• 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

The Thought Not the Thinker

November 28, 2011 by Mark Linsenmayer 16 Comments

I've been so overwhelmed by the amount of good will I've had coming from listeners that it's nice to be reminded that we really are still on the Internet. Thanks, Internet!

Recently, our supporter Ernie P. scolded us a little for being too timid in voicing our own opinions. (See his post, and my response.) Food for thought.

My motivator for this quick post, however, is not Ernie's complaint, but today's challenge to our whole format (Comments #22 and #23 here), where an anonymous gentleman scolds us for talking about ourselves too long before getting into the actual discussion (among some other helpful comments).

Now, I'm not a particularly patient consumer. When it comes to podcasts, I generally listen on double speed to things, and pretty freely skip ahead (not sure why this guy didn't just do that). I also believe, when it comes to philosophy, of taking it and making it yours; what you do with it is more important than being a good scholar. What we do is not a formal lecture, but something else, that may not be for everyone.

I do, however, enjoy some long podcasts of people just goofing around, and have even spent some quality time with talk radio in my day, so that's where I'm coming from. I'm sure if we prepared in the manner of teaching a class, we'd have a different, and possibly a more useful, product. While I hope that we do a reasonably good job of introducing these thinkers, ultimately what we do is not consumer-oriented: it's us, having a conversation, trying to articulate things. This conversation has stretched over three and a half years and this point, and my tendency to understand new things by referring them to other things that I already understand does produce a flurry of references to other episodes that would likely appear to be name-dropping to someone who's new to it. I don't begrudge anyone who doesn't feel the need to enter into that ongoing discussion sufficiently to get much out of it.

I do find the contours of an individual intellectual life as interesting as the topics themselves. People's experiences as they realize or fail to realize philosophical insights in their lives are interesting to me. When you debate with someone on a regular basis, you get to notice their ticks, their blockages, their pet issues, and unless the person is an unbearable crank (as we all are on some subjects), then these become part of the pleasure of it. I'd like to think we provide a few models to engage with that, by most standards, are not too shabby, and yet you can always click it off if it smells funny and retreat to the comfort of your own deliberations.

So: Is it the thought? The philosophy bite, as it were? Or is it the thinker, as Nietzsche thought (meaning that whether someone accepts an idea has more to do with his or her temperament than anything else, in which case being exposed to our temperaments over time would be beneficial in getting the feel of the overall conversation)? Or rather, the thinker with the thought (so we needn't analyze, say, Regis and/or Kelly). Does it actually serve some purpose to leave a 10-minute intro to an episode, or are you folks the all-business type who would prefer your free entertainment cut into more independently edible pieces?

Thanks, as always, for your indulgence,

-Mark Linsenmayer

P.S. The image used here was swiped from here.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Filed Under: Misc. Philosophical Musings Tagged With: philosophy blog

Comments

  1. Jeremy says

    November 28, 2011 at 9:56 pm

    I generally enjoy the podcast, and I’ve listened to about half of them over the last several months. But man, that is a lot of verbiage to waste on some dude from the internet. And it’s also a dumb question, considering that you have one guy who says you’re wasting his time and many others who download and enjoy the podcasts (but perhaps, like me, enjoy Wes and Seth a little bit more tbh….).

    Reply
    • Mark Linsenmayer says

      November 29, 2011 at 1:10 am

      That’s OK, Jeremy. I prefer our other listeners to you tbh. 🙂

      Reply
      • rinky says

        November 29, 2011 at 8:49 am

        Jeremy has a good point. Some people are going to like what you’re doing, some people won’t. If you invite comments, some of them will be negative. It’s going to happen, it doesn’t mean you’re doing anything wrong. Just leave it.

        The only thing I’d say is this: to the extent that there’s a journey going on here – bear in mind that not every listener is going to travel the whole way with you. If you want to make it more accessible to the casual listener who drops in for the odd episode (big “if” I know, quite possibly you don’t), then maybe a bit more structure could help. Within episodes (what you’re doing, how & why) and between episodes (what’s up next & why). I can see that this site has grown a few more landmarks & signposts lately, that’s very helpful IMO. The nearest equivalent in terms of the podcast itself I guess is the recitation of the groundrules at the beginning, but those have never been treated with much reverence. You obviously know the drill well enough to ignore it, but first-time listeners won’t.

        Ignore all that if you like.

        Good job though, keep it up.
        –R.

        Reply
  2. Nick Burbidge says

    November 29, 2011 at 5:14 am

    Hi Mark,

    “I do find the contours of an individual intellectual life as interesting as the topics themselves. People’s experiences as they realize or fail to realize philosophical insights in their lives are interesting to me. When you debate with someone on a regular basis, you get to notice their ticks, their blockages, their pet issues, and unless the person is an unbearable crank (as we all are on some subjects), then these become part of the pleasure of it.”

    This is the crux of your argument for me and I totally agree. I like to hear where the person is coming from, whether that’s through a personal (and often comical) allusion to St John’s University or anything else. Banter can an essential component of philosophising as much as strict reference to a text.

    Reply
  3. Daniel Horne says

    November 29, 2011 at 7:22 am

    More zoo crew jokes, more sound effects.

    Reply
  4. scott says

    November 29, 2011 at 10:05 am

    Nah, the intro’s and small-talk are exactly what’s needed to keep it un-academic and thoroughly partially-examined. I’d love to hear even more personal opinions and/or debate. That sort of thing is always nice because it helps bring an interesting, oblique (and even occasionally, practical and real-life) perspective to the matter at hand – the best philosophy emerges from dialogue, I’m with Socrates (er Plato maybe?) on that. Something of the thinker always persists in the thought and vice versa; there’s no sense in pretending that ideas are some other-worldly thing divorced from our lives as lived. More banter, more bullshit, more swearing = more approachable, and probably better, philosophy.

    Reply
  5. Ethan Gach says

    November 29, 2011 at 11:25 am

    The reason I read Andrew Sullivan isn’t because he is the best blogger online, it’s because it’s Sullivan.

    There are plenty of philosophy podcasts offering summaries and delving into specifics.

    You guys do all that well, but with the added benefit of your(all’s) unique personalities and life experiences.

    I think being a conversational podcast is one of PEL’s most entertaining qualities, it’s what brings me back, and it’s what distinguishes it from all of the other quasi-serious philosophical probing out there.

    Reply
  6. Russ says

    November 29, 2011 at 1:05 pm

    Please don’t change the format! If someone wants a lecture, let them go to the online courseware offered by MIT and Berkeley. The conversational approach and personal stories are essential to this podcast…hence the name Partially Examined “Life”, not Partially Examined “Philosophy”.

    Reply
  7. Ernest Prabhakar says

    November 29, 2011 at 2:41 pm

    Thanks, Mark. Just to be clear, though, I wasn’t chiding you for not *voicing* your own opinions, but rather for not *analyzing* them enough. To me, the most annoying part is when one of you states something as an “obvious fact” that wouldn’t (in my opinion) stand up to the kind of critical analysis you perform on everything else. In other words, I consider “the unexamined opinion not worth voicing.” 🙂

    Reply
  8. Martin says

    November 29, 2011 at 3:28 pm

    I love you just the way you are….

    I would love a bell or brief round of applause whenever anyone uses the phrase ‘so on and so forth’ – which I consider the verbal equivalent for a footnote reading: ‘for more on this see’…

    [PS: please keep the length up – it’s a vital part of the ‘over coffee’ feel of the pod and is a real USP :)]

    Reply
  9. Laura says

    November 29, 2011 at 6:48 pm

    If you change any shred, any bit, any morsel, ANY part of your approach or, most importantly any quality of yourselves and personalities which you bring to this podcast I will personally stone each of you!

    The best thing about this podcast IS its personal, partially-examined , thoughtful, genuinely funny and real conversations about complex, multi-dynamic ideas that affect our lives in ways of which many of us are unaware.

    Haven’t people complained about philosophers being stowed away in their ivory towers? That these ideas have no practical use today? And here, they’ve come down and they’re just like us–smarter perhaps–but just like us. Hence the ideas, the debate, the intellectual struggle–actually has great practical purpose. Because we hear their hopes, confusions and realizations within the philosophical content–here.

    Do not change anything. Or close up shop and go back up to the top of the tower–and I’ll stone you from down here…..;)

    Reply
  10. Geoff says

    November 29, 2011 at 9:34 pm

    As per the general spirit of “huzzah”. Keep at it gents.

    While I have not listened as regualrly of late due to a change in the nature of employment, the format always appealed to me.

    We are not customers.

    You have created something that you wanted to and have found that there are people who like what you do.

    The easy mistake to make now, as in life, would be to imagine that you need to make it accesible to everyone. A bit of truthiness, if you try and appeal to everybody you will end up appealing to nobody. Oh yeah. Feel the truthiness.

    “free entertainment cut into more independently edible pieces”

    If someone wants easily consumed snacks, then I would question whether philosophy – even the partially examined variety – is really the thing for them. Others might think differently of course, but that’s because they are idiots.

    Reply
  11. bobby says

    November 30, 2011 at 2:13 am

    my grateful, humble 2 cents says on the one hand, you guys do what you do and good for you, it’s cool, and is an approach and if folks don’t dig it they can go to other podcasts
    and on the other hand,
    while I like the bullshitin’ and some shit talkin’, joking around and stuff, and the chattiness like some smart guys that are sincerely interested in philosophy and ideas ..at a bar shootin’ the proverbial sh*t w/ each other after class/work and that I didn’t get to hangout w/ because I’m not one of them and instead I hung out w/ idiots .oh god my life. You know the other day I ‘hungout’ (which I dont do much now) w/ fellow idiots from my job and they were playing music and a Nirvana song came on. Not a big fan, point is I had a flashback to my misspent youth in the ’90s sitting on couches drinking beer. It freakin’ hurts man. What a waste. Anyway what was I saying.
    -I’d suggest always having some specific allocated time for concise, formal summaries at the end of each episode of each of the contributor’s views of the discussed text and perhaps highlight agreements and disagreements.
    So yeah have fun with it and don’t make it school in summer time, but wrap-up it in a neat bow for us and that’s a wrap. my two pennies

    Reply
  12. Andrew C says

    November 30, 2011 at 6:20 pm

    My favourite moment so far was the gales of laughter when Seth read Nietzsche saying that Kant had shown we know the world by means of a faculty, but with so many words and so much german silliness that it took forever to get past him. Your reaction is personal, funny and philosophically interesting all at once, and I think an interpreting community of actual people, with all the space for quarrels and laughs is the only way to fully express and understand important philosophy.

    Reply

Trackbacks

  1. Some additional thoughts on Sartre | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    December 2, 2011 at 1:30 am

    […] When we were recording the episode, we were all aware that we got hung up on unreflected consciousness and how consciousness of consciousness was not reflected consciousness or self-consciousness.  As a result, I thought we gave short shrift to the latter half of the essay.  If that sounds convoluted, listen to the episode.  There’s nothing wrong with the way the conversation went – that’s the nature both of such dialogues and a good example of the strengths and weaknesses of our format which was recently discussed here. […]

    Reply
  2. Ignorance, Arrogance, and Competence | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    May 30, 2012 at 8:14 am

    […] It’s been a while since we had a post using some of our negative feedback to reflect on our project and methods. […]

    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

  • Wes Alwan on PEL Nightcap April 2022
  • Wes Alwan on Ep. 305: Cormac McCarthy’s “Blood Meridian” (Part Three for Supporters)
  • Wes Alwan on Ep. 305: Cormac McCarthy’s “Blood Meridian” (Part Three for Supporters)
  • Wes Alwan on Ep. 306: Dworkin and the Dobbs Decision (Part Three for Supporters)
  • Wes Alwan on Ep. 306: Dworkin and the Dobbs Decision (Part Three 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