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.
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….).
That’s OK, Jeremy. I prefer our other listeners to you tbh. 🙂
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.
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.
More zoo crew jokes, more sound effects.
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.
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.
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”.
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.” 🙂
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 :)]
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…..;)
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.
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.
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
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.