The Partially Examined Life (Citizens): (Protected Content)
When we recorded this, we were still awaiting our Habermas recording; we discuss what secondary sources we use. How about you listeners?
Anarchism! Should we do an episode on it? We probably will, and probably before the end of 2020, but not immediately. Relatedly, should we have guests who are adherents of the philosophy we're discussing?
What was the episode we've recorded where the reading most pleasantly surprised each of us?
Finally, you hear us discuss the possibility of front-loading our episodes. We're now trying to do this given that we've now pulled part two episodes behind the paywall, because we don't want all those cheapskates who only listen to part one two be totally frustrated. This will likely be a challenge, but luckily one you supporters don't much need to care about, except insofar as even you folks might like us to get more synoptic at the beginning anyway rather than just doing a close reading, starting minute one with page one and concluding in our last minute with whatever page we eventually get to. What do you all think about the way we structure things?
It’s been a Weil-ry long month for you guys. I am absolutely loving more Weil, more of the time. My gratitude to the person who sponsored the series! I was wondering if you guys had room for dessert however: What do you think about covering her very short essay, “On the Abolition of All Political Parties” as an election day special? The e-book version is only 16 pages long.
Regarding front-loading episodes and especially pay-walling part twos: No! When I discovered PEL as a high schooler with no income, the nightmare, after drudgingly attempting to read along before listening, was waiting a week after Wes made some fascinatingly controversial point at the end of part 1. The wait between episodes, and the guilt-inducing reminders that “the Partially Examined Life relies on [my] support” and that I could “help in ways that are cheap, or even free” were enough that when I could finally afford to I became a citizen. God bless advertisers, but the only benefit to not directly supporting PEL was hearing Seth have to get through a monologue about how great his mattress was. In other words, I think there are enough incentives to citizenship without sweetening the free-riders’ deal of getting a synopsis in part one as well.
In a podcast landscape where the practice of philosophy has been democratized, Wes is totally right that you guys “do something that is not the easiest thing to listen to” (20:01) and that’s a virtue! When I discovered PEL in episode 117 I had little to no familiarity with philosophy–but through reading with you guys and gleaning context from inadvertent name-dropping like “This was Descartes’s project” from non-Descartes episodes I eventually put together a vaguely coherent mosaic of philosophy that I think was more meaningful than “here’s your SparkNotes distillation of Hegel Mr. Listener.” Also, what happened to the Mark that thought when things had to be massified for wider consumption they ended up losing their nuance?
Call me curmudgeonly, but back in my day [2015] PEL listeners had to do the reading if they wanted to get more from the discussion. Leveraging episode 137, a paradoxical benefit of a more “inaccessible” PEL is that more of the people that stick with it will tend to be familiarized with philosophy. Familiarity with philosophy is a scholar/bourgeois-class thing. Scholars, and moreso bourgeois people tend to have an extra $4.16 a month to spend on supporting bourgeois-preferred philosophy podcasts. The paradox is that the more elitist PEL citizens there are the less dependent Marketh Weslan* is on the “Oligarch” and “Ubermensch” patron classes, thus a more democratic PEL. If you’re the sort of person that listens to part two of the free version and you can afford it, there’s absolutely no reason you shouldn’t be a PEL citizen.
*My portmanteau of all your names when I want to refer to you as a collective outside of PEL, and also a pretty hip indie band name if anybody wants it.
Hi guys, I know Chomsky is an anarchist and although I haven’t read his political philosophy, his book Manufacturing Consent, is a classic in media studies and how propaganda works. But maybe some of Chomsky’s political philosophy could be read for your show on anarchism. Also just as a side note, they have done studies on Wikipedia and its accuracy rate is comparable to any other encyclopedia, so I don’t think the problem with Wikipedia is whether its accurate or not. It’s generally pretty accurate, its just that it’s only meant to be an introductory source and sometimes ppl use it as a primary source, instead of searching out the more in depth stuff. Anyways nice Nightcap.
Mary Midgley isn’t one of the well known greats, she is really clear though.
My prejudice: Stirner is proto-Rand. I think Kropotkin is solid; his Mutual Aid is a central text.
Trying to determine the conversation in advance seems like a bad idea. (Team Seth.) So shorter articles might be the go. I like the PEL style of close attention to texts.
Another suggestion for an anarchism reading is Mikhail Bakunin, who represents the socialist aligned sect born out of post-Hegelian thought alongside Marxism. I would suggest reading God and the State as it has the two advantages of being somewhat philosophical, or at least citing philosophers, and also pretty short, only 50 pages.