I received an e-mail today that gives me a bit of pause:
I discovered your podcast a couple of weeks ago. I liked it right away, because it was three friends talking about a favorite subject... Plus, it seemed like a good way to learn about the philosophers I'd never read, like an audiobook, but way more fun.
...Your podcasts are fine, but my problem is you guys keep hitting me in the face with your political views. I get that not everyone is a conservative.... I wish I knew why that was. Anyway, in every episode, it's usually Wes who takes a shot at the right wing, usually insinuating that we're all bible-thumping, gay-hating rednecks who want to cut taxes while fetishizing our guns. The first few times, I let it go, but man! You guys have a real problem with conservatives, don't you? Do you really think we're all intellectually dishonest scoundrels who don't really believe what we're saying, haven't given a thought to our beliefs, and want to selfishly get rich at others' expense? You must, and it's okay. Your opinons are fine, though I don't agree. But they do not make me feel wanted, that's for sure.
I also get the daily double from you guys. Ayn Rand. She was a horrible human being. Her followers tend to be absolutist assholes, puffed up with self-importance. But labeling anyone who thinks her novels, or her writings on economics and racism and rational self-interest, are adolescent thinkers who refuse to grow up really offends me.
I think I should just not listen anymore. It's too bad, because I like the way you guys relate to each other and I like the subject matter, and I like your music. But I don't think you want me. You demonstrate it with every shot you take.
This parallels some occasional flack we get re. our views on religion, and I'll give the same defense: we acknowledge that it's very very likely that you, the individual listener, are a sensitive and thoughtful conservative (given that you're listening to a philosophy podcast), but we live in a culture where "conservative" means "go out and get a job and be useful, and screw all this knowledge for knowledge's sake and art for art's sake!" Philosophy is by definition in opposition to that.
As I've tried to express in some blog posts, I think there are versions of conservatism that are not blatantly foolish (foolish being, for instance, a blind focus on taxes as being the root of all evil). I think our Locke episode touches on some of the legitimate philosophical problems involved: you've got a system of accrual of property that seems fair on the face of it; does it remain fair if and when one guy gets all the nuts? How do you construct a government where the representatives aren't sold out to the rich? Can a democracy be effective if its citizens are apathetic, or worse off if they can be inflamed/bribed by appealing to an emotional issue (e.g. abortion or gay marriage) into letting supporting things against their interest (i.e. the interests of the rich as protected by those sold-out politicians)?
Re. Rand in particular, all I can say is please go read and learn about a lot of philosophy, and you'll likely come to the conclusion that even if you agree with her political views, she was just really not a good philosopher... not cogent in her arguments and not educated about the philosophy (e.g. Kant) she was reacting against. You will grow out of her if you keep pushing ahead, I promise. The elements that you like about her you'll find better if you push into her influences (e.g. Nietzsche, Aristotle). I'll say the same things to lefties who got into philosophy through drippy New Age writings. These are fine gateway drugs but must be transcended.
OK, but all this is beside the point: given that some of our listeners will have different views, and strongly identify themselves in such a way that they'll feel personally insulted at casual digs to the Tea Party, or evangelical Christianity, or George W. Bush, and given that we podcasters want to get and keep as many listeners in the fold as possible (for purely egotistical reasons, apparently, as we're not charging admission to the party), should we make some attempt to lay off with that brand of shit-talking? In other words, do we WANT listeners like the this guy?
A parallel comes to mind: we know that some of our listeners are turned off by us saying words like "shit-talking" and "fuckstick" and "queef balloon," and on occasion I'll actually edit such things out if they aren't at all germane to the discussion (for instance, when talking about Kant, you really have to talk about queef balloons). Still, I think overall the humor and naturalness outweighs this concern, and all I can say to sensitive souls is to take a deep breath and you'll get through it.
So likewise, though I definitely want to say that all thoughtful folks are welcome at the table, and our legitimate objections are always aimed at ideas and not at people, and I'm sure we'd be polite to you in person, and finally, I'll admit that some of our outbursts are a matter of overreactions to things that irritate us, if you dig the philosophy, stick around and you'll be able to simply shake your head bemusedly at what you're welcome to take as our foolish quirks. If you can't manage that, well, do what you have to do, and we wish you well.
-Mark Linsenmayer
Jack says
May 21, 2011 at 10:57 amIm sure that if this person listened to your podcast and found that you expounded many of the views he holds then he would enjoy it more; which means he should not be listening to philosophy podcasts.
Daniel Horne says
May 21, 2011 at 4:33 pmJack, I couldn’t agree more. I think the problem some people have with PEL (or any other show with the nerve to express an opinion) is that not that it _has_ a bias, but that it fails to share their own bias.
Daniel Horne says
May 21, 2011 at 11:39 amHaving a point of view makes the podcast more interesting than not having one. Anyway, the appeasement game is one you’d always lose, because flattering the tastes of one audience will invariably frustrate another. And if you offend no one, you turn into PBS, and who watches that anymore?
I agree that knee-jerk political asides uttered with no valid point (or funny joke) behind it can be annoying, but no more than that. But keep in mind that name-dropping is also no more than annoying, and you guys have created a rule about that.
I regularly listen to EconTalk, which is a conservative-leaning podcast. I derive great value from it, even though Russ Roberts is explicit about a political and intellectual bias I don’t share. But he’s smart enough that I can’t get too bothered by it. And I would only hurt myself to stop listening to what he has to say, simply because we’re not intellectual soulmates. It’s helpful to listen to people with opposing viewpoints, as long as they are smart and express them cogently, which is probably my only demand from a podcast.
Conversely, I listen to other podcasts which more closely share my political viewpoint (e.g., The New Yorker’s Political Scene, or the Slate Political Gabfest). They occasionally come off as insufferably smug, even though I’m probably in their political camp. But, if what they have to offer is smart or funny enough, I’ll listen regardless.
I think the show’s mission is to be smart and funny, not to validate my outlook.
Athena Sophia Speculi Ustorii says
October 20, 2017 at 4:43 pmI just wanted to wholeheartedly second the entirety of this sentiment!
More specifically, I’m definitely a fan of EconTalk, even though I’m personally more inclined towards leftist economic thinking. That said, EconTalk is one of the only conservative economic podcasts that I’ve come across that really has some serious intellectual weight behind it, is fun to listen to, and that educates me beyond my own narrow economic thinking.
In other words, hearing earnest, fun, and thoughtful arguments from a perspective that you don’t tend to agree with is immensely helpful in terms of refining one’s own understanding of whatever topic is at hand.
David Buchanan says
May 21, 2011 at 12:39 pmJust yesterday a friend lead me to an article in Mother Jones on the “The Science of Self Delusion”. In a nutshell, the article says we all have a tendency to maintain our beliefs but some of us are more tenacious than others. And the studies show that political and religious conservatives really do demonstrate a greater capacity to maintain their beliefs in the face of facts and evidence to the contrary. I’ve seen several articles like this before and there are plenty of academic papers too. One could cite William James on some of this stuff.
It’s easy to understand why conservatives would be offended by these findings but that doesn’t mean they can be dismissed as mere insult or an unfounded stereotype. We can’t pretend it’s not true just because it might hurt somebody’s feelings. The point is not to exclude the right or insult the religious but rather to acknowledge a psychological reality that directly impacts a person’s capacity and willingness to be persuaded by reasons. Without that capacity, I don’t see how anyone could participate in – or even enjoy listening to – a philosophical discussion. This is a general point and I’m not suggesting the e-mail writer is unreasonable or delusional. But there are such people and I see no reason why a philosophy podcast should accommodate them.
Wes Alwan says
May 21, 2011 at 12:49 pmDaniel beat me to my first point: naturally, all of us have political views, not to mention personalities, and trying to censor ourselves or hide such views would suck the personality right out of the podcast. (Although I love NPR and know plenty of people who listen to it — but of course according to right wing orthodoxy its a hotbed of liberal bias that should be de-funded).
But then I’d also like to note that there are few philosophy blogs that are so consistently a-political: we don’t hide our views, but we don’t trumpet them either. You may find backhanded allusions occasionally (especially by yours truly, apparently), but we rarely talk or post at length about our political views, and we have a policy of not doing so unless there’s something politically relevant there. By contrast, the most popular philosophy blog on the Web — the Leiter Reports — is unabashedly, take-no-prisoners liberal.
Further: I’m often the one arguing against scientism and atheism, and defending certain views amenable to theism. And I have as little tolerance for the extremes of leftism — especially as it inhabits the university — than for those of the right. (Of course, my definition of leftist extremism will be much different than that of, say, Fox News).
Incidentally, I usually take care to distinguish conservatism from right wing ideology and the current Republican party, because I think conservatism has about the presence and force in politics that Zeus does on Mt. Olympus. It’s a political mythology. I’m sure that some people really are conservatives — I have some of those tendencies myself — but they then have nothing to do with the current policies advocated by the right. So pardon me if I insinuated that most conservatives were “bible-thumping, gay-hating rednecks who want to cut taxes while fetishizing our guns”; most conservatives in fact don’t exist. That the right wing base and the current political leadership of the Republican party can be characterized in this way is easily confirmed by polls and stated policy. Unless we’re to believe that there are a bunch of right wing atheist, gay rights loving, social program promoting, gun control advocates. Who just love NPR.
Praxeologue says
May 21, 2011 at 2:43 pmI share the sentiments from your ’emailer’. I greatly enjoy the show and find myself following lines of thought that started in these podcasts (especially theory of mind in my case).
However, why is it that you are able to present various intelligent perspectives on subtle philosophical positions yet not on politics. Straw man comments are not arguments, they are cheap entertainment for those that share your view but frustrating to those that don’t.
With regards to the comment above that there have been studies that show conservatives have a psychological bias against change, I would caution you to think about that a little harder. If this is Jonathan Haidt’s work, you ought to be aware he has his own agenda which I doubt he would change (does that make him a conservative liberal?!) and that his tests are very specifically set up for the results he wants. There are plenty of right wing empiricists who will tell you that liberals have various biases or interests that lead them to seek a father figure/paternal role which is satisfied in the form of a nanny state fixing whatever they decide to vote for (regardless of whether subsequent performance actually delivers).
How about an episode on the libertarian position, negative property rights and positive duties. It’s harder to knock down than the ‘we are nice guys that just want fairness unlike everyone who disagrees with us who are bible bashing gun toting rednecks’, admittedly, but there’s plenty to challenge in the liberal position.
Chipping away at the premises of a left /right position one might want to consider that the financial crisis hit most countries, left or right. Maybe the problem is something deeper, which libertarians have argued about very logically for a very long time. Look at this article for example. http://mises.org/money.asp
What is logically incorrect in this? Or rather, despite how long ago this was written doesn’t it seem rather prescient given what is happening today in the financial markets today?
You might like to note that many of the best businessmen, successful because they have been correct in foreseeing consequences of their actions presumably, have a very strong libertarian bent.
Philosophy departments can be wrong for a long time, businessmen can’t (unless they get a liberal or republican administration to bail them out, but this is not capitalism, it used to be called fascism before the Jewish became forever linked with it).
Sabrina Weiss says
May 23, 2011 at 1:41 amI’d love to have a discussion about the libertarian position and the fundamental philosophy founding it. In order to better understand those we disagree with, it is important to explore the foundations for their thinking. It’s part of why I enjoy politically oriented philosophy.
However, I don’t know if you’d enjoy the results, because while the foundations are explored, the inconsistencies and even hypocrisies of the position will be highlighted as well. Political and legal consistency is very important for a position to be viewed as legitimate in my thinking, and the positions that I disagree with tend to be inconsistent in ways that violate fundamental human rights and dignity. But discussions parsing out negative rights, the purpose of government, and the limits of those ideals in the real world are great fun any time.
It’s too bad I missed the guest of honor at this party; I would have enjoyed hearing more about his philosophical positions.
Athena Sophia Speculi Ustorii says
October 20, 2017 at 7:23 pmI would definitely be interested in an episode on Libertarianism…I know that there has already been an episode on Nozick, which was really helpful and informative, but I would certainly be appreciative of more episodes related to 20th/21st century Libertarian thinkers and thinking, as well as political economy in general (although I know that these things might veer a little far afield from the broader “mission” of PEL).
Moreover, a discussion of Libertarianism in general also leaves open the door for its centrist and left-libertarian variants, both historically (e.g., libertarian socialism) and in the modern context. For example, equal share left-libertarians like Hillel Steiner (e.g., author of “An Essay on Rights”) and equal opportunity left-libertarians like Michael Otsuka (e.g., author of “Libertarianism without Inequality”) both utilize the Libertarian logical frameworks of rights and ownership to reframe discussions of ownership and opportunity as related to natural resources in a more left-egalitarian manner.
I haven’t read it, but – for whatever it’s worth – Steiner and Otsuka, along with Peter Vallentyne, collectively authored an essay intriguingly titled, “Why Left-Libertarianism Isn’t Incoherent, Indeterminate, or Irrelevant: A Reply to Fried.”
Additionally – (I’m sure that I’ve misunderstood Wes’s point here, but…), I think that the right-Libertarian philosophical orientation has the potential to – in some unorthodox/misconstrued sense, fit Wes’s description of a socially liberal, atheist *right wing* perspective quite well – at least in this historical moment.
I’m not really sure what it is that I’m going on about at this point…other than perhaps the notion that free market capitalism (a la right-libertarianism) seems to hold considerable sway over a lot of popular economic thinking, and that while it has its merits, I tend to side more with some of the perspectives that I’ve heard Mark espouse (i.e., that the economy should serve something like the full potential of human/earthly flourishing, as opposed to only serving the flourishing of itself qua the economy). Moreover – from a somewhat hyperbolic perspective and for a variety of reasons and intuitions, I just tend to distrust the right-Libertarian notion that (capitalist) ownership of a business connotes an exclusive claim on or right to the profits of their business. It should be noted that this “perspective” need not be framed from within the questionable standards of surplus value vis-a-vis the labor theory of value. As GA Cohen argued – convincingly or not, in his “Plain Argument” developed in “The Labor Theory of Value and the Concept of Exploitation” and “More on Exploitation and the Labour Theory of Value,” workers at a business are exploited, taken unfair advantage of, and/or have a claim on the profits generated by the business, even when we use a subjective theory of value to make that kind of determination.
At any rate, sorry for the detours and half-thoughts; and thank you as always to PEL for the opportunity to think, engage, and discuss!
Praxeologue says
May 21, 2011 at 2:50 pmWoops, just re read that and the last line isn’t clear. Fascism used to be understood as a form of socialism where the state directed the economy by sponsoring certain businesses directly (think banks today). After the Nazis, National Socialist Party, the word is understood to be associated with an anti Semitic position. This is unfortunate because now people have no acceptable term to call state sponsored corporatism as versus capitalism. Michael Moore ironically spends most of his time lambasting the old definition of fascist behaviour, not capitalism. Maybe I should send him an old book defining the difference.
Anh-vu Doan says
May 21, 2011 at 3:01 pmI think he’s just trying to cover for his subconscious hatred of gays, and his deep abiding fetish for guns.
Geoff says
May 21, 2011 at 4:32 pmDo. Not. Change. A. Thing.
I want to hear your voices. I do not want to hear the voices that you think will be the least offensive to the least number.
History has a great catalogue of offensive philosophers. Offense challenges us – in this context it questions our assumptions.
Offense has, of course, two meanings. It can also mean to attack. Philosophy should not set out ‘to offend’, but neither should it draw back. I say Philosophy is best when it takes up the offensive.
No-one should exist in a vacuum where there ideas are not challenged. No idea is sacrosanct.
J. says
May 21, 2011 at 5:48 pmOf course Nietzsche had a greater mind than Miss Ayn (and superior writing style), but for those who accept Nietzsche’s egotistic/a-theistic principles (ie, will to power), why shouldn’t they be Randian egotists, as well? Is it just a matter of aesthetics, or….Reason (which Nietzsche rejects, anyway—) The Rand-bashers usually just dismiss her without bothering to prove that, say, altruism is needed (or an obligation, Kant’s Imperative, etc). Darwinism itself could be seen as a justification for Rand’s beliefs.
That’s not to say Rand is correct–she’s not, IMHE (and her reading of Aristotle in particular, naive) but the out-of- hand dismissals of Rand from collegeboys are hardly superior to the biblethumpers’ tactics. It should also be kept in mind she was reacting in large part to stalinists and nazis.
Archibald says
May 21, 2011 at 6:16 pmThis is a very serious matter.
Can you tell me in which episode “queef balloon” was uttered?
Mark Linsenmayer says
May 21, 2011 at 6:21 pmIt was the one we did all in French.
Archibald says
May 21, 2011 at 7:18 pmAh, the Deconstruction of Freedom Fries episode. On of my favorites. Although, I thought at first it was the episode you did in the manner of South Park.
Seriously, some day I hope to have the time to listen to more episodes and do the reading. Rock on!
Mark Linsenmayer says
May 21, 2011 at 6:20 pmNietzsche’s critique or morality is more elaborate than just “will to power,” and I don’t think it can be captured in an easy slogan, which is exactly the problem with Rand: To Rand, Kant and all post-Kantian philosophy is subjectivism, meaning values, metaphysics, reason, perception… it’s all just up to the individual, with no individual’s judgment on these matters being better than any others. So of course this should be rejected. Nietzsche, according to Rand, recognized the virtue of selfishness but didn’t see the need to recognize that you’re living in a society in which I think she thinks something like Locke’s natural law prevails, i.e. there are basic standards of fair acquisition that separate the honest businessman from the parasite.
If you’ve listened to our Kant (on epistemology) and Nietzsche (on meta-ethics) episodes, then you’ll know enough to see that Rand’s versions are gross, over-simplistic caricatures of these folks. Epistemologically, she’s fighting a straw man, as Kant and Hegel and all of them acknowledge the objectivity of ordinary knowledge necessary for science. Ethically, she completely misses Nietzsche’s meta-ethical argument, which is not simply that herd morality inverts natural values (making us hate and neglect ourselves if we take it seriously), but that the whole idea of good and evil as ontological features of the universe idea is whacked. In other words, we are given many and various (and conflicting) urges, and may have something like Aristotle’s notion of arete within us (an excellence that we can achieve of fail to), but from none of those “is”‘s do you get an “ought;” none of it adds up to “morality,” though individuals can and will still have “values.”
Also, this notion of selfishness completely ignores the flexible nature of self (as outlined in the Hegel episode). What I count as “me” is not given as just this body, but as a complex that is somewhat flexible (I don’t think I can explain this in one sentence right here, as it’s pretty difficult). Now, it’s fine if Rand wanted to argue against this, but instead she shows absolutely no cognizance of the whole issue.
As far as politics goes, she’s one of those people that regards natural rights as primary, but as you’ll see from the Locke episode, this is pretty problematic without positing a God (which Rand doesn’t). Locke thinks you can get these basic principles of fairness that ground property just out of reason itself, but it’s a pretty utterly feeble argument that just plays on your intuitions about the basic moves (“I gathered the acorns, so they should be mine, right?”) but is pretty problematic when applied to actual situations (e.g. his proviso that this only applies in conditions of abundance), leading to counterintuitive to the point of indefensible consequences (i.e. oligarchy being OK).
Her epistemology book is especially offensive (saying pretty much if you can’t give a necessary-and-sufficient conditions definition for any word you use, then you have no right to use it), being wholly ignorant of the view of concepts articulated by Wittgenstein (i.e. we should expect words to have such conditions, because that’s not the way they develop. Instead, look for paradigm and borderline cases, and treat the latter individually and pragmatically).
That’s all I can manage at the moment, and it’s mostly based on Rand reading I did in about 1990 (though I did get through the first third of the Fountainhead w/in the last year), so I wouldn’t be surprised if I’m not quite capturing it, but I’ve had this conversation enough times that I’m pretty sure I’ve got the gist of her position correct here.
Wes Alwan says
May 21, 2011 at 11:12 pmNicely put!
Noah says
May 21, 2011 at 7:59 pm“Queef Balloon”
How in the hell did this get brought up? I’m laughing my ass off trying to imagine the context.
trekker says
May 21, 2011 at 8:45 pmI agree with Geoff, I hope you guys don’t tone it down because of a few whiners. I love the banter, the humor, the opinions, and the off the cuff remarks. My only complaint is that I can’t listen to you guys while going to sleep at night (my favorite time to listen to podcasts). I inevitably end up bursting out laughing at some point, waking my wife up and having to explain what is so funny, which is difficult because I have to explain the context and she ends up telling me to just go to sleep.
Having left the study of the so called Western tradition of philosophy in college, and having immersed myself in the Eastern tradition of Buddhism and yoga for a number of years, I’m returning to the study of western philosophers. Your P.E.L. podcasts, and this website, are an awesome re-entry gateway. For non-professional philosophers I’m amazed at your depth of insight. It’s very refreshing to listen to your dialogue as you explore ideas and concepts in such a genuine way.
I’ve yet to listen to the Locke episode, or the Hegel episode’s, or the Montaigne episode, because I’m still working with the Heidegger episode. That’s my only other complaint, which is more with myself than with you guys, I start to feel left behind because I want to stay current but I get too immersed with one person and find it difficult to let it go.
Speaking of philosophy and politics and Heidegger, I’m really wrestling with trying to understand how his philosophy influenced his politics, or vice verse. It seems too simplistic to say he was a brilliant philosopher but politically naive. If political naivete is the excuse then maybe Heidegger is an example of why the study of political philosophy is so important.
Wes Alwan says
May 21, 2011 at 11:14 pmThanks trekker — glad you’re enjoying it!
Seth Paskin says
May 27, 2011 at 9:51 pmTake a look at the blog posts dated immediately after the episode, I linked to some videos and such that treat this topic. I also did a post quite a while back on the subject when a new book got published. I know in the episode I refer to Heidegger as naive politically and I know that there is more to the story than that. For a while there was a cottage industry in trying to find the link between Being and Time and National Socialism. I’m not saying it’s not there, I’m saying the case is ambiguous at best.
Heidegger clearly was not a great guy and didn’t understand the political landscape around him. His nostalgic and pastoral view of authenticity was easy for the fascists to appropriate in support of a racially pure Volk grounded in the land and a mythological past. In some ways it is his refusal to take a strong position and use traditional value terms that makes his thought frustrating and made it subject to that kind of scrutiny. If you want to explore the issue more deeply, I recommend Hans Sluga’s “Heidegger’s Crisis”.
–seth
trekker says
May 28, 2011 at 2:04 pmThanks Seth, I’ll check out Sluga and read your comments. I very much enjoyed listening to your take on Heidegger in the podcast. I love the personal approach you guys have when discussing the material. As I said, it’s genuine, and I appreciate that.
J. says
May 21, 2011 at 8:56 pmfrom none of those “is”‘s do you get an “ought;” none of it adds up to “morality,” though individuals can and will still have “values.”
well, that’s the …..rub. Granting you can’t go from an “is” to an “ought” (as Nietzsche suggests–he had read Hume, though I don’t think in complete agreement)–ie, there are no rational grounds for altruism, etc– then, well, it’s nearly anything goes even if humans still value certain things, at least “subjectively”, prudentially. Not real profound –and Rand wanted to claim rational self-interest was different from mere hedonism– but the point holds, IMHE. Either rational ethics holds, or it doesn’t (and I don’t recall anyone overcoming the fact-value distinction around here). SO since you can’t prove a system of rational ethics holds (even …like “be consistent, or non-hypocritical ” or something) , your objections to Miss Rand are merely a matter of taste.
Mark Linsenmayer says
May 22, 2011 at 9:05 am@J, this seems a false alternative and a misunderstanding of degrees of objectivity. It’s not that ethics need be either entirely objective (independent of human activity altogether a la Plato, where good is written into nature itself in some profound and to me inexplicable way) or purely a matter of anything-goes human whim. Here are some alternatives, all of which I think contribute to the real (and messy) situation: ethics is a matter of social convention (which we find, upon reflection, that we’ve sufficiently internalized such that we already agree with it). Ethics needs to jibe in some way with our instinctive drives (objective) if we’re not going to reject it altogether (which do not align neatly with “egotism;” see Freud). Any ethic contains within it an internal “logic” (in the Hegelian sense) whereby we may be able to figure out what would constitute progress, i.e. getting at the real spirit of the thing (so, e.g. within the logic of the ethic espoused in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights are advances like no slavery and voting for excluded groups).
None of these are a matter of mere taste (or, taking that analogy seriously, we could say that taste itself is objective in a complex way, in that we do not typically have whimsical control over our own tastes yet can try to train ourselves so our tastes change, e.g. “I don’t like beer, but it’s socially useful enough that I’ll try to acquire that taste through a regimen of increasing intake.”). If normativity is not objective in the strongest sense, we can still find that we ALREADY BUY into certain normative claims as individuals, like “I should be healthy” even if there’s no good way to argue with someone who denies this in their own case. If ethics is a social matter (and this is the way I can kind of make sense of what Rand means by “rational ethics” where you can’t just follow your urges but need to do it in a way that accords with some rules regarding treatment of others), then what we’re doing in ethical debate is comparing what moral ideas we already find we have (which, within our culture, are really surprisingly consistent across people, no matter what their professed religion) and trying to articulate some shared foundation for law (a serious matter that doesn’t really require all that much agreement… don’t kill, don’t steal, etc.) and politeness (a less serious matter but much more complex and not to be totally disregarded if you’re not a total jackass).
So I think Nietzsche transformed but did not eliminate the moral enterprise. He made it less serious in a way (you can say “no murder!” as a social rule just on pragmatic grounds without even having to justify it by saying that murder is wrong), but left intact the legitimacy of detailed ethical negotiation a la your heavy-duty ethical philosophers (the tedious parsing of the Talmud comes to mind; you can still say “given that we have this ethic socially worked out, let’s argue about how this will apply in specific cases”). No where in here does the matter sink to the level of simplicity that Rand thinks it has, or force us to disregard the altruistic elements in what we all individually, already feel (look within yourself, says the phenomenological ethicist, you will see them!) and which we’ve already negotiated over centuries of bitching about these things. I think that it’s a matter of figuring out what we as a group and as individuals REALLY WANT, and that this is a complex matter (self-knowledge is hard; add into this that what we really want to know is what we WOULD really want if we had all the relevant information) that will change to some extent over historical periods.
J. says
May 22, 2011 at 12:32 pmIt’s not that ethics need be either entirely objective (independent of human activity altogether a la Plato, where good is written into nature itself in some profound and to me inexplicable way) or purely a matter of anything-goes human whim.
In a sense, it is about that. Either platonic conceptions of Justice hold, or they don’t (or…instantiate “theological conceptions of justice”). So it’s Plato..and theological tradition vs Ayn Rand and Nietzsche, etc.. Even the ordinary political chitchat usually suggests something platonic, whether one can prove that morality exists in some abstract transcendental sense, or not. When people chanted “Bush is Evil”, they didn’t mean…evil for me, or you, just today, they mean for everyone, all the time–Evil, objectively speaking.
Your suggestions sound mostly utilitarian. Yes, it might often be good to negotiate, work together, agree to a social contract, join a union, etc. But it might not. It might at times be good to be a mafiosi. We may posit objective morality at times in hopes of preventing mafiosi. Sort of like Pascal’s wager–Pascal didn’t say G*d exists–; he said what if G*d exists. (granted neither Nietzsche or Miss Rand were willing to grant that …possibility).
Mitch Strand says
May 22, 2011 at 12:06 amHello. I’m the e-mailer. This is about what I expected. Congratulations. You got rid of me.
trekker says
May 22, 2011 at 1:04 amI don’t get it, why don’t you join the discussion, explain your conservatism, engage in debate? “But I don’t think you want me”, “You got rid of me.” That’s all you.
Heather says
June 20, 2012 at 9:48 pmI know this post is a year old, but I can’t help saying something even if no one reads it. To the person above, your comment shows you miss the point. It sounds like the writer of that email would be perfectly happy to explain his views and engage in debate. What he objected to were the insults to his intelligence. It’s hard to engage in debate when the other side begins by calling you stupid and pointing out an article that proves that the sort of people with your view have built up a fascinatingly resilient mechanism to persisting in beliefs contrary to all complete and conclusive evidence. That’s what he meant by saying the comments made him feel shut out or unwanted. The comments weren’t inviting debate, but ending it. Conservatives most certainly have the tendency to be sensitive in academic circles, but I don’t think this particular case is a matter of having hurt feelings. It’s that it is actually unfruitful and pointless to attempt any debate with a person who has already decided they can learn nothing from you prior to giving debate a go. So I don’t blame that guy for choosing to walk away from what was already closed to him. Anyhow, this post caught my eye because I share some of the emailer’s sentiments, and I just wanted to add my voice to the comments you get so you know I am here. However, I do enjoy listening to PEL. I just ignore the comedic cheap shots at my views, and welcome the honest examinations of them. I appreciate the personality each podcaster brings to the discussion. It’s great to hear smart people talking casually but fruitfully about philosophy. It’s how it should be done! Just please remember that “you are stupid” and “there are so many great jokes we can make about people like you,” while entertaining, are not generally elements of good philosophical debate. I’m sure you agree and wouldn’t consider it intellectually honest if that kind of stuff was being pulled on you. Is that fair? Anyways, keep it up guys! 🙂 I look forward to each new podcast.
Mark Linsenmayer says
June 21, 2012 at 10:41 amHi, Heather,
Yeah, I’m doubting Mitch will read your comment, but my point in making this post (and th other) “Featured” is entirely to revive these discussions that might be of interest to current listeners.
So, yes, we’ve thought a lot about this over the year, and your point is well taken.
If a topic or idea is actually the subject of our podcast, i.e. we have some text to react to, then (I hope) we evaluate it with some thoroughness/fairness (though constraints of the format put serious limitations on this… we can’t read every page aloud and discuss).
If something is mentioned in passing (which is often crucial for us individually to engage the actual text at hand, i.e. put it into perspective of our lives and whatnot), then there’s no guarantee that we’ll deal with it adequately.
Coupled with that is the fact that we don’t really want to cover in depth something that we think is worthless. So if we vent about conservatives, it’s likely a reaction to today’s news, e.g. that vacuous speech we just heard from Romney or some pundit, and it should be understood that this is probably not going to have a great deal of connection to the thoughts of actually smart conservatives of the sort that would listen to our podcast.
It’s not a revelation that most non-philosophical people’s opinions are going to be pretty muddled, and when we’re reacting to the overall conservative views of the mass of America, we’re reacting to that mass of stupidity. I can well see a conservative having similar views about the mass of liberals (e.g. their ignorance of economics, which, to be fair, even economists don’t understand, i.e. have a reasonable consensus on), but we podcasters talking amongst ourselves have not felt much if any nagging negative effects from the liberal idiocy (e.g. rampant political correctness or affirmative action that we feel has disadvantaged us for employment), whereas we blame many things on our conservative culture, not least of which is the general devaluation of philosophy and the rest of the humanities in favor of corporatism. As I said in the original post, these things we’re objecting to, though not a straw man (we’re objecting to real things we’ve witnessed, not a fiction we’ve constructed), are probably not what you in particular favor regarding conservatism, and hopefully we have dealt with or will eventually deal fairly with the meaty ideas.
The episode just posted (and the one we’re editing now) on MacIntyre is one attempt to consider a fully fleshed out conservative thinker, and we’ll do Nozick w/in the next few months for another. Rand herself will have to wait at least another year, I suspect. However, the treatment of MacIntyre himself and the subsequent treatment we’ll be giving to Aristotle’s Politics address Rand’s core view of human nature (i.e. she says she’s an Aristotelian but ignores Aristotle’s emphasis on our fundamentally social nature, which we’ve already talked about in the Churchland and Hume/Smith episodes).
Toby Dorn says
May 22, 2011 at 1:19 amPlease do not change the podcast tone at all. I love it.
Conservatives, even politically active ones can certainly be smart and thoughtful people (Churchill was no dummy) but no thoughtful conservative would want punches pulled when it comes to discussion of philosophy. The idea that you should lay off the sillyness of Rand is as unpalatable as laying off any sloppy left wing thinker, Sartre springs to mind.
Mitch, I see you posted above me. May I say – good for you for writing and responding. I hope you continue an interest in philosophy, pretty much any dearly held belief any of us have is going to get kicked around at some point by philosophy, nature of the beast I am afraid. I wish you well in your search for wisdom!
burl says
May 22, 2011 at 7:42 amPhilosophy has degenerated into simply the history of, analysis, and analysis of comparisons of what philosophy professors say about their agreed-upon pantheon of ‘writers WE ALONE elect worthy to be considered philosophers.’ Pirsig’s philosophicology.
In our politically-charged epoch during which the blogosphere was born and overwhelmed with political interpretations of various subjects, we now see philosophicology taking on an added dimension – personal political-viewpoint as necessary ingredient for interpretation, analysis, comparison, and setting in history of the pantheon. Call it politicophilosophicology.
There are already a butt-load of blogs that initially intended to openly-discuss certain related elements; but, over time, these blogs ultimately coalesce around and require conformity of posts to the now-solidified ideology – all self(or webmaster)-identified dissenters may form their own website. I am afraid PEL will be no exception where, like all others, enduring regular posters will come to share favorite recipes and tell stories on the neighboring blogsites.
Relatedly: I advocate we take politicophilosophicology one step further in recognizing the personality type of each of the pantheon’s membership – call it psychopoliticophilosophicology.
Now, we interpret Wittgenstein’s reaction to Popper as a drama-queen’s aristocratic Austrian Judaism vs a boring common germanic Jew; Russel’s libertine political activities (including promiscuity – but the two are redundant) born of laziness to do math while preferring the lack of rigor of politophilosophicology vs that Victorian prig Whitehead who wants to work us to death by making things fit; [insert your own, I’m not good at this new approach]. Perhaps it would be simpler to just do a Meyers-Briggs on pantheon members, state what they would have to believe on the top ten enduring questions, Rprty-dump philosophy, and go out to sign up voters of our political favor.
saralynn says
May 22, 2011 at 7:45 amYou can’t hear me, of course, but, I’m whistling “I Love You Just the Way You Are…”
However, I may change my mind when I get to the queef balloon episode. I’m looking forward to hearing the word in context.
Geoff says
May 22, 2011 at 7:48 amMitch, Philosophicatin’ is not a case of ‘the customer is always right’. This is the about the ‘examined life’. Not the a life where we reach a position of intellectual or psychological comfort and treat any questioning or challenge as offensive.
PEL are under no obligation to make you feel happy about your philosophy or your politics. That’s your job. If you think the guys are wrong, storming out of the sandpit with your toys doesn’t really help your case.
Stay and state your case.
Kid Charlemagne says
May 22, 2011 at 3:17 pmGuys, I think you have to thoughtfully consider the criticism. Not all criticism is worth reacting to, and not all criticism is worth ignoring.
As a spiritual blogger I face the same problem when I do my own site. Am I lazier in my intellectual basis for the things I inherently believe? Probably, that’s human nature. Is that excusable? No. But Wes, Mark and Seth are the only ones here who can really say whether or not they are being prejudiced or bias.
I personally don’t have an issue with the slant of the show and enjoy, but as you point out, when someone criticises you before you react, consider whether the criticism is valid. Is it? i know for myself that as much as I try to be objective, I do have some flimsy prejudices that i have to constantly strive to rid myself of.
Dennis says
May 22, 2011 at 10:52 pmI love PEL.
I promote you among my friends. I admire how PEL has defied and transcended the rigid categories of academia. I hope PEL spins out variations on its brand, perhaps with… money making kind of projects! You could offer something along the lines of Rosetta Stone. You could pitch a reality show in Hollywood. You could strap on advertisers. You could sell university level equivalency examinations. You could surpass the university itself. Or is all of that too conservative for you guys?
The previous sentence was not a snide comment.
How big do you want your audience to be? Put-downs-in-passing of conservatism is normal within academia. Outside of the ivory tower, it’s only half a marketplace.
If an argument for profitability is missing your mark, then what about the Socratic injunction? Isn’t a psychological splitting of the political world into liberal=all good and conservative=all bad… beneath you? At least, that’s the way you sometimes come off.
Let’s fully examine this blogpost.
The prime quote is from your emailer, apparently Mitch Strand: “But I don’t think you want me. You demonstrate it with every shot you take.”
Then Mark responds with: ” I’ll admit that some of our outbursts are a matter of overreactions to things that irritate us, if you dig the philosophy, stick around … If you can’t manage that, well, do what you have to do, and we wish you well.” This can translate to “You might be a person who holds views that irritate us. Don’t let the door hit you on the ass!”
From podcast #37, we have:
-The notion that folks in the right don’t read philosophy, and if they do, they aren’t welcome at PEL.
-A joke about the founding fathers that fell flat.
-“Meh…. so where do we start this thing?” Where I visualized that Seth was pinching his nose with one hand and something like smelly socks at arms length with the other.
-“…so he is [Locke] is a huge racist– maybe–”
-The jibe, “Locke on Dibs”
-Sniffing out the exploitation of nature ethos (inherent in conservatism).
-“…that makes [Locke] sound considerably less insane…”
From the commenters, we have these gems:
Jack: “…he should not be listening to philosophy podcasts.”
Daniel Horne: “PEL… fails to share their [conservatives] own bias.”
David Buchannan: “I’m not suggesting the e-mail writer is unreasonable or delusional. But there are such people and I see no reason why a philosophy podcast should accommodate them.”
Wes Alwan: “…we don’t hide our views, but we don’t trumpet them either. You may find backhanded allusions occasionally… a bunch of right wing atheist, gay rights loving, social program promoting, gun control advocates…”
Ahn -vu Doan: “I think he’s just trying to cover for his subconscious hatred of gays, and his deep abiding fetish for guns.”
trekker: “don’t tone it down because of a few whiners.”
Then we have Mitch Strand himself, congratulating with “You got rid of me.”
Consider this possibility: It’s not so much that Strand was offended by PEL, but that PEL and a majority of its audience is offended by the likes of him.
Or me?
Daniel Horne says
May 23, 2011 at 3:02 amDennis, if you’re asking, then here’s an answer. It depends upon what you mean by “the likes of him” and you how you conclude one is “offended”.
1. If you define “the likes of him” as “self-identified conservative,” then you certainly missed my point. As I wrote above, I have no problem listening to conservative-leaning podcasts (see EconTalk), as long as they are clever or entertaining. But Strand demanded that the PEL-ers censor their views as a condition of his listening to the show. Mark wrote the post to say that he won’t accede to such demands. I wrote in to agree — as did most of the other commenters — because neutering PEL’s commentary would kill part of the show’s charm. In any event, your continued participation indicates that PEL needn’t muzzle itself for fear of driving away everyone with opposing viewpoints.
2. It was Strand who explicitly said he was offended, and no one else. It was Strand who said he would no longer listen to the show. It was Strand who used the curious locution, “You got rid of me,” as opposed to, “I choose not to hang around anymore.” I don’t think anyone else went there. So, having considered your possibility, I think it fails. You’re conflating “disagreement” with “offense”. The best evidence of disagreement is argument. The best evidence of offense is stomping off.
3. I assume you agree with my [strangely edited] comment, that PEL fails to share the bias of self-identified conservatives qua conservatism. I also assume you agree with me that Strand’s complaint is not so much that PEL has a bias, but that its bias isn’t his. You make no contrary argument, so we agree, yes?
4. Your primary argument seems to be that PEL could expand their audience and — fingers crossed, attain profitability! — if only they stopped offending self-identified conservatives. The examples of Fox News, Howard Stern, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, the Wall Street Journal, AM talk radio, etc., indicate otherwise. PEL is at least as likely to develop a widespread audience by amping up their attitude, not by toning it down. Polarization is a proven media model. Not that I’m advising PEL to go one way or the other, but as long as you’re inviting folks to consider possibilities, there’s one to consider as well.
Dennis says
May 24, 2011 at 11:37 am1&2: I agree that Strand injured his position by stomping off. Even so, consider that his proposition that off handed denigrations of folks that he apparently has sympathy with is evidence that he is not wanted in the audience of PEL. I personally don’t think that this is the ultimate intention of PEL or the majority of commenters in this blog, but I know for a fact that such habits of mind (demonization of opponents) are rote and automatic in the liberal worldview. Yes, the same occurs within the extreme right but tit-for-tat is not the way to go for those who are interested in examining life.
3: I offer my apologies if I had unfairly edited your comment. But I don’t agree that Strand’s complaint is that PEL’s bias isn’t his. He said explicitly that it seems that he isn’t wanted in this forum. I snipped parts of the comments in order to illustrate the possibility that he witnessed evidence to support his claim.
4: (see comment #40 below)
Finally, I hope that my best intentions are visible in all my commentary here. To reiterate: I love PEL. I like its’ audience too. Respect. It is especially wonderful that Mark posted Strand’s complaint and invited self analysis. It would be terrible if the flow of the dialog here might be made lame by a novel form of political correctness. (I don’t expect that to happen.) But isn’t there a middle way around all the hatin’ at either extreme?
Dennis says
May 24, 2011 at 11:40 amCorrection: 4: (see my comment below) -I didn’t anticipate the numbering system changing dynamically here.)
Seth Paskin says
May 27, 2011 at 11:03 pm-”Meh…. so where do we start this thing?” Where I visualized that Seth was pinching his nose with one hand and something like smelly socks at arms length with the other.
I’m saddened that my tone conveyed that impression to you. If you think I treat the text with that much disdain (when in fact I was calling out that it is deep, rich and complex and thus hard to handle) then I am an extremely poor communicator.
Kyle says
May 23, 2011 at 4:25 amWhen one ascribes oneself to an ism or other abstract than for me, that individual loses credibility (ie “I hereby anounce to you that I am a conservative”)
Who cares
Mark Linsenmayer says
May 23, 2011 at 7:06 amI appreciate all the feedback.
My point in this post actually wasn’t supposed to be “screw you, e-mailer; we’re not acceding to your demands,” but rather to say I’m honestly conflicted here but don’t know realistically what we can do about it (I accept the fact that one can’t please everybody).
At one point reading these replies the joke occurred to me that someone should create an iPhone app that lets listeners on a moment to moment basis indicate a positive or negative response, like on the cheesy news coverage of debates, and then the response curves would be aggregated on a web site. Then I started to think that actually, that would be a freaking cool invention, and that, obsessive as I am, I would probably look at the results regularly and take every point of disapproval as a problem for us to consider addressing. So, it’s very good for my mental well-being (and arguably for the quality of the show) that such an app doesn’t exist.
In defense of Mitch the e-mailer, I interpret his comment not as saying that we owe it to him change our overall presentation on the show (and parts of his letter I omitted for brevity did say things to the effect of “of course you can think whatever you want, but I just wanted to let you know how this is being received”) but expressing concerned amusement (and irritation) that we seem to have such a personal problem with conservatives. In other words: breathe deep, P.E.L.: lose the hate!
To a self-identified conservative, as opposed to an non-affiliated thinker with with conservative leanings, ripping on conservatives as a group is not going to be interpreted as ripping on some particular ideas. My attempt in this post was to (as with some of my previous comments on this forum re. uncritical supporters of religion) say “we don’t object to you thoughtful people, but only to those conservatives that are in fact anti-intellectual, which you are clearly not, given that you’re listening to a philosophy podcast at all.” But I don’t think that that thought can be expressed without continuing to give offense when conservatism is interpreted not as a set of ideas but as a tribal identification. For a parallel: if we, like Nietzsche, periodically dropped anti-semitic comments into the conversation, but then (also in the spirit of Nietzsche) defended this by saying “we’re not against the Jews as a people; when we say ‘Jews are despisers of life’ we really only mean those bilious people who really do hate life… Jews who are not really Jewish in the way we’ve been disparaging are A-O-K!” That wouldn’t work so well.
In other words, I was trying in my paragraph immediately following the e-mailer’s quote to say that you self-identified conservatives aren’t conservative in the sense that we all truly object to, but clearly that kind of comment isn’t going to be convincing in the least, and in trying to say what conservative in our culture means (according to me), when that doesn’t match what our self-identified conservative listeners mean, is just expressing my mostly-groundless prejudice rather than engaging in any kind of intellectual debate or otherwise productive communication.
So: can we in some future episodes more specifically examine and argue about our apparent bias here? Insofar as it’s germane in discussing the reading, and insofar as the format of the show in general permits, yes. Can we go forth with cognizance that slurring a group will in fact be offensive to that group even if we don’t want it to be offensive and even explicitly say that our comments in all likelihood do not apply to you, the particular listener? I’m not sure how we can avoid that awareness at this point, and hopefully my newly acquired squeamishness on this point will provide for additional comic opportunities.
Yes, for the record, all listeners are officially welcome.
Incidentally, I don’t think our treatment of Locke (or in passing, the founding fathers that he influenced) was any more or less reverent than of anyone else we’ve discussed here, and Seth’s assessment in particular seemed pretty damned positive overall. Not surprisingly, I think that these social-contract guys got better as time went on. Here’s my super-abbreviated take: Hobbes is mostly hopeless, Locke is better but with a flawed foundation that pretty much ruins the enterprise (his notion of natural law), Rousseau is better still but is still basically spouting speculative bullshit, and Hegel is much more on the mark (re. the fact that the notion of a social contract doesn’t make much sense) but unfortunately insane. Of course we’re going to be more sympathetic to those thinkers (unlike Hegel) that DON’T come down on the side of some kind of monarchy, but I’m talking about what I perceive to be the quality of the arguments here.
Ethan Gach says
May 23, 2011 at 9:30 amWell put Mark, in both the original post and your comments.
Tom McDonald says
May 23, 2011 at 4:27 pmMark: “… I’ll say the same things to lefties who got into philosophy through drippy New Age writings [as opposed to Any Rand]. These are fine gateway drugs but must be transcended.”
This is a good point. Perhaps you can make it up to the conservative listeners by showing that you can give equal drubbings to drippy New Age lefties!
Philosophy can and should be equally above ‘the gateway drugs’ at the lower circles of hell right and left. Although it is interesting to note that the differences recur within philosophy, though with a lot more common ground.
My favorite conservative philosopher is Roger Scruton. He is especially great at explaining Kant and Wittgenstein. Check him out:
http://www.amazon.com/Roger-Scruton/e/B001I9U3ZO/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1?qid=1306185881&sr=8-1
His “Short History of Modern Phiosophy” and “Modern Philosophy: A Survey” (which takes a problem-oriented rather than historical approach) are both first-rate introductions to the whole Western canon:
http://www.amazon.com/Short-History-Modern-Philosophy-Wittgenstein/dp/0415267633/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_3
http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Philosophy-Introduction-Roger-Scruton/dp/0140249079/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_9
Cheers,
Tom
Daniel Horne says
May 23, 2011 at 5:48 pmDitto the Scruton recommendation, Tom. “Modern Philosophy” was a good read, and its non-chronological approach was refreshing. I can’t get behind most of Scruton’s opinions, but he’s a quick wit, which goes a long way. Here’s a clip that made me smile:
http://youtu.be/iRGxWESXNRw
Scruton’s comments on Islam more flawed and more troubling, but I did find myself taking the time to listen to his entire argument throughout:
http://youtu.be/jWmUXjPXNP4
J. says
May 23, 2011 at 5:39 pmScruton’s Kant is Kant for the biblethumping conservative who insists on the Categories as the transcendent architecture of Gott’s mind itself–which is to say, the bogus Kant. Scruton’s a pompous Tory a**. However glib or british Russell was–or disliked by right or left– his History of W.P. offers a better introduction to modern philosophy than does Scr. Russell also knew Frege’s writing and system as well as Scruton or most analytical hackademics. OR have them read a few of Quine’s klassix from “From a Logical POV”.
Daniel Horne says
May 23, 2011 at 6:01 pmNow we’re gettin’ somewhere! In Scruton’s partial defense, I think if we disqualified every philosophical writer for being pompous, we’d be left with little to read. I wouldn’t discourage anyone from reading Russell’s HoWP, but I don’t know that one has to force a choice. They’re very different books, and given HoWP’s age, it’s good to have access to something more current.
Peter in DC says
May 23, 2011 at 6:10 pmI have recently returned from living three years in China. People often ask: what did you learn; what are the differences between China and the West/U.S.?
Here goes: In China, they view history and their country as a very long, organic proposition – like a 5000 year old tree with root systems in the families, provinces and a sense of history.
My favorite expression is “The mountains are high and the Emperor is far away.” Like every state in the U.S. having centuries of history and tension between life locally (Pragmatism) and big government (Idealism).
What is easily seen (especially by foreigners) is what is above ground – the branches and flowers (i.e. someone invading for awhile, then western influence for awhile, then Mao, then something else ad infinitum). They always know that the tree can get cut down for inexplicable “reasons” and that everything they have today can easily be gone tomorrow. So they think in terms of right now, and also in terms of an unknowable future.
We, however, have what I call an “Excel/Powerpoint” view of the world. We argue: “If we could only get the right POTUS, the right Supreme Court, the right tax rate, the right class size, the right philosophical system(!), then we could drag the cells in our future spreadsheet of reality and paint pretty pictures and smooth lines indefinitely into the future.”
Our obsessions with which philosopher was “right”, what political party is “right”, feeds into this “being right” about things that are absolutely unknowable! PEL feeds this dogmatic twitch when it reveals its political biases.
I am at most in line with Hume and Nietzsche; they said there is not much that is knowable, and the best we can often do is discuss and debate with civility and style. Dems & Reps; Lefties & Righties; Atheist, Agnostics & Believers should all accept that most of what we think and believe is mysteriously “made up” and we are crashing cars and dummies against each other like children…very serious children.
What’s so is so what.
So, let’s make up and let the philosophy flow.
Dennis says
May 24, 2011 at 10:46 amYes, let’s all make up and reconcile with good intentions.
The problem here is a rigor mortis of categories, left and right.
One way out of the problem of political polarization is to pursue the polar opposite of polarization: integration. Polarization is exhausted and boring. Figuring out how the political right and left (or any dichotomy for that matter) fit together, investigating how they dynamically interdepend is healthier, possibly productive and at least for me, extremely interesting. The former is rote, pat, a dead letter, old and busted. The latter is the new hotness, it requires creativity, and it just might make the world a better place by discovering new avenues toward peaceful coexistence.
My tentative steps toward this ideal is to consider that both sides need what their “other” produces:
– That creativity springs from the left because transgression is found only in their toolkit…
-That transgression needs a dance partner, aka tradition…
-That tradition can ossify if it isn’t challenged by modernity, if it doesn’t evolve…
– That freedom is defended by the right even as it is expressed in creative enterprises of all kinds, especially in the artistic left…
– That revolution (solvent) is only half an answer and the other half is the (re)design of a viable social contract (glue)…
– That while at this moment, I am agnostic, I also strongly consider that only in the Judeo(Christian) narrative does there exist an account of the existence of freedom that defies corrosive intellectual redefinition by virtue of the device of a literal deus ex machina which posits that freedom is a gift from G-d and therefore is placed beyond the meddlesome hands of man; and here with this construction, I am proposing that freedom wouldn’t exist in the world without such a narrative…
-That at both political extremes lies only power and domination and control; and only in the center does there exist freedom and the requisite talent/imagination to balance and integrate and jigger and interpret and stay on one’s gimbal.
Phillip says
May 24, 2011 at 4:58 pmHonestly, I know a lot of conservatives and whenever I start talking about anything philosophical I get lots of groans and eye-rolling. (Unless it’s Ayn Rand)
J. says
May 24, 2011 at 5:55 pmRand’s philosophy was superficial, quasi Nietzsche meets Aristotle-lite (with some patriotic BS at the end of her life). But Ayn did at one point criticize the US war machine, and the DoD budget, unlike say Sam Harris. A few Randians have objected to the Bush doctrine, and the tea party hysteria. Libertarian quacks are somewhat superior to conservative demagogues (or conservatives pretending to be corporate liberals–ie Harris, Hitchens)
Riley says
May 24, 2011 at 7:54 pmModern philosopher Michael Huemer, who is a proponent of ethical intuitionism and anarcho-capitalism, is a brilliant defender of libertarian ideas.
See:
Why I am not an Objectivist
http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/rand.htm
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/fac_huemer.shtml
Mark Linsenmayer says
May 24, 2011 at 8:43 pmNice; I looked at the section on ethics, and it seems to spell out well what I recall to be the flaws in Rand’s reasoning on that account.
@J (comment 21): I’m not ignoring your response, just thinking about it. I had remembered Rand to be ON the side of the moral absolutists (only choosing different values than Judeo-Christianity), and I’ll trust your reading, as I’m sure you’ve read her more recently than I have.
If, as I think I’m reading you to say, morality comes out of the values that we actually do hold as a matter a fact (and this is a point that Nietzsche and Rand have in common, and say to Rand tempers this by reason is just to say that she explicitly acknowledges something like pragmatic/utilitarian concerns, which gives us law-abiding self-aware people instead of excess-possibly-to-the-point-of-genocide types), then this seems plausible (even though it utilizes a straw-man reading of Nietzsche).
For reasons like Huemer points out, though, I don’t agree that when we reflect we find our values to be all selfish in the way that Rand thinks. People can and do care about all sorts of stuff… can include all sorts of things into their “sense of self” if you will, such that you can only define humanity as all-selfish if you define self in an amorphous-to-the-point of useless way. Let me know if I’m missing the point, though.
Steve says
May 24, 2011 at 9:46 pmThe first time I downloaded one of you podcasts I did so because it was marked ‘explicit’ in iTunes. I took that to mean ‘true to yourselves’ and impassioned – something that ‘listeners’ can either take or leave. I decided to take it – and I love it!
Wes Alwan says
May 28, 2011 at 9:15 amThanks Steve — we’ll try to keep it explicit.
Tristan says
May 25, 2011 at 8:20 amI am an ultra conservative who could even be branded as a reactionary, but to be honest the whole reason I listen to your podcast is because it is an opposing view point. Plus you guys are damn entertaining to listen to and have helped me greatly in my self study of philosophy.
Wes Alwan says
May 28, 2011 at 9:11 amThanks Tristan!
Seth Paskin says
May 27, 2011 at 11:18 pmI’m a little late to this discussion, but I appreciate having the opportunity to see how it evolved from a discussion about our political biases and the way we express them to a conversation about political philosophy (to some extent). Since I’m the third leg of this stool, I’d like to state my positions on the subject.
1. I don’t care whether anyone perceives me/us as being biased. I do this because I enjoy it, because I like Mark & Wes and because I am growing and learning through it. I’m frankly shocked that we have an audience at all. This is the ‘fuck all y’all, I do this for me’ response.
2. We work our asses off to actually try and understand these difficult texts and share our interpretations (and in my case to do so in the most generous and fair way possible) only to have someone find that the occasional comment or joke negates the whole body of work. Really? I defy anyone to listen to all the episodes or read all the posts and find within them a systemic bias in our treatment of the subjects. This is the ‘someone will always find something to complain about’ response.
3. Don’t like Wes making a Bush joke? If the podcast otherwise has value, roll your eyes, laugh it off or stew and get over it. Podcast doesn’t have value? Stop listening. But don’t latch onto what is clearly in the margins of our endeavor to have a self-serving fit. This is the ‘stop being a whiny bitch’ response.
4. We are who we are – personally, professionally, socially, ethically and politically. It happens that we probably align in a similar spot on the political spectrum. And? There’s nothing stopping 3 grad school dropouts who think government interference in the market is unilaterally bad from doing a podcast and dropping comments about Obama. This is the ‘if you think it’s so bad, go do it yourself’ response.
5. We are not the media. Nor are we compensated. We have no obligation, imperfect or perfect duty to be neutral or fair. This is the ‘not our responsibility’ response.
6. “Conservative” and “Liberal” are empty terms and political canards. You can show me a Republican or a Democrat, but not a Conservative or a Liberal. Think the government should provide education vouchers for private schools? I disagree. Think the government has distorted the market by subsidizing and bailing out failure? I agree. Think government regulation hinders innovation and free enterprise? Let’s talk. This is the ‘OK, now try and label me’ response.
7. The podcast DOES NOT HAVE A POLITICAL VIEWPOINT OR AGENDA. The three of us individually do, but we have not planned, outlined, stated, developed, agreed upon, ratified or in any other way decided to advocate for a political point of view with this podcast. Our views may color our interpretations and certainly are reflected in our personalities (particularly our sense of humor) but this is a podcast about philosophy first and foremost. That’s why we read the damn texts! This is the ‘give me a break already!’ response.
So I’ve pointed out why I don’t think we should apologize for what we do to people who self-identify as Conservatives. But seriously, WTF? Is it that bad? Am I so out of touch with what we’re doing that I can’t hear the blatant and excessive bias we bring to the table? Do I delude myself that my textual exegesis is done charitably? In all the hours I spend editing do I completely miss the fact that we are spewing bilious political hate instead of talking philosophy?
No it’s not and no I don’t. This is a labor of love and we are generous in persisting at it as we do. Constructive engagement is welcome; self-aggrandizement through useless criticism is not.
Noah says
May 28, 2011 at 1:53 amI’ve only really noticed an “anti-conservative” bias in Wes, and I think it’s awesome. Every group needs an edgy member. He’s the Hyde to your Eric Foreman.
Wes Alwan says
May 28, 2011 at 9:12 amLol, I had to look that up — I’ll take it.
Nullifidian says
June 1, 2011 at 1:57 amWell, as a gesture of goodwill to Mitch Strand, maybe you should refund him the money he paid to access these podcasts. 😉
I worry about a country in which people are so used to the customer service model of personal interactions that they even try to employ it when they’re provided something that is FREE. It’s even worse when the “commodity” in question is a political opinion, as if everyone whom Mr. Strand deigns to patronize with his ‘business’ should simply regurgitate his preferred political opinions back at him. This is not only antithetical to philosophy, it’s antithetical to any degree of critical thinking whatsoever.
Fraser says
July 3, 2011 at 1:33 amI wish that people weren’t so hostile towards Mitch. He stomped off because the response he got to a plea for tolerance (justified or not) was a bunch of people telling him he is too stupid to belong and should take a hike.
I enjoy PEL for the new insights into things I have read, the preview of things I haven`t read, and of course the opportunity to scream rebuttals at my computer when I feel the podcast is insufficiently clever.
Mitch, I suggest that you decide what if any utility the podcast has for you and weigh that against your other entertainment options. I hope you do understand that you are welcome to enjoy the podcast but that it is as much for Mark, Seth and Wes as it is for whatever audience it retains and they like the way they are making it.
Paul Merrifield says
July 20, 2017 at 12:34 pmIt’s hard to believe that people as educated as yourselves don’t realize that left and right are as real as up and down and down and up.
The left and the right ideologies are living facts and to suggest one of them is not legitimate is “redneck” ignorant.
Conservatives are well aware of what the left ideology is but lefties do not even consider “right” as an ideology itself?
I will give you this and that is that conservatism may not even be a political movement and is more of a religious movement as they surrender their personal liberty to Jesus.
But progressives? Left wing ideology IS religion itself. It’s a religion of moving forward in ANY direction with blind FAITH that somewhere out there is a Utopia of love and peace and equality for everyone for ever and ever and ever.
Watch this short stage play called Noam Chomsky Vs Rush Limbaugh and it will explain it better.
Paul Merrifield says
July 20, 2017 at 12:52 pm2011 vs 2017?
Now we have; liberals conducting anti-free speech rallies, pushing fascist and racist diversity laws, Black Lives Matter, Fake News and defending traditional old world powers, bowing to non-inclusive Islamists & no borders at all? Are you kidding? No Thanks!
Liberalism moved forward but in the wrong direction this time and that is why millions of us Hillarycrats that are being called “Nazis” and “KKKs” all voted for change and for Trump like real progressives.
Ben says
October 19, 2017 at 1:11 pmI was really looking forward to this podcast after listening to the introduction but had a hunch it was three like-minded people, politically, who agree with each other more often then not. So I did some research and I’m glad I did. I’ll be skipping this one.
This line says most of what I need to know:
but we live in a culture where “conservative” means “go out and get a job and be useful, and screw all this knowledge for knowledge’s sake and art for art’s sake!”
Nope. The author does apparently live in an echo chamber that defines conservatives as such. But no self proclaimed conservative would agree with that definition. That line seems to demonstrate the author either doesn’t know any conservatives, or has very little respect for their political views. “Screw knowledge for knowledge’s sake and screw art for Art’s sake?” I’m curious why the author believes that’s an accurate definition of contemporary American conservatism. Heck I’m not even a conservative – but there are plenty of thoughtful conservative philosophers (who aren’t objectivist), and to discount the whole lot as the “opposite of philosophy” is intellectually dishonest.
No thanks. I’ll find a philosophy podcast with some more diversity of thought.
Jennifer Tejada says
October 19, 2017 at 8:25 pmSo you’ve never listened.
I’m not even sure you understand the real meaning of what you quoted. I’m assuming they don’t need listeners or they certainly wouldn’t operate the way they do. I’m not sure can get any more niche than this podcast – but listen to the episodes about Orwell or Burke or De’Toqueville or post election particularly Rorty – or even go the other way and listen to episode 44 about religion. I think you’d be surprised.
It’s tempting to be angry or hostile at a faceless group of people who think differently than you do. It’s easy – low hanging fruit, but I would have to say that you probably wouldn’t be able to characterize them so severely if you got to know them. Uh – like I do? (I don’t – they may be assholes in real life).
You don’t have to listen of course but I’m really happy they exist bc even though 90% of what they say goes over my head, it’s so nice to hear other people who say things like queef balloon and are so real about things grapple in a legit way about all the big questions.
It would be really cool if you listened to say – 5 episodes and then came back to this comment to see if you really feel the same way.