The highlighted song here is "We Who Have Escaped," the final New People recording, completed for ep. 83. Update for 2026: All of Mark's music (well, all that's been put on an album) is now available at marklint.bandcamp.com. Most of it is also on Spotify, Apple, etc. Look up "Mark Lint", "New People", and "The MayTricks." First of all, check out Mark's web site for 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.
Essays & Stories
A draft essay by David Brin, "16 Questions About Religion." Here's some background (and where you can post your comments on it). Here's info on some correspondence between Mark and David on this. Here's part of ch. 1 of Jonathan R. White's book Terrorism and Homeland Security. He was the guest on our ep. 72 and you can buy the whole book here. Here's Eric Petrie's Continue Reading …
Transcriptions & Episode Guides
2026 Update: With new AI technology, we've now generated transcriptions for hopefully every PEL episode on this site. They're no longer PDFs, but instead embedded in the blog post associated with the episode. About transcriptions: We have experimented with some transcription companies and have on the whole not found the effort worth the number of users that access them. We Continue Reading …
Episode 1: “The Unexamined Life Is Not Worth Living”
Discussing Plato's "Apology." This reading is all about how Socrates is on trial for acting like an ass and proceeds to act like an ass and so is convicted. Big surprise. On this our inaugural discussion, Mark, Seth, and Wes talk about how philosophers are arrogant bastards who neglect their children, how people of all political stripes don't usually examine their Continue Reading …
Episode 2: Descartes’s Meditations: What Can We Know?
Discussing Descartes's Meditations 1 and 2. Descartes engages in the most influential navel gazing ever, and you are there! In this second and superior-to-the-first installment of our lil' philosophy discussion, we discuss what Descartes thinks he knows with certainty (hint: it is not you), the Matrix, and burning-at-the-stake.com. Mark and Wes agree to disagree about Continue Reading …
Episode 3: Hobbes’s Leviathan: The Social Contract
Discussing Hobbes's Leviathan, Chapters 13-15. Have we implicitly signed a social contract whereby our native right to punch other people in the face is given to the President? Hobbes does things that eventually result in the U.S. Constitution and makes Wes nauseous. Plus: Star Trek and the Bible! Buy the book or read it online End song: "The Villa" by Mark Lint and Continue Reading …
Episode 4: Camus and the Absurd
Discussing Camus's "An Absurd Reasoning" and "The Myth of Sisyphus" (1942). Does our eventual death mean that life has no meaning and we might as well end it all? Camus starts to address this question, then gets distracted and talks about a bunch of phenomenologists until he dies unreconciled. Also, let's all push a rock up a hill and like it, okay? Plus, the fellas dwell Continue Reading …
Episode 5: Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics
Discussing Books 1 and 2 of the Nicomachean Ethics. What is virtue, and how can I eat it? Do not enjoy this episode too much, or too little, but just the right amount. Apparently, if you haven't already have been brought up with the right habits, you may as well give up. Plus, is Michael Jackson the Aristotelian ideal? Buy the book or read it online. End song: A newly Continue Reading …
Episode 6: Leibniz’s Monadology: What Is There?
Discussing Leibniz's Monodology Have some tasty metaphysics, in mono! Leibniz thinks that the world is ultimately made up of monads, which are like atoms except nothing at all like atoms, because they're alive, and mindful, and eternal, and windowless, placed in the best kind of harmony at the beginning of time by God. Is there a concept album in all of this? Plus, does Continue Reading …
Episode 7: Wittgenstein’s Tractatus: What Is There and Can We Talk About It?
Discussing the beginning (through around 3.1) of Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Mr. W. wrote that the world is made up of facts (as opposed to things) and that these facts can be analyzed into atomic facts, but then refused to give even one example to help us understand what the hell he's talking about, and so Wes and Mark argue about it per usual while Seth Continue Reading …
Episode 8: Wittgenstein’s Tractatus (and Carnap): What Can We Legitimately Talk About?
Continuing last ep's discussion of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus with some Rudolph Carnap (a logical positivist from the Vienna Circle: “The Rejection of Metaphysics” from his 1935 book Philosophy and Logical Syntax) about what kind of crazy talk is outside of legitimate discourse. Carnap interprets W as simply ruling out as unscientific most of the talk we'd Continue Reading …
Episode 9: Utilitarian Ethics: What Should We Do?
Discussing Jeremy Bentham’s An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation chapters 1-5, John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism, and modern utilitarian Peter Singer's "Famine, Affluence, and Morality.") Going full tilt on the Greatest Happiness principle, with talk of gladiators, consensual cannibalism, and illegal downloads. How many Pleetons were in your last Continue Reading …
Episode 10: Kantian Ethics: What Should We Do?
Discussing Fundamental Principles (aka Groundwork) of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785). We try very hard to make sense of Kant's major ethical principle, the Categorical Imperative, wherein you should only do what you'd will that EVERYONE do, so, for instance, you should not will to eat pie, because then everyone would eat it and there would be none left for you, so too Continue Reading …
Episode 11: Nietzsche’s Immoralism: What Is Ethics, Anyway?
Discussing The Genealogy of Morals (mostly the first two essays) and Beyond Good and Evil Ch. 1 (The Prejudices of Philosophers), 5 (Natural History of Morals), and 9 (What is Noble?). We go through Nietzsche's convoluted and historically improbable stories about about the transition from master to slave morality and the origin of bad conscience. Why does he diss Continue Reading …
Episode 12: Chuang Tzu’s Taoism: What Is Wisdom?
Discussing the "Chuang Tzu," (now transliterated as Zhuangzi) Chapters 2, 3, 6, 18, and 19. It's the second-most-famous Taoist text and the most humorous, with anecdotes about people singing at funerals and jumping out of moving coaches while drunk. What could it possibly mean to "make all things equal?" and how is the Taoist sage different from our other favorite paragons Continue Reading …
Episode 13: What Are the Metaphysical Implications of Quantum Physics?
On Werner Heisenberg’s “Physics and Philosophy" (1958), and talking about it with an actual former particle physicist, Dylan Casey. What weird stuff about reality does quantum physics imply? Is Heisenberg (of the Uncertainty Principle fame) right that we need to reject "metaphysical realism" based on this very well established scientific framework? The discussion ranges over Continue Reading …
Episode 14: Machiavelli on Politics
Reading Niccolò Machiavelli's The Prince and Ch. 1-20 of The Discourse on the First Ten Books of Titus Livy. What's a philosophically astute approach to political matters? What makes a government successful? Should you keep that fortress or sell it for scrap? If you conquer, say, Iraq, do you have to then go and live there for the occupation to work out? Is it OK to display Continue Reading …
Episode 15: Hegel on History
Discussing G.W.F Hegel's Introduction to the Philosophy of History. Though he didn't actually write a book with this name, notes on his lectures on this topic were published after his death, and the first chunk of that serves as a good entrance point to Hegel's very strange system. How should a philosopher approach the study of history? Is history just a bunch of random Continue Reading …
Episode 16: Danto on Art (Citizens Only)
What effect should the avant garde have on our understanding of what art is? We read three essays by modern, first-rate American philosopher Arthur Danto, all published in The Philosophical Disenfranchisement of Art (1986): the title essay, "The Appreciation and Interpretation of Works of Art," and "The End of Art." I understand you may not have heard of Danto, and you may Continue Reading …
Episode 17: Hume’s Empiricism: What Can We Know? (Citizens Only)
On David Hume's An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748). David Hume thinks that all we can know are our own impressions, i.e. what our moment-to-moment experiences tell us. Funny thing, though: he thinks that no experience shows us one event causing another event. We only experience one thing happening, then another, and these sequences tend to display a lot of Continue Reading …
Episode 18: Plato: What Is Knowledge? (Citizens Only)
On the Theaetetus and the Meno, two dialogues about knowledge. We're returning to Plato for a somewhat more thorough treatment than we gave him in Episode 1. This should be considered part two (Hume being #1) of three discussions intended to convey the main conflict in the history of epistemology between the empiricists (like Hume) and the rationalists (like Plato). We Continue Reading …
Episode 19: Kant: What Can We Know? (Citizens Only)
On Immanuel Kant's Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics (1783), which is a shorter, dumbed-down version of his Critique of Pure Reason. Do we have any business doing metaphysics, which is by definition about things that we could not possibly experience? Kant says that yes, we can, to a limited extent, but that everyone before him did it wrong, because they didn't Continue Reading …
Episode 20: Pragmatism – Peirce and James (Citizens Only)
On Pragmatism (1907) by William James and "The Fixation of Belief" (1877) and "How to Make Our Ideas Clear" (1878) by Charles Sanders Peirce. Is truth a primitive relation between our representations and things objectively in the world, or is it an analyzable process by which propositions "prove their worth" by being useful in some way, like by fitting well with other Continue Reading …
Episode 21: What Is the Mind? (Turing, et al) (Citizens Only)
Discussing articles by Alan Turing, Gilbert Ryle, Thomas Nagel, John Searle, and Dan Dennett. What is this mind stuff, and how can it "be" the brain? Can computers think? No? What if they're really sexified? Then can they think? Can the mind be a computer? Can it be a room with a guy in it that doesn't speak Chinese? Can science completely understand it? ...The mind, that Continue Reading …
Episode 22: More James’s Pragmatism: Is Faith Justified? What is Truth? (Citizens Only)
On William James's "The Will to Believe" and continuing our discussion from Episode 20 on James's conception of truth as described in his books Pragmatism and The Meaning of Truth, again including Dylan Casey. Does pragmatism give ground for religious belief, like if I say it feels good for me to believe in God, is that in any sense a legitimate grounds for that belief? Is Continue Reading …
Episode 23: Rousseau: Human Nature vs. Culture (Citizens Only)
Discussing Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Discourse in Inequality (1754) and book 1 of The Social Contract (1762). What's the relationship between culture and nature? Are savages really slavering beasts of unquenchable appetites, or probably more mellow, hangin' about, flexin' their muscles, just chillin', eh? Rousseau engages in some wild speculation about the development of Continue Reading …
Episode 24: Spinoza on God and Metaphysics (Citizens Only)
Discussing Spinoza's Ethics (1677), books 1 and 2. We mostly discuss his weird, immanent, non-personal conception of God: God is everything, therefore the world is God as apprehended through some particular attributes, namely insofar as one of his aspects is infinite space (extension, i.e. matter) and insofar as one of his aspects is mind (our minds being chunks or "modes" Continue Reading …
Episode 25: Spinoza on Human Nature (Citizens Only)
Discussing Books II through V of the Ethics. Continues the discussion from Ep. 24. What is the relation between mind and body? How do we know things? What are the emotions? Is there an ethical ideal for us to shoot for? What is our relationship to God? Our rational nature prevails over urges to scream, sleep, or slap each other as we plow to the end of this strange and Continue Reading …
Episode 26: Freud on the Human Condition (Citizens Only)
Discussing Civilization and its Discontents (1930). For Wes Alwan's summary of this book, go here). What's the meaning of life? Well, for Sigmund Freud, an objective purpose rises or falls with religion, which he thinks a matter of clinging to illusion, so to rephrase: what do we want out of life? To be happy, of course, yet he sees happiness as a matter of fulfillment of Continue Reading …
Episode 27: Nagarjuna on Buddhist “Emptiness” (Citizens Only)
Primarily discussing "Reasoning: The Sixty Stanzas" and "Emptiness: The Seventy Stanzas," by the 2nd century Indian Buddhist Nagarjuna. Is the world of our experience ultimately real? If not, does it have something metaphysically basic underlying it? For Nagarjuna, the answers are "no" and "no... well... not that we can talk about." Mark and Seth are joined by guest Erik Continue Reading …
Episode 28: Nelson Goodman on Art as Epistemology (Citizens Only)
On Goodman's Ways of Worldmaking (1978). What's the relationship between art and science? Does understanding works of art constitute "knowledge," and if so, how does this relate to other kinds of knowledge? Goodman describes art as a symbol system (including art like instrumental music that doesn't seem representative), which can symbolize successfully or not. While there is no Continue Reading …
Episode 29: Kierkegaard on the Self (Citizens Only)
Discussing Soren Kierkegaard's "The Sickness Unto Death" (1849). What is the self? For K. we are a tension between opposites: necessity and possibility, the finite and the infinite, soul and body. He thinks we're all in despair, whether we know it or not, because we wrongly think we're something we're not, or we reject what we are, or we just don't pay attention to this Continue Reading …
Episode 30: Schopenhauer on Explanations and Knowledge (Citizens Only)
Discussing Arthur Schopenhauer's On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, published in 1847 (as an expansion of his doctoral thesis from 1813). What kinds of explanations are legitimate? S. thought that causal and logical explanations are often confused, resulting in philosophical errors. In laying out the four types of explanation -- the four versions of Continue Reading …
Episode 31: Husserl’s Phenomenology (Citizens Only)
Discussing Edmund Husserl's Cartesian Meditations (1931). How can we analyze our experience? Husserl thinks that Descartes was right about the need to ground science from the standpoint of our own experience, but wrong about everything else. Husserl recommends we "bracket" the question of whether the external world exists and just focus on the contents of our consciousness Continue Reading …
Episode 32: Heidegger: What is “Being?” (Citizens Only)
Discussing Martin Heidegger's Being and Time (1927), mostly the intro and ch. 1 and 2 of Part 1. When philosophers try to figure out what really exists (God? matter? numbers?), Heidegger thinks they've forgotten a question that really should come first: what is it to exist? He thinks that instead of asking "What is Being?" we ask, as in a scientific context, "what is this Continue Reading …
Episode 33: Montaigne: What Is the Purpose of Philosophy? (Citizens Only)
Discussing Michel de Montaigne's Essays: "That to Philosophize is to Learn to Die," "Of Experience," "Of Cannibals," "Of the Education of Children," and "Of Solitude" (all from around 1580) with some discussion of "Apology for Raymond Sebond." Renaissance man Montaigne tells us all how to live, how to die, how to raise our kids, that we don't know anything, and a million Continue Reading …
Episode 34: Frege on the Logic of Language (Citizens Only)
Discussing Gottlob Frege's "Sense and Reference," "Concept and Object" (both from 1892) and "The Thought" (1918). What is it about sentences that make them true or false? Frege, the father of analytic philosophy who invented modern symbolic logic, attempted to codify language in a way that would make this obvious, which would ground mathematics and science. Applying his Continue Reading …
Episode 35: Hegel on Self-Consciousness (Citizens Only)
Discussing G.F.W. Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit (1807), Part B (aka Ch. 4), "Self-Consciousness," plus recapping the three chapters before that (Part A. "Consciousness"). This is discussion one of two: here we only get as far as "The Truth of Self-Certainty," i.e. sections 166-177. This is plenty, though, as this may be the most difficult text in the history of Continue Reading …
Episode 36: More Hegel on Self-Consciousness (Citizens Only)
Part 2 of our discussion of G.F.W. Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit, covering sections 178-230 within section B, "Self-Consciousness." Part 1 is here. First, Hegel's famous "master and slave" parable, whereby we only become fully self-conscious by meeting up with another person, who (at least in primordial times, or maybe this happens to everyone as they grow up, or maybe Continue Reading …
Episode 37: Locke on Political Power (Citizens Only)
Discussing John Locke's Second Treatise on Government (1690). What makes political power legitimate? Like Hobbes, Locke thinks that things are less than ideal without a society to keep people from killing us, so we implicitly sign a social contract giving power to the state. But for Locke, nature's not as bad, so the state is given less power. But how much less? And what Continue Reading …
Episode 38: Bertrand Russell on Math and Logic (Citizens Only)
Discussing Russell's Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy (1919), ch. 1-3 and 13-18. How do mathematical concepts like number relate to the real world? Russell wants to derive math from logic, and identifies a number as a set of similar sets of objects, e.g. "3" just IS the set of all trios. Hilarity then ensues. This book is a shortened and much easier to read version Continue Reading …
Episode 39: Schleiermacher Defends Religion (Citizens Only)
Discussing Friedrich Schleiermacher's On Religion; Speeches to its Cultured Despisers (1799, with notes added 1821), first and second speeches. Does religion necessarily conflict with science? Schleiermacher says no: the essence of religion is an emotional response to life; it doesn't give knowledge or even tell us what to do exactly. Moreover, this attitude is a necessary Continue Reading …
Episode 40: Plato’s Republic: What Is Justice? (Citizens Only)
Discussing The Republic by Plato, primarily books 1 and 2. What is justice? What is the ideal type of government? In the dialogue, Socrates argues that justice is real (not just a fiction the strong make up) and that it's not relative to who you are (in the sense that it would always be just to help your friends and hurt your enemies). Justice ends up being a matter of Continue Reading …
Episode 41: Pat Churchland on the Neurobiology of Morality, Plus Hume’s Ethics (Citizens Only)
We spoke with Patricia Churchland after reading her new book Braintrust: What Neuroscience Tells Us About Morality. We also discussed David Hume's ethics as foundational to her work, reading his Treatise on Human Nature (1739), Book III, Part I and his Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (1751), Section V, Parts I and II. What does the physiology of the brain have to Continue Reading …
Episode 42: Feminists on Human Nature and Moral Psychology (Citizens Only)
Discussing Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s utopian novel Herland (1915) and psychologist Carol Gilligan's In a Different Voice (1983). How does human nature, and specifically moral psychology, vary by sex? Charlotte Perkins Gilman claims that when philosophers have described human nature as violent and selfish, they have in mind solely male nature. Females, left to themselves in Continue Reading …
Episode 43: Arguments for the Existence of God (Citizens Only)
Discussing the arguments by Descartes, St. Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, William Paley, Kant, and others, as analyzed in J.L. Mackie's The Miracle of Theism: Arguments For and Against the Existence of God (1983), chapters 1-3, 5-6, 8, and 11. Are the ontological, cosmological, and teleological (argument from design) arguments for God's existence any good? Mackie, a very sharp Continue Reading …
Episode 44: New Atheist Critiques of Religion (Citizens Only)
Discussing selections from Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel C. Dennett. Should we be religious, or is religion just a bunch of superstitious nonsense that it's past time for us to outgrow? Does faith lead to ceding to authority and potential violence? Can a reasonable person be religious? We say lots of rude things about these authors, and at Continue Reading …
Episode 45: Moral Sense Theory: Hume and Smith (Citizens Only)
Discussing parts of David Hume's Treatise of Human Nature (1740) and Adam Smith’s The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759). Where do we get our moral ideas? Hume and Smith both thought that we get them by reflecting on our own moral judgments and on how we and others (including imaginary, hypothesized others) in turn judge those judgments. Mark, Wes, Seth, and guest Getty Continue Reading …
Episode 46: Plato on Ethics & Religion (Citizens Only)
Discussing Plato's Euthyphro. Does morality have to be based on religion? Are good things good just because God says so, or (if there is a God) does God choose to approve of the things He does because he recognizes those things to be already good? Plato thinks the latter: if morality is to be truly non-arbitrary, then, like the laws of logic, it can't just be a contingent Continue Reading …
Close Reading: Sartre’s “Being and Nothingness,” Section I
Mark reads the section line by line, stopping every sentence or two to explain what's going on. The point is to teach you how to decode a difficult text, to make you more comfortable reading any text deliberatively and critically. Recorded 11/19/11. This was released in association with our ep. 47 on Sartre and serves as a compliment to both it and to our more recent ep. 87, Continue Reading …