The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast

A Philosophy Podcast and Philosophy Blog

Subscribe on Android Spotify patreon

Paywalled and Ad-Free Episodes

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. 272: Fichte’s Idealist Theology (Part One for Supporters)

by Leave a Comment

Our second full discussion on The Vocation of Man (1799).

What are the ethical implications of believing that the world is all in our minds? You could be a solipsistic nihilist, but Fichte thinks the path of faith is unavoidable for a reasonable person: faith that the world is real and matters, that other people have moral status, and yes, he’s going to argue for God and heaven, though unconventionally.

Ep. 271: Johan Gottlieb Fichte’s Transcendental Idealism (Part Two for Supporters)

by 1 Comment

Continuing from part one on The Vocation of Man (1799), Book II.

In this preview, we clarify whether Fichte is trying to keep the notion of a “real world” beyond our experience or not. It’s part of the progression of the text that while at first he assumes that there must be something real behind this experienced world we as individuals create, he gives up that notion in the middle of Book II. So how does he get to his startling reversal? First he develops the notion of “intuition” as distinct from perception to explain how we perceive space. Really, we just have these point-to-point experiences of color, but we somehow unconsciously synthesize these into perception of a whole covered surface.

Ep. 271: Johan Gottlieb Fichte’s Transcendental Idealism (Part One for Supporters)

by Leave a Comment

On The Vocation of Man (1799), Books I and II. What is reality? Fichte’s armchair journey starts him considering nature and thus himself as determined, but then he backtracks to say that actually, experience doesn’t tell us whether we’re determined or free. In Book II, he argues that since our experience is always of something going on in ourselves, then all of our concepts like causality, the external world, and the self must be really just our own mental creations. So we’re free after all, yet everything is drained of significance! Tune into ep. 272 for the resolution of this drama!

Ep. 270: Classical Indian (Vedanta and Nyaya) Design Arguments for God (Part Two for Supporters)

by Leave a Comment

Continuing on God and the World’s Arrangement: Readings from Vedanta and Nyaya Philosophy of Religion after the departure of our guest, Stephen Phillips. 

We’re all familiar with the design argument, so why wade through all these unfamiliar schools and archaic formulations? Mark, Seth, and Wes talk more about these readings in the Indian context of liberation, reason vs. revelation, and whether we might want to read anything else like this and under what conditions.

Ep. 270: Classical Indian (Vedanta and Nyaya) Design Arguments for God (Part One for Supporters)

by 1 Comment

On God and the World’s Arrangement: Readings from Vedanta and Nyaya Philosophy of Religion with one of its translators, Stephen Phillips.

Does nature require an intelligent designer? Śaṅkara (710 CE) and Vācaspati Miśra (960 CE), commenting on the Brahma-sūtra (ca. 200 CE) and Nyāya-sūtra (ca. 200 BCE), argue that it does against atheistic Buddhists, Sāṃkhya believers in a primordial matter that acts on its own, and the Mīmāṃsā conservatives who so venerated scripture that they ruled out a God who created it. But if we’re all Brahman (God), just trying to discover that we are and so escape the cycle of rebirth, then where is there room for a particular deity who created us?

Sneak Preview: Philosophy vs. Improv #1

by Leave a Comment

A new limited (?) series is afoot in PEL-land: Mark joins with improvisational comedy instructor Bill Arnett for an exciting encounter between two areas of expertise. Will this week’s lesson in improv or philosophy have the most profound effect? NO TAKING TURNS.

PEL Nightcap Mid May 2021

by 6 Comments

Recorded on 4/27/21. Seth is late. We question Slack and Nightcap itself. Then, audiobooks, improv comedy and how we might apply its tenets to philosophy, Seth’s homeowner complaints, and Wes’ Stoicism “course.”

Ep. 269: Arendt on Totalitarianism (Part Two for Supporters)

by 2 Comments

Continuing on “On the Nature of Totalitarianism” and On the Origins of Totalitarianism, ch. 13 (both from around 1953).

We further discuss the logic of totalitarianism and and its relevance for contemporary political movements. Has Arendt captured an authentic, novel danger, or is what she diagnoses more a modern manifestation of an old problem, or was it merely a horrific oddity of her historical period?

Ep. 269: Arendt on Totalitarianism (Part One for Supporters)

by Leave a Comment

On “On the Nature of Totalitarianism” and On the Origins of Totalitarianism ch. 13 (both from 1953).

Is totalitarianism just an especially virulent form of tyranny, or something unique to the modern age? Arendt says that unlike other forms of government, totalitarianism is not animated by an active psychological principle that motivates its participants. Instead terror is designed to make citizens incapable of agency altogether.

PEL Nightcap Early May 2021

by 2 Comments

Recorded 4/16, reflecting back on Avicenna and Postman: Should we do more from the Middle Ages and/or in communications studies? Arendt and Fichte coming up! The status of our Discord server. Will PEL ever end? How non-philosophical should these Nightcaps get?

Ep. 268: Neil Postman’s “Amusing Ourselves to Death” (Part Two for Supporters)

by 8 Comments

Continuing on Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business with guest Brian Hirt.

Is it really the case that the written word is so much more suited for providing context than television, which after all does retain some of the virtues of the pre-literate speechifying culture that Socrates preferred over writing? We debate whether some of our favorite books could be made into decent films and consider Postman’s takes on TV news, politics, education, and religion.

Ep. 268: Neil Postman’s “Amusing Ourselves to Death” (Part One for Supporters)

by 2 Comments

On Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business (1985) with guest Brian Hirt.

How does the form in which we receive media affect how we think? Education theorist Postman (building on Marshall McLuhan’s “the medium is the message”) claimed that the advent of television has eroded our capacity to reason and given us the expectation that everything in the world must entertain. Is this a viable piece of social construction theory? How does the critique apply to the Internet age?

PEL Nightcap Late April 2021

by 20 Comments

Recorded 3/30. We reflect on nutrition and self-care choices, then on how our not-so-secret podcaster identities fly among our day-job acquaintances. Finally, a heated discussion on the justification for unearthing and covering more pre-20th-century women philosophers.

Ep. 267: Avicenna on God and Soul w/ Peter Adamson (Part Two for Supporters)

by Leave a Comment

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.

Ep. 267: Avicenna on God and Soul w/ Peter Adamson (Part One for Supporters)

by Leave a Comment

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.

PEL Nightcap Early April 2021

by 21 Comments

Recorded 3/16, with a little genetic testing talk, then teaching/audience interaction things we have considered doing. We look forward to Avicenna and an Indian philosophy episode, consider Emily Dickenson, and talk more about our parameters re. what to cover in light of the fun we had with Lear, which was both a secondary source (bad) and basically a third Plato episode in a row (also bad).

Ep. 266: Jonathan Lear’s Plato: Psyche and Society (Part One for Supporters)

by Leave a Comment

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.

PEL Nightcap Late March 2021

by 4 Comments

Recorded on March 2 after the Phaedo and before recording on Jonathan Lear’s Open Minded. We talk death, arrogance, and answer letters: one from Cambodia and one asking “IS PEL OVER?” It is not.

Ep. 265: Plato’s “Phaedo”: Philosophy as Training for Death (Part One for Supporters)

by Leave a Comment

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?

Ep. 264: Plato’s “Timaeus” on Cosmology (Part Two for Supporters)

by Leave a Comment

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.

Ep. 264: Plato’s “Timaeus” on Cosmology (Part One for Supporters)

by Leave a Comment

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.

PEL Nightcap Late February 2021

by 6 Comments

We do some post-gaming on ep. 263: How did you like us covering a secondary source and having two guests sitting in for two hosts? We think about an Badiou episode; should we invite a guest for that? Should we ever cover secondary literature again? Finally, we anticipate Plato’s Timaeus.

PEL Nightcap Early February 2021

by 3 Comments

Recorded on Jan. 28, we first consider the question “what are the dumbest ideas in philosophy? We consider again the Angela Davis episode idea as a way of getting into a discussion of our coverage or inclusion of controversial or even criminal writers and guests. Finally, Seth expresses some COVID-related fatigue about reading philosophy, particularly if that philosophy is more abstract and less political.

Ep. 262: Nietzsche on Self-Denial (Part Two for Supporters)

by 3 Comments

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.

Ep. 262: Nietzsche on Self-Denial (Part One for Supporters)

by Leave a Comment

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?

PEL Nightcap Late January 2021

by 1 Comment

Recorded on Jan. 14, we give some off-the-cuff updates to our take on the pandemic and our coping strategies. Plus, updates on PEL book, transcripts, and a potential black history month episode (Angela Davis?).

Ep. 261: Derek Parfit on Personal Identity (Part Two for Supporters)

by Leave a Comment

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.

Ep. 261: Derek Parfit on Personal Identity (Part One for Supporters)

by Leave a Comment

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?”

Ep. 260: Locke on Moral Psychology (Supporters Only)

by Leave a Comment

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.

PEL Nightcap Early January 2021

by 4 Comments

An extra-long Nightcap looking forward to PEL coverage in 2021, with some political dialogue on the state of the country and what we might want to do about it. Plus, we respond to listener emails: Will doing philosophy put a crimp in your science career (or other prep for your legit day job)?

Ep. 259: Locke Clarifies Misleading Complex Ideas (Citizen Edition)

by 1 Comment

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.

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

Follow:

Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | Apple Podcasts