The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast
A Philosophy Podcast and Philosophy Blog
Mark and Wes discuss Durkheim’s Suicide (1897), getting into more of the details of his account and exploring comparative modes of explanation: Are there really “sociological facts” distinct from mere generalizations about psychological facts?
Get the full discussion as a PEL Citizen or $5 Patreon supporter!
Following on our discussion with Dr. Drew, Mark and Wes discuss Emile Durkheim’s Suicide (1897), getting into more of the details of his account and in particular exploring comparative modes of explanation: Are there really “sociological facts” distinct from mere generalizations about psychological facts?
This leads us to more discussion of the legitimacy of psychoanalytic explanations (and more details about Julia Kristeva’s Powers of Horror) vs. those of evolutionary psychology. Are either of these scientific in the manner of physics, or are they rather closer to speculative philosophy?
Continuing on Why Buddhism Is True. We discuss the “no self” doctrine as articulated in Buddha’s Second Discourse and the modularity-of-mind theory that Bob claims supports it. What are the ethical implications, and do we really need meditation to achieve its alleged ethical benefits?
Continued from part 1, or get the ad-free Citizen Edition. Please support PEL!
End song: “Alphalpha Bhang” by Anton Barbeau, as interviewed on Nakedly Examined Music ep. 50.
Sponsors: Visit care.com/pel for 30% off a premium membership for in-home elder care. Get 25% off your first order of protein bars at RXBAR.com/PEL, using promo code PEL. Try blinkist.com/pel for audio condensations of non-fiction books.
Bob joins the PEL four to discuss his new book Why Buddhism Is True: The Science and Philosophy of Meditation and Enlightenment. Bob applies his expertise in evolutionary psychology to corroborate Buddhism’s claims that we are deluded: about our desires, emotions, the unity of our selves, and the “essences” we project on things and people. And he thinks meditation can instill in the diligent the ability to see things more clearly. But does it really?
Don’t wait for part 2! Get the full, ad-free Citizen Edition now. Please support PEL!
Get $50 off a new mattress by visiting casper.com/pel. Visit thetrackr.com/PEL, and use promo code PEL for 20% off bluetooth tags that help you find lost items.
Bob joins the PEL four to discuss his new book Why Buddhism Is True: The Science and Philosophy of Meditation and Enlightenment. Bob applies his expertise in evolutionary psychology to corroborate Buddhism’s claims that we are deluded: about our desires, emotions, the unity of our selves, and the “essences” we project on things and people. And he thinks meditation can instill in the diligent the ability to see things more clearly. But does it really?
End song: “Alphalpha Bhang” by Anton Barbeau; see Nakedly Examined Music #50.
Human children are quite different from the progeny of closely related animals like chimps. They are much more inclined to cooperate and seem driven to understand what goes on in others’ minds way. What makes humans unique in this way? To address this problem, evolutionary psychologists have borrowed an idea from philosphers: collective intentionality.
I’ve been stalled for some time now in my attempt to write a review of Thomas Nagel’s Mind and Cosmos. My primary stumbling block has been his reliance in one section on Sharon Street’s “A Darwinian Dilemma for Realist Theories of Value”, which attempts to show that natural selection (in its current form) is not compatible with moral realism. Where Continue Reading …
Adam Gopnik reviews yet another attempt to apply evolutionary psychology to the humanities — Jonathan Gottschall’s The Storytelling Animal — and finds it wanting: It is one thing to think that psychology may solve problems that baffle philosophy or criticism; it well may. But to think that the invocation of empirical studies on a subject frees one from the job of Continue Reading …
Evolutionary psychologists seem to assume that all of an organism’s traits must be the result of natural selection. This is not the case. As Stephen Jay Gould pointed out, it is entirely possible that a given trait is merely a by-product of another trait that is adaptive. This by-product may in fact thwart reproductivity (“fitness”) as long as this is outweighed Continue Reading …
Slate reviews the latest excretion of pseudo-scientific, evolutionary psychology-based aspirational ethics, as incorporated into a marriage self-help book: Tara Parker-Pope, the earnest health reporter for the New York Times, promises a new wrinkle in the self-help genre with her book, For Better: The Science of a Good Marriage. Her basic premise is that there exists a vast, underappreciated repository of Continue Reading …
