To conclude our discussion of Blood Meridian, we talk about the roles of maturation and regression in the novel. Plus, more on Judge Holden's philosophy and how our view of this should be affected by the fact that Holden is a hypocritical child molester, the (small) role of women in the novel, the character of the idiot, "white man's burden," and more. Do you think we Continue Reading …
Citizen Feed Episodes: Paywalled and Ad-Free
Available only to PEL Citizens: All of our paywalled and ad-free regular episodes in a single feed. That includes paywalled full episodes from the back catalogue, Nightcap and (Starting in September 2020) Part 2 of all episodes. You can add this feed to the podcast app of your choice by following the instructions here. You can download them, listen to them here, or get them on the podcast app of your choice by following the instructions here. Not a Citizen? Join here.
Ep. 305: Cormac McCarthy’s “Blood Meridian” (Part Two for Supporters)
Continuing from part one on McCarthy's 1985 novel, we discuss whether the plentiful, explicit violence in the book is actually gratuitous or whether it's central for presenting the book's philosophy. What makes the book supposedly unfilmable? We then focus on the details of Judge Holden's philosophy. He posits that war is the purpose (the telos) of man. Man is essentially a Continue Reading …
Ep. 305: Cormac McCarthy’s “Blood Meridian” (Part One for Supporters)
On McCarthy's 1985 anti-Western novel, featuring Wes, Seth, and Dylan. How does violence play a role in the way the world works? The novel tells a historically based story of the 19th century Glanton gang who were hired as scalp hunters by the Mexican government but then went on a rogue massacre. It's told from the point of view of "The Kid," a 15-year-old member of the gang Continue Reading …
PEL Nightcap November 2022: Listener Testimonials
Recorded 10/26/22. We recently put out a call among our supporters for some short audio clips of folks telling us about their relationship to PEL, and here they are. Mark, Seth, and Dylan play and respond to all of these. We are grateful to those that submitted, and all of you! We also talk about a few responses to our last Nightcap on representation. Continue Reading …
Ep. 304: Dworkin v. Hart on Legal Judgment (Part Two for Supporters)
Continuing from part one on Roland Dworkin's "The Model of Rules" (1967) and Scott J. Shapiro's "The 'Hart-Dworkin' Debate: A Short Guide for the Perplexed" (2007), plus some of Dworkin's "Hard Cases" (1977). We go through some responses by Hartians to Dworkin's initial attack, revisiting the issue of whether judges can employ moral considerations when making decisions, or Continue Reading …
Ep. 304: Dworkin v. Hart on Legal Judgment (Part One for Supporters)
On Ronald Dworkin's "The Model of Rules" (1967) and Scott J. Shapiro's "The 'Hart-Dworkin' Debate: A Short Guide for the Perplexed" (2007). How do judges make decisions in hard cases? When the law "runs out" and doesn't definitively decide, e.g., whether we have a general "right of privacy," do judges then just draw on their personal moral judgment in deciding cases? And if Continue Reading …
Ep. 303: H.L.A. Hart on the Foundations of Law (Part Three for Supporters)
On The Concept of Law (1961), ch. 6, "Foundations of a Legal System." This chapter goes into detail about Hart's "rule of recognition," which is what is supposed to foundationally make something legitimately a law in a given society. How can we identify something as a law? In Britain, Hart says it's when the Queen in Parliament declares something to be a law (note that I say Continue Reading …
Ep. 303: H.L.A. Hart on the Foundations of Law (Part Two for Supporters)
Continuing from part one on "Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals" (1958) and The Concept of Law (1961), ch. 5 and 6. If law is not based on morality, then why obey the law? Hart claims that it's just a fact that most of us feel most of the time that we should obey the law. If this isn't the case, then Hart says there is no law in that society at all, whatever Continue Reading …
Ep. 303: H.L.A. Hart on the Foundations of Law (Part One for Supporters)
On "Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals" (1958) and The Concept of Law (1961), ch. 5 and 6. What's the relationship between law and morality? If law isn't founded on morality, what is it founded on? Hart was a leading figure in the philosophy of law, and wrote in the tradition of legal positivism that goes back to the British Utilitarians John Austin and before Continue Reading …
Ep. 302: Erasmus Praises Foolishness (Part Three for Supporters)
Mark, Wes, and eventually Dylan recap The Praise of Folly and get personal. At the end of the book, Erasmus seems to reverse himself and praises the asceticism (preference of the spiritual over the bodily) that he's been otherwise making fun of. After all, he is a Christian, so his Nietzschean critique of pretention and stolidity can't be entirely thoroughgoing. We also look Continue Reading …
Ep. 302: Erasmus Praises Foolishness (Part Two for Supporters)
Continuing from part one on The Praise of Folly (1509) with guest Nathan Gilmour. Can foolishness actually make us more prudent, which sounds like its opposite? Well, having the wisdom to avoid all trouble keeps us from getting experience that would be helpful in acting more wisely in the long run. Erasmus (speaking with the voice of Folly) claims that foolishness in some Continue Reading …
Ep. 302: Erasmus Praises Foolishness (Part One for Supporters)
On Desiderius Erasmus' The Praise of Folly (1509), featuring Mark, Wes, Dylan, and Nathan Gilmour from the Christian Humanist podcast. Does foolishness enhance life? The Dutch Renaissance Catholic theologian known for his disputes with Martin Luther criticized the church from the inside, using gentle satire that targeted everyone, including intellectuals like himself. The Continue Reading …
PEL Representation Nightcap October 2022
Mark, Wes, and Dylan explore the question, "Is it necessary for us to have representatives of an affected group with us as guests when we talk about an issue in philosophy that affects that group?" This specifically grew out of our abortion episode, for which we planned to have a female guest, but that fell through, and we (without hesitation) recorded it anyway. Was part three Continue Reading …
Ep. 301: Is Abortion Morally Permissible? (Part Three for Supporters)
Jenny Hansen joins us for our final part of this discussion, covering "On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion" by Mary Anne Warren (1973) and returning in parts to "A Defense of Abortion" (1971) by Judith Jarvis Thomson to allow Jenny to weigh in on the points we made in parts one and two. She also talks a bit about the Planned Parenthood v. Casey 1992 case that changed the Continue Reading …
Ep. 301: Is Abortion Morally Permissible? (Part Two for Supporters)
We continue from part one on Judith Jarvis Thomson's "A Defense of Abortion" (1971), and then add Don Marquis' "Why Abortion is Immoral" (1989) and we begin our treatment of Mary Anne Warren's "On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion" (1973), which we'll conclude in part three of this discussion. We pry further into Thomson's distinction between the "indecent" and the Continue Reading …
Ep. 301: Is Abortion Morally Permissible? (Part One for Supporters)
We discuss some widely read papers about the morality of abortion, starting here with a selection from the Roe v. Wade decision (1973) and Judith Jarvis Thomson's "A Defense of Abortion" (1971). Featuring Mark, Wes, Dylan, and Seth. Roe tried to sidestep the philosophical question of the current personhood of a fetus but did assert that the state has a legitimate interest in Continue Reading …
Ep. 300: Nietzsche on Relating to History (Part Three for Supporters)
Concluding on “On the Uses and Disadvantages of History for Life” (1874), featuring Mark, Wes, and Dylan. Begin with part one. We talk more about Nietzsche's warning against information overload, where history (including artistic history and philosophic history) can overwhelm current creative capabilities. Half-digested knowledge can just weigh us down, so we want to use Continue Reading …
Ep. 300: Nietzsche on Relating to History (Part Two for Supporters)
Continuing from part one on “On the Uses and Disadvantages of History for Life” (1874), we get into the antiquarian use of history and the critical approach to history and Nietzsche's humanistic goals in his essay. One surprising notion that Nietzsche throws in is that even though we have described him in the past as a defender of human instincts, here he describes our human Continue Reading …
Ep. 300: Nietzsche on Relating to History (Part One for Supporters)
In this special live-streamed show, we discuss Friedrich Nietzsche's “On the Uses and Disadvantages of History for Life” (1874), which is Untimely Meditations #2, featuring Mark, Wes, Dylan, and Seth. What is the healthiest way to relate to our history? More generally, should we live lives driven purely by reason, which includes a mature awareness of as much of our culture's Continue Reading …
PEL Network Podcast FY2022 Reflections with Mark and Tyler
It's a different sort of Nightcap to fill supporters' nights since the publication of ep. 300 got delayed by a week. (You can watch it unedited if you're impatient.) Our audio editor Tyler Hislop, probably the only human being who listens to every one of Mark's four podcasts, joins Mark to talk through his impressions of the evolving PEL, representation, our first year of Continue Reading …