The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast
A Philosophy Podcast and Philosophy Blog
Continuing on Avicenna’s argument for the existence of God and on the “flying man” argument for the soul’s immateriality.
We fill out Avicenna’s metaphysical picture: his concept of necessity, how knowledge means knowing necessary attributions (why self-knowledge can grasp the soul’s character), “mental existence,” infinity, and how God’s character established his uniqueness, simplicity, generosity, and other characteristics.
On selections and commentary about Avicenna’s argument from around 1020 C.E. for the existence of God as a necessary being, plus arguments to prove that God has the person-like properties that Islam imputes to him, and his “flying man” argument for the soul’s essential independence from matter. Featuring Mark, Dylan, and our guest Peter Adamson from the History of Philosophy podcast.
Continuing on essays from Lear’s Open Minded: Working Out the Logic of the Soul (1988).
More about reading Plato as comedy and tragedy. Then, which part of the soul (if any) is fundamental? Finally, we consider Plato’s take against poetry.
On essays from Lear’s Open Minded: Working Out the Logic of the Soul (1988): “Inside and Outside the Republic,” “Eros and Unknowing: The Psychoanalytic Significance of Plato’s Symposium,” and “An Interpretation of Transference,” which compares Socrates’ questioning with psychotherapy.
Is Plato’s analogy between mind and state in The Republic a good one? What can we learn from it about what makes for a stable, healthy character? How does eros (desire) fit into this picture? Lear gives a creative, helpful reading of Plato informed by psychoanalysis.
Continuing on Plato’s dialogue depicting the death of Socrates.
We go into more detail re. arguments for the immortality of the soul, the theory of forms, and the different laws governing the realms of the senses and the intellect. If intellect is at base behind everything, then there simply must be an afterlife to reward good philosophers.
On Plato’s middle dialogue depicting the death of Socrates (390 BCE) depicting the death of Socrates. Should philosophers fear death?
In the course of giving arguments for the immortality of the soul, we get an elaboration of the recollection theory of knowledge (from the Meno) into Plato’s first full account of Forms. But how literally are we supposed to take the words of Socrates as he comforts himself facing mortality?
Continuing on the Timaeus, we consider some quotes and details starting at the beginning of the dialogue where Plato argues for differences between the perceived, created, impermanent world and its perfect model. We cover time (established by the movement of the planets), space (a characterless but substantial “receptacle” to which Forms are applied to create matter), alternatives to Plato’s model of creation, and the ethical implications of the cosmology Timaeus describes.
On the later Platonic dialogue from around 360 BCE.
How is nature put together? Plato speaks through the fictional Timaeus (not Socrates) to give a “likely story” about the universe, physics, and biology involving a Craftsman (Demi-Urge) who created everything based on a pre-existing perfect model (the Forms!). Timaeus derives his whole story from the principle that the world is good, and so the Craftsman must necessarily optimize creation, with any imperfections being introduced only by the necessity involved when a perfect blueprint gets embodied to create ever-shifting, impermanent matter.
Continuing on Warspeak: Nietzsche’s Victory Over Nihilism with guests Jeff Black and Michael Grenke.
We get more into the “agonistic” relationship Lise describes between the feminine principle of Becoming with the masculine principle of Being, plus the role of comedy, the relationship between author and reader, and the sovereign individual.
On Warspeak: Nietzsche’s Victory Over Nihilism (2020) with Dylan, Seth, and guests Michael Grenke and Jeff Black.
What’s a viable counter-ideal to the asceticism that Nietzsche thought is so pervasive? Lise’s book works out strategies for re-valuing that emphasize Nietzsche’s positive comments about the feminine and the power of words.
Continuing on Friedrich Nietzsche’s The Genealogy of Morals (1887), “Third essay: what do ascetic ideals mean?”
We try to fit asceticism into Nietzsche’s overall ethical picture, examine his critique of the scientific attitude, explore the (partially positive) function of the priest, try briefly to apply N’s social critique to modern politics, and wrap up by discussing his perspectivism.
On Friedrich Nietzsche’s The Genealogy of Morals (1887), “Third essay: what do ascetic ideals mean?”
Self-regulation, where we tamp down certain aspects of our personality, is necessary for disciplined action, but it can clearly go too far. Nietzsche uses this concept of asceticism to analyze both geniuses and the masses. It is a chief tool of the will to power, highly dangerous to human flourishing but also unleashing many new capabilities beyond our animal nature. Does this picture of motivation and greatness make sense?
Continuing on Reasons and Persons, ch. 10-13. Start with part one.
We get into more of Parfit’s examples, including his responses to Bernard Williams’ physicalist argument. Plus, split brains, In short, the concept of personal identity breaks down when applied to tricky cases, and and so we should be reductionists about personal identity: We get rid of that concept and just talk about the facts about physical and psychological continuity instead.
On Reasons and Persons (1984), ch. 10-13. What makes a person persist over time?
After using various sci-fi examples to test the Lockean (personhood=psychological continuity), physicalist (same brain=same person), and Cartesian (same soul=same person) theories, Parfit concludes that the whole notion is incoherent and isn’t actually what we care about when wondering “will I die?”
One last take on John Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1689), covering Book II, ch. 21 and 28.
What makes a moral claim true? Do we have free will? What makes us choose the good, or not? In this coda to our long treatment of Locke’s opus, we bring together all he has to say about morality, which is strangely modern yet also just strange.
On Book II (ch. 22-33) of John Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1689).
Simple ideas get complex quickly when you put them into words, and can give rise to various philosophical problems that are either easily cleared up when you figure out how the complex idea is built out of simple ideas, or if they can’t be so broken down, then we really don’t know what we’re talking about and should just shut up. We take on relations, cause and effect, personal identity, and more.
Join the office party, where Mark holds mini conversations on philosophy, art, and life with all PEL and PMP co-hosts, plus Ken Stringfellow, Jenny Hansen, and the members of Mark Lint’s Dry Folk, whose 12 tunes are presented in succession with nary a partridge in sight. Will these 12 spirits turn you (or Mark) from errant ways? BYOB!
On the first half of Book II of John Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1689).
How do we get our ideas? Simple ideas must come in through perception, but this doesn’t just mean the senses; also reflection on our own minds, and this added layer of complexity allows us to bring in memory, concepts, time, and more.
On Book I of John Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1689).
How do we know things? Locke thought all knowledge comes from experience, and this might seem uncontroversial, but what are the alternatives? We consider the idea that there are some ideas we’re just born with and don’t need to learn. But what’s an “idea,” and how is it different from a principle? Clearly we have instincts (“knowhow”) but is that knowledge? We consider occurrent vs. dispositional nativism, the role of reason, and what Locke’s overall project is after.
Continuing on Peter Kropotkin’s The Conquest of Bread (1892).
If Kropotkin is right that mutual aid is a natural tendency and so communism is very much feasible, why hasn’t it happened already? We consider K’s version of the “you didn’t build that” argument, plus guaranteed minimum income, identity and criminal justice in a stateless world, religion, and more.
