Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 31:23 — 28.7MB)
Mark, Seth, Wes, and Dylan share what drove them into philosophy and keeps them there. How is philosophy different than (or similar to) science? Than religion? Art?
This is a short preview of our full-length, vintage episode, which you can purchase by itself, or get our whole catalog free, beamed to your mobile device, by becoming a PEL supporter: see partiallyexaminedlife.com/support.
The consensus seems that philosophy, to us, is inevitable for the curious. It's just inquiry, unbounded (in principle at least) by any fixed assumptions. While scientific and religious endeavors can be self-questioning as well, there's a limit to that self-questioning; you have to grant some foundational principles as true (e.g. about natural laws or the existence of God) as true before you can get far enough into your inquiry to figure out what questions are still to be answered. The same is true, of course, of particular philosophic inquiries (arguably, particular sciences are just more narrowly focussed, empirical strains of philosophy; that's certainly how the creation of sciences has played out historically), but for philosophy as a whole, nothing is off limits to questioning. So if the philosopher is ever questioning him or herself, how could that be pleasurable? How is it not nauseating? One solution: The Partially Examined Life, where you follow your intellectual conscience as best you can while accepting that you're probably still wrong about something you're taking for granted, and maybe you'll figure that bit out next week.
We did no formal reading for this discussion, but did tell each other to keep in mind Plato's "Apology." For more information, look here.
End song: "Wake Me" by Mark Lint and the Fake from the album So Whaddaya Think? (2000). Download it free.
I enjoyed this episode, and it was very interesting to hear you guys talk about what drew you to philosophy. Regarding one of the remarks you guys mentioned was about philosophy as a kind of public service or public good a la Socrates and also about what a nuisance philosophical questioning can be toward people who would just like to get on with their lives.
Anyway, regarding the nuisance of philosophy, I remember from some time or other in my undergraduate experience that Socrates in one of the Platonic dialogues said that in order to do philosophy a person needs to learn how to die. From what I can recall, Socrates made the analogy to doing philosophy as being most in tune with the soul and so not with the body. Doing philosophy, therefore, was like dying because it was in touch with the soul and allowed someone to set aside bodily concerns. I would have to say, more prosaically, though, that often when I do philosophy I am at the very least detached from a lot of other concerns. Sometimes the impulse to read philosophical works feels like a neurosis: I find myself doing this and finding much more satisfaction in reading philosophy or writing about philosophy than, say, going for a walk with the girlfriend or trying to hang out with friends.
My question is: Have you guys ever felt philosophy in these terms, that is, as a kind of neurosis or something that compels you to draw away from really ordinary and often good things of an active life?
Philosophy isn’t alone in what you’re experiencing–the same is true of every passion: Artists forego the “Ordinary” for the sake of art, writers forsake the ordinary for the sake of writing, and athletes forsake the ordinary for the sake of athletics.
It seems to me that your neurosis isn’t Philosophy (it brings you satisfaction and helps you, seemingly) but a drive towards an idea of the “Ordinary”. I think you should judge the worth of things on the basis of your experiencing them, rather than an idea of their supposed value. According to this comment, Philosophy is worth more to you than other components of an active life–and that’s a good thing. Never abandon your life as you experience it for the sake of some abstract ideal of what you should be doing.
Wow PEL I’m surprised how much I enjoyed this episode. I most enjoyed Seth and Dylan’s comments – less Seth’s self-stimulation confession that I wish you guys edited out :S – and found myself agreeing with a lot of what you said.
I’ll have to listen again, I don’t remember copping to self-stimulation.
I believe it was the conversation that was stimulating. No self, a la the Buddhist doctrine.
ah so that’s the goings on behind the mystery of the sound of one hand clapping
You said philosophy was “fucking fun” and “stimulating.” It’s a fair cop.
OK, I listened again and I get it. Good thing we do audio only.
Thank you all for revealing your own philosophical motivations and interests to help ground this larger question of what does lead to interest and value in philosophy. I agree that a necessary condition for good philosophy is open-mindedness. The desire to understand the logic of a person’s argument, and it’s implications are also core values of philosophizing. I especially connect with the “Aha” moment of insight which accompanies philosophizing , and the implications that insight leads to. And the head on a good beer is the ability to interact with others regarding philosophical understandings, which PEL promotes. Thanks Seth for your openness.
Very good. I read an article recently where a scientist was quoted as saying that philosophy never solved anything. (I can’t remember where I read it or who the scientist was.)
I hear stuff like that from people I admire and I wonder if their definition of philosophy is different than ours here at PEL:
*Open-minded, unbiased inquiry unlimited as to subject* Correct me on this please, reading the info and comments here leads me to believe we’re on or near the same page regarding a definition.
Or do those folks just not like to be questioned?
I once heard Daniel Dennett respond to this issue with something like, “yes, science answers the questions, but it takes philosophy to figure out what the questions should be.”
Hi folks,
I really enjoy your podcast and wanted to congratulate you on a very fascinating and successful series of episodes. I have long wished to suggest as others have already that you should include in your series works of philosophers in other speculative traditions. Few of your episodes have focused on Eastern philosophy. The entire Chinese or Indian philosophy gets reduced to only one or two or three episodes while post-Enlightenment West European and American philosophy has received an extraordinary attention. It would be nice if you could open up to other traditions especially those that you may not agree with. Speculative thought has certainly not been peculiar to the modern Western individual, but rather other people in other cultures and in pre-Enlightenment times also thought cogently about universal questions on mortality, life, death, and so on. Parochial outlook is often characteristic of older generations of philosophers while more recent philosophers have engaged rather fruitfully with other rational traditions across the world. I am particularly interested in a coverage of more continental Asian philosophies including those in Japan and Western Asia (i.e., the Middle East).
As a historian of the Middle East, I am fascinated by the pre-Islamic tradition of the region, as well as the various philosophical schools that developed after Islam all the way to the present. This tradition is often erroneously introduced as “Islamic philosophy,” “Arabic philosophy,” or even worse as “Arab philosophy.” The fact of the matter is that the tradition is far richer and far more complex than these terms tend to suggest. Philosophy in the Middle East included as I suggested above various schools in pre-Islamic Persia and Byzantium, as well as the rational tradition after Islam that included very un-Islamic, agnostic, and atheistic thoughts, as well as Jewish, Christian, and Zoroastrian rational speculation in not just Arabic but also Hebrew, Persian, Turkish, and other languages. Rooted in ancient Greek and Roman philosophy, this tradition is also a living one that continues to produce interesting thoughts that often get overlooked by some in the West. FYI, Peter Adamson has recently begun a series of episodes on this very topic which promises to be a good starting point for those who are not as familiar with this tradition as one hopes to see.
You folks, on the other hand, spend more time with a given text and tend to be more thorough. So I hope that you would decenter your focus a bit and include texts from other traditions. In fact, pre-Enlightenment Europe itself is a rich and unexploited area that could serve as a starting point. It is also culturally closer to your own interests. Perhaps you can begin there and work your way out of Europe one day.
Cordially,
Ron
Ron—
Your post reminds me of Derrida’s “Violence and Metaphysics,” where he states “The entirety of philosophy is conceived on the basis of its Greek source. As is well known, this amounts neither to an occidental-ism, nor to a historicism. It is simply that the founding concepts of philosophy are primarily Greek, and it would not be possible to philosophize, or to speak philosophically, outside this medium.. . . Domination . . . will disappear neither in phenomenology nor in ‘ontology.’” (p. 100) Lots of work to do. (P. S., this exposition was inspired by Levinas.)
I haven’t quite finished listening to this podcast yet, but I wanted to address some comments made near its beginning.
It seems, so the truism goes, that philosophers are not more moral, nor are they living a “better” life, so why do philosophy?
I approach philosophy, especially moral philosophy, from a different and more scientific perspective. One who studies gravity doesn’t become heavier, or lighter for that matter, yet we don’t question why he studies gravity on that basis. I see moral philosophy as the same sort of thing.
Moral philosophers, just like physical scientists, make hypotheses, and then test those hypotheses on the way to developing a theory. Traditionally, the tests were wholly introspective but the new wave of moral philosophers (ex, Jonathan Haidt) are improving that. The point I’m trying to make here is that we don’t study morality so that we can become more moral, anymore than we study the sun as a way to make it more sun-like. We study morality so that we can understand it better.
Good point Daniel. Schopenhauer was criticized for not living up to his own ethical philosophy. But he justly replied that his views on ethics would no more make him a saint than my understanding basketball would make me Kobe Bryant. (My analogy obviously…Don’t think Artie would have cared for B-ball),
Great episode guys; I’m very happy you finally tackled these questions. Mark, I really enjoyed your thought that philosophy contains a lot of “crazy shit”. That’s definitely part of the reason I enjoy philosophy so much. Without sounding too romantic, though, I’ve always thought that when I do philosophy (talk about it, read about it, etc), I’m doing one of the most human things I can possibly do. It’s just so invigorating for me.
As a side note, when people ask me about philosophy in general, I always like to explain it as trying to understand and answer the following questions: “What the hell is going on?” and “What should we do about it?”
It was charming to hear the biographical stories about your early motivations. I could relate to young Sethrates and the other budding gadflies. It almost seems that “philosopher” is a personality type, as Mark’s story illustrated. He was philosophical even before he thought to call himself by that name. It was a bit of a revelation to find old friends from high school and college (through facebook) because none of them were surprised to learn about my current interests in philosophy. Their comments are always something like, “that figures” or “that makes sense”.
As a kid I never expected people to be logically rigorous with respect to their beliefs but I did expect them to have some kind of reason. Mostly I was curious about religious beliefs, the ones that seemed increasingly unbelievable to me as I moved into puberty. It all seemed like an epic drama; the fate of eternal souls, the end of the world, the creator’s plan. I could see the emotional appeal. It is oddly thrilling and self-aggrandizing but it raised a million questions without giving any plausible answers. My original motivation was, basically, the desire to learn how people can believe things that seem so unbelievable to me.
I loved this episode.
I felt as though you were speaking for me and I suspect for other like-minded individuals with the “desire to know”. Of course beyond the desire to understand is the simple pleasure of wrestling with greatest ideas humankind has produced.
You also hit upon the conclusion reached by many that ambiguity and uncertainty in this life is a fact that is unavoidable but it’s this uncertainty that leads to the wonder and mystery of the “examined life” (or at least partially examined).
My hunch is that PEL is popular for this very reason. You guys capture that philosophic spirit that is alive in so many of us and do it in a way that is informative, honest and entertaining without being condescending. That’s a pretty good combination.
Great episode guys. My favorite philosophy professor had the answer to why do we philosophize in this way, because we are philosophers. That is it is so ingrained in our nature that to not ask these questions and discuss it that we have no choice. It is natural curiosity that drives us.
Dan–
You must hang with a great group.
Wish I felt like people in general want to be philosophical (open, rational, etc.)
Seems to me like my peeps do not like or choose to philosophize. (Internal Elaboration=Pain.)
Really good episode. Enjoyed all of it though I was amazed that Seth and his self stimulation was passed by without comment. I must admit I enjoy Seths commentary the most. How about visiting John Lockes thoughts on markets and trade? It was discussed here – http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/11/munger_on_john.html
I would love to hear what your thoughts on Lockes views would be.
Isn’t the first and only question why is there something as opposed to nothing? Doesn’t every other question derive from that? Maybe that was addressed but I missed it.
Okay I hate do this but it’s a habit when philosophy and alcohol intersect in my brain, but here goes anyway. What philosophy really is to me, and as cheesy as this sounds, is the monumental line in the movie Inception when Mal tells Cobb, “You think you know all these things, but what do you REALLY know for sure?” So what do we REALLY know? How do we know this isn’t just a dream or an illusion. We make these assumptions because they are convenient but do we know for sure. Is any of this real? Are my dreams my true reality? I mean what the hell am I doing here at all? Why do these questions get pushed aside? If we can’t even answer these than who cares about morals and ethics? Who cares about how I live or who I hurt if this is just a figment of imagination? It seems like we are skipping steps here. I don’t know, maybe I’m wrong. Just my perception
Quick comment about ethical theories and the application on every day life. While yes you don’t explicitly use them for your moral decisions neither do you actively think about the constituent steps of roofing. Through training and experience you automate a lot of the steps that goes into laying roof. You don’t need to think about how to hammer a nail into a wall “First I have to raise my arm” etc.
As you all may well know our brain is a trainable muscle with lots of automated systems and the more you do something the more automated it becomes. Take typing on a keyboard for example. In the beginning you look at your hand and fingers and the keyboard to hit the right keys. As you use it more and more the less you look at your hands and the more you look at the screen.
Philosophy and ethical theories works very much the same way, it’s not that you actively every time you need to make a decision that you pull up any given theory, but given through years of training in open and critical thinking you automatically take lots of things into consideration. Thus yes, knowing lots of theories and thinking about them you expand the knowledge base of your intuition. So while we might not be able to say ‘yes! At that specific point in time I made the conscious choice not to do X based on theory Y’ we can say that probably through our entire life the more we learn (in the platonic sense of knowing something – that knowing the the capital of France is Paris isn’t the same thing as knowing why it’s a capital, or knowing that killing is wrong is not the same as knowing why it’s wrong) the more active, albeit not directly conscious, choices we make.
Thus in the end philosophy becomes not only an interesting side hobby but exercise for your intuition.
I must say that as an existential nihilist (which I presume to be a transient stage in my life), I found a fair amount of joy in listening to this discussion among the few others to which I’ve listened. Even if I am incapable of verifying any worth or value in existence, I take some comfort in the process of evaluation of new ideas and reevaluation of old ones. Even if that’s all that remains for me in life, that’s starting to seem not so bad. Keep up the good work.
I enjoyed this.
I’m gradually working my way through the episodes so don’t know if you have done more like this.
I hope you do. Perhaps your different takes on the different parts of philosophy: What you have valued in and your approach to: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and so on.
You all appear uncomfortable about talking about yourself even if it was unavoidable; considering the way you have structured this episode (or was it spontaneous?) No need to be self deprecatory…..it is good to see even academically accredited philosophers are uncertain about, well…, almost everything 🙂