• 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

Q&A with Frithjof Now Posted

November 1, 2013 by Mark Linsenmayer 7 Comments

Thanks to all that submitted questions for the Frithjof Bergmann Q&A. I was able to get to the majority of them, though not all. It's possible we'll do another one of these, but where and how it gets posted is undermined at this point.

Go listen to it here.

-Mark Linsenmayer

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Filed Under: General Announcements

Comments

  1. Glen Stratton says

    November 1, 2013 at 8:45 pm

    This stuff is in line with anarchism in so many ways. Opposition to strict division of is key to transforming our lives by making labor what it should be: something we want to do because it allows us to develop ourselves and exercise our creativity. Marx said this, Humboldt said this. Pretty much all the classical liberals are in this vein.

    Reply
    • Toby K says

      November 1, 2013 at 9:30 pm

      Yeah, Frithjof’s criticism of Marxism was also very much in line with anarchist critiques.

      Reply
      • Mark Linsenmayer says

        November 2, 2013 at 11:01 am

        We’ll for sure cover some anarchism, we’re now tentatively booked through Feb. with other things.

        With some of the questions I asked, he focused on one part of it and really went off on it without us getting around to addressing the other parts, so while I get his gripe about Marxism, I don’t think it hurts to acknowledge that “unalienated labor” and workers themselves owning the means of production (which is what community production amounts to) are classical Marxist concepts.

        Anarchism, and hardcore Marxism, are to me foreign sociological/intellectual niches much like those Lacanian theorists and Randians and hardcore etymologists (a la Brann) that I now understand a bit more due to our concentrating on them for a bit for an episode.

        I can certainly see politically why if you’re trying to talk to regular people and convince them of some concrete ways of changing the world, you don’t start by making them read Bakunin or Marx or anything else. Frithjof is determined that his project not be an intellectual critique, much less a critique of a critique, and is not particularly interested in exploring how Zizek or whoever else is talking about something faintly related except insofar as doing so would hook his organization up with organizations of those people to work to a common purpose.

        So whether or not what he’s proposing is original is of pretty much no consequence to him, and in fact it’s much better if he can point to Aristotle or Keynes or whomever and say “see, all these clear-thinking minds have come to the right conclusion.”

        Given that I’m reading Rawls right now, I’d have to disagree with the claim that all “classical liberals” share his worldview. Rawls (considered the foundation of modern liberalism by some) shares the English/social contract theorist view that you do social planning by figuring out how to adjudicate between the rational desires of autonomous agents. For Bergmann (following Hegel and Nietzsche) the whole point is figuring out how to make people into autonomous agents who have authentic desires, which does involve freeing them from physical wage/time-slavery, yes, but not only that. Does anarchism affirm that social structures are necessary and helpful in human development, or is it a rejection of all such structures to free up the Noble Savage in all of us?

        Reply
        • Toby K says

          November 2, 2013 at 12:14 pm

          Great points Mark. I completely understand why Frithjof would want to disassociate the New Work project from terms like ‘socialism’ and ‘Marxism’ (and particularly ‘anarchism’, a seriously misunderstood word). While I appreciate that claims to originality are not important to him, it would have been nice for him to talk a bit about how New Work relates to other political ideas, given that he was on a philosophy podcast. New Work has so much in common with anarchism, not just in any kind of theoretical sense, but also practically. Go to any anarchist website, and the sort of things they recommend doing sound just like what Frithjof is asking people to do: start community gardens, get the word out on the movement, organize your workplace, get alternative means of energy production in your community (solar, wind, etc). New Work could be seen as a particular mode of direct action.

          I certainly don’t want to disparage New Work as simply anarchism that has been co-opted to Frithjof’s own ends; I think there are some seriously great ideas behind it, and its rejection of jargon (‘solidarity’ is the one Frithjof mentioned in the episode) is admirable.

          As for your question, I think it presents something of a false dichotomy. While a minority of anarchists (individualists in the tradition of Stirner, post-left anarchists, anarcho-primitivists, et al.) heavily emphasize “the rejection of all such structures to free up the Noble Savage in all of us?” (although they wouldn’t use the term ‘noble savage’) and largely reject significant social organization, the majority would want a synthesis of the two. This position (which is my own) says that social structures, as long as they are entirely non-hierarchical and democratic, are necessary, and that their primary goal should be to create conditions where people can find their calling and practice it. This position entails, it seems to me, libertarian socialism.

          Re: the discussion of classical liberalism: I think Glen is arguing for Chomsky’s position that pre-capitalist liberalism is the pre-cursor of anarchism. He explains this position here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60z2zGbGbfE

          For a more detailed explication: http://www.spunk.org/library/intro/sp000281.html

          Reply
        • dmf says

          November 5, 2013 at 4:14 pm

          ML, if you folks do get around to anarchisms do check out:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_May

          Reply
  2. dmf says

    November 5, 2013 at 4:10 pm

    http://jdeanicite.typepad.com/i_cite/2013/11/ed-rooksby-on-socialist-strategy-from-international-socialism-issue-140.html

    Reply
  3. soonnoo says

    November 8, 2013 at 12:42 am

    Chomsky seems to be @ odds on Kurzweil and sinularity (type) projection(s)..


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvE4UhKmEfw

    http://www.nndb.com/people/101/000032005/

    http://www.kurzweilai.net/ask-ray-your-recent-book-mentioned-cuteness-and-made-me-wonder/comment-page-1#comment-234121

    It seems moot for the greatest intelligence in any circumstance
    to have provision for mistakes; there is really no need for it: I mean,
    isn’t cute moot? What about bed bugs and alligators, isn’t cute really
    relative; could Einstein be wrong. Of course not. (Jacob Bronowski
    says it best.)

    The real cliff hangar putting AI and hierarchy into the quantum puzzle
    is the following:
    http://www.junginstitute.org/pdf_files/JungV8N1p19-30.pdf

    If a car could be cute, who could make the cutest car?

    http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Bronowski.html

    http://www.nndb.com/people/339/000206718/
    Here’s a cute baby! No make-up, she’s a doll.

    Silicon based life forms may be here to stay.
    http://www.livescience.com/40535-show-unveils-worlds-first-bionic-man.html

    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

  • Bibliophile on Pretty Much Pop #143: Pinocchio the Unfilmable (Yet Frequently Filmed)
  • Mark Linsenmayer on Ep. 302: Erasmus Praises Foolishness (Part Two)
  • Mark Linsenmayer on Ep. 308: Moore’s Proof of Mind-Independent Reality (Part Two for Supporters)
  • Mark Linsenmayer on Ep. 201: Marcus Aurelius’s Stoicism with Ryan Holiday (Citizen Edition)
  • MartinK on Ep. 201: Marcus Aurelius’s Stoicism with Ryan Holiday (Citizen Edition)

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