• 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

Episode 182: Reflections on PEL 2017 (Part One)

January 29, 2018 by Mark Linsenmayer 15 Comments

http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/traffic.libsyn.com/partiallyexaminedlife/PEL_ep_182pt1_1-4-18.mp3

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 52:14 — 47.9MB)

To what extent has our podcast changed in reaction to current politics? Mark, Seth, Wes, and Dylan reflect back on our year, discuss how we select texts, and give some thumbnail sketches of potential topics.

Attention: Only the first 45 min of this discussion will be posted for the general public. If you like PEL at all, consider just becoming a PEL Citizen or supporting us via Patreon and get the whole thing now.

Want to hear future PEL episodes about Charlie Brown? Pink Floyd? Joan Didion? Neal Gaiman? Maybe more philosophy-adjacent texts following what we did with Darwin and The Wealth of Nations? Or quit with the pop culture already and get to Malebranche, Von Mises, and Mill!?

When we talk about something that isn't philosophy, what are we doing exactly? Trying to pull out the philosophical issues, or treating literature qua literature and film qua film? Do we care what the author says about the work? If he or she denies any philosophical intentions, are we doing wrong by reading it into the work anyway?

Wes talks about his forays into film analysis (check out this, this, this, and especially this), Seth kvetches about the poor job modern movies do in treating philosophical issues, Mark talks about reactions to our American Indian episode (read the blog post on this), and Dylan explains the St. John's way of treating any text intelligently.

The image for this ep is by Solomon Grundy.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Filed Under: Podcast Episodes

Comments

  1. dmf says

    January 29, 2018 at 5:51 pm

    there are a lot of BS (MLA?)ing about whatever podcasts out there but not many that try and do something like close readings of philo texts and maybe even encourage lay people to try and read along, have you folks tackled any of Donald Davidson’s work?

    A show on hermeneutics would be welcome, death of the author, is there a text in this room, Wittgenstein vs Freud, etc.

    Simon Critchley is still writing on tragedy and would be a good guest for talking Greek/Shakespeare, Anne Carson is a wonder on bringing them to life for modern audiences.

    Reply
  2. Evan Hadkins says

    January 29, 2018 at 7:37 pm

    For Authorial Intent you could read Barthes Death of the Author.

    Reply
  3. Cait says

    January 31, 2018 at 4:03 am

    I was thinking you should talk about The Room (the Tommy Wisseau film) for authorial intent vs public perception/value. Since The Disaster Artist I feel like it has a broader pop culture awareness.

    Reply
  4. Dale Smith says

    January 31, 2018 at 8:55 am

    I look forward to a conversation about interpreting literature. A few texts to consider: Wimsatt and Beardsley’s influential book on textualism, “The Verbal Icon: Studies in the Meaning of Poetry;” Stanley Fish’s reader-response hermeneutics, “Is There a Text in This Class?;” E.D. Hirsch’s defense of authorial intent, “Validity in Interpretation;” David Couzen Hoy’s survey, “The Critical Circle: Literature, History, and Philosophical Hermeneutics.” The list could go on, but these books and citations from their bibliographies could make for a great discussion. Thanks for all your work!

    Reply
  5. Robert Williams says

    January 31, 2018 at 11:59 am

    To Wes’s request for readings on intention and interpretation: it would be great to hear a discussion of G.E.M Anscombe’s book Intention together with a look at an exchange among Stanley Cavell (“Music Discomposed”), Joseph Margolis, and Monroe Beardsley. Cavell responds pointedly to Margolis’s and Beardsley’s criticisms of him in “A Matter of Meaning It,” one of the best treatments of aesthetics and intention I know of; all four of these essays are available in a volume called Art, Mind and Religion, eds. Capitan and Merrill, University of Puttsburgh Press, 1965. Cavell’s two essays are reprinted in his Must We Mean What We Say?

    Reply
    • Peter Sattler says

      February 4, 2018 at 12:07 pm

      Nice suggestion, Robert. Cavell is terrific,and he deserves a show, regardless of the topic. Cavell’s work also speaks, clearly, to the episode concerns about what a philosopher does when he or she reads a work philosophically, in light of philosophy, through the lens of philosophy, etc. Perhaps they could read a selection of literature-minded philosophers and their interpretive essays (e.g., Cavell, Nussbaum, Rorty, Pippin) and see how they work.

      In a comment below, I suggest reading Michaels and Knapp’s “Against Theory.” Cavell’s “Division of Talent” essay, also in Critical Inquiry, contributes to that conversation and references the link to “Music Discomposed.”

      Reply
  6. Dale Smith says

    January 31, 2018 at 1:26 pm

    I wanted to add that while an abundance of hermeneutics-of-literature is ready to be plucked from the shelves and made into a great podcast discussion, there exists an equally abundant body of works pertaining to hermeneutics-of-jurisprudence. Americans have been arguing over how to interpret the Constitution and the common law tradition since before the Constitution was ratified.

    Reply
  7. Filipe says

    February 2, 2018 at 5:32 pm

    Hello friends,

    I very much second the ideas of readings of plays, and of discussing the philosophical aspects of works of art,

    Reply
  8. Punyesh Kumar says

    February 3, 2018 at 7:15 am

    If you’re looking for a well-respected center of contemporary conservative thought, a kind of modern William Buckley (though he’s more like a modern Hayek) then I’d really recommend the work of African-American economist and political theorist/philosopher Thomas Sowell. Most conservatives (I’m centrist) I know greatly admire all of his work, his book “A Conflict of Visions’ is seen by many as a modern classic and “Vision of the Anointed” and “Intellectuals and Society” is seen by many as a damning critique of liberal politics.

    Reply
  9. Punyesh Kumar says

    February 3, 2018 at 7:22 am

    There’s also Glenn Loury who’s a center-right economist and Professor of the Social Sciences and Economics at Brown University. He runs a political podcast called “The Glenn Show” with Linguist and political commentator John Mcwhorter.

    Reply
  10. Peter Sattler says

    February 3, 2018 at 1:28 pm

    If you want some smart explorations of authorial intent (in fact, writers who argue that authorial intent is the ONLY determinant of meaning), you need to read Walter Benn Michaels or Stanley Fish. For W. B. Michaels, you could start with the essay that started this trend in his career: “Against Theory” (1982, with Steven Knapp,in Critical Inquiry).

    But for a strong and more direct version of this in relation to the visual arts, perhaps start with with Michaels’ “Intention at the College Art Association (2010)” at NONSITE.ORG. This is a GREAT essay. You need this as part of the conversation.

    For Stanley Fish, you could go with IS THERE A TEXT IN THIS CLASS, but I would start with more direct essays on intention and meaning that appear in law journals or even The NY Times. Try out Fish’s “There Is No Textualist Position” (San Diego Law Review, 2005), “Going Down the Anti-Formalist Road” (in DOING WHAT COMES NATURALLY), or “Intention and the Canons of Legal Interpretation” (NYT, 2012).

    Each of these texts argues that a text means what it’s author intends (“what the work of art means is equally and only to give an account of what it was intended to mean”), while at the same time arguing (1) that this irreducible fact about meaning cannot be turned into a methodology, (2) that this equation of I tent and meaning is the only way to be able to say that an interpretation is wrong, or that an artwork has failed, and (3) that there are other things — like a work’s political, personal, or emotional effects — that are not reducible to intent,but those things are to acts of interpretation.

    But above all, I would suggest that to pursue this topic and these readings, you must avoid thinking that this problem and these essays are easily understood and dismissed. Fish and Michaels (like Rorty) are some of the most blithely misunderstood pragmatists out there.

    I hope you give this a shot.

    Reply
    • Peter Sattler says

      February 4, 2018 at 12:12 pm

      EDIT: It would probably be better, if one wanted to read “Against Theory,” to do it along with the essays in WJT Mitchell’s edited volume of the same name: “Against Theory: Literary Studies and the New Pragmatism” (U of Chicago P, 1985).

      Reply
  11. Wes Alwan says

    February 9, 2018 at 5:56 pm

    Thanks for the suggestions everyone!

    Reply
  12. Mark says

    February 15, 2018 at 10:42 pm

    Mises?! Awesome! Are you seriously gonna slog through Human Action? I haven’t finished listening to this podcast yet, I’m curious if his name will be brought up.

    Thanks for giving libertarinism a shot, even though you aren’t its biggest fans.

    Reply
  13. Mark says

    February 16, 2018 at 7:24 am

    I have not read this but as far as a philosophically conservative text, Robert Nisbet’s The Quest for Community is supposed to be excellent.

    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