11:59 am

      In general, we take 3 weeks between recordings, so that’s my target re. posting, though in this case, we’ll beat that target by a few days at least (the last one went up 10 days ago as of this posting by my count, and we will definitely have the Freud one up within the week.)

      Reply
  6. Mike S. says

    October 24, 2010 at 12:53 am

    I’ve never read Spinoza, so my comment on him comes from my understanding, of your understanding of him.

    That being said, your conversation in part 2. seems to reveal a duality about him, that i eluded to in one of my previous posts.

    It seems to me, that Spinoza seems to both generalize the human emotional experience or just human experience and adds that generalization or uses that generalization to deny/assign value to aspects of that same experience.

    On the one hand, he seems to be pointing to some harmony that is built in nature and then he seems to be arguing against that harmony, as being more or less harmonious based on his understanding of its use.

    So as far as i can gather, he seems to have this philosophy of ethics or motivation that is somewhat incoherent with his overall general philosophy.

    What i mean is, his take on animals is pretty much insane , set up by his own boundaries of sanity. I think this helps make evident that his understanding of emotions seem to be neutral and then not neutral.

    It just seems to me, that it’s absurd to have a view of causality that is deterministic, and then also take a view on ethics that is limited to people’s own ability to address such ethics.

    For example, it’s a little like saying, “the reason you’re what you are, is beyond your ability to control……but if you don’t control it, you’re a jerk”

    I think, for me, the reason that Spinoza seems to be unable to seperate the physical from the moral or ethical world, is the same reason he’s unable to seperate God from his whole philosophy. He’s really a moralist disguised as a rationalist. Or atleast, he’s got a lot of moralist in him for a rationalist.

    And possibly, that’s because of the age he lived in. (certainly i’d say) Clearly he’s quite hung up on god.

    I wonder how much of his “god” talk/theory was self-imposed and how much was possibly to satisfy the time he lived in.

    Anywho, i liked Spinoza much much more in part 1. He seems to fall apart a little for me, in part 2.

    I think it was Seth who said “this is either the greatest thing ever written or off just enough that it’s lunacy”

    And i think i would somewhat agree with that statement. I found half of what he seems to be saying (spinoza) so logical and the other half, totally illogical. To me, it seems like he was a man struggling to reconcile to competing views of reality. Which i imagine, would make sense given the difference between the way of seeing the world he was taught/dwelled in and the way he was trying to craft.

    Reply
  7. sean says

    June 20, 2011 at 4:50 am

    this is worth a listen
    http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bigideas/stories/2011/3241135.htm

    Reply
    • Mark Linsenmayer says

      June 20, 2011 at 9:22 am

      Thanks, Sean!

      Reply
  8. Frank Callo says

    August 22, 2011 at 9:38 am

    Hi Guys. I am loving the discussion of Spinoza who is probably my favorite thinker of the western tradition. My comment concerns the difference between the second kind of knowledge (from clear and distinct ideas) and the third (intuitive science). My understanding is that intuitive science refers to something that can not be reduced to any deeper order. for example, a triangle has certain triangular qualities (like all the angles, when added together equal 180 degrees). There is no deeper reason why this is so, this quality is simply part of the “suchness” , of triangles. So if the student asks (what is the shape of this long, narrow shard of glass”? You can lead him, through clear and distinct ideas (the idea of what a shape is, what an angle is, and so on)., to the conclusion that the shard of glass is triangular. But from there, there is no further to go, it is a triangle because because it has these qualities/it has these qualities because it is a triangle, If this makes sense.

    BTW, all this Spinoza talk makes me think of another guy I like who got excommunicated from the catholic church for more or less the same reasons that Spinoza did. Ever hear of Johannes Scotus Eriugena? Y’all might dig his work if you dig Spinoza.

    Peace
    Frank

    Reply
  9. Joel says

    November 4, 2012 at 5:24 pm

    I am looking forward for that Passions episode. It was a good experience that I had reading that with the objections to the hydraulic model of emotion. I began looking at the logic of emotion from Sartre’s book on that subject.

    Reply

Trackbacks

  1. Episode 166: Spinoza on Politics and Religion (Part One) | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    June 19, 2017 at 9:57 am

    […] to believe? To answer this, we have to get at what he means by acting morally. In The Ethics (our ep. 25, which incidentally you can get with a $1 pledge on patreon.com/partiallyexaminedlife), we saw that […]

    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

  • 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)
  • MartinK on Ep. 201: Marcus Aurelius’s Stoicism with Ryan Holiday (Citizen Edition)
  • Wayne Barr on Ep. 308: Moore’s Proof of Mind-Independent Reality (Part Two for Supporters)

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