The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast
A Philosophy Podcast and Philosophy Blog
Continuing on the dialogue, where Socrates argues that Protagoras doesn’t actually know what virtue is, because he thinks that the various virtues (especially courage) are distinct, a claim that Socrates refutes in several (logically suspect) ways.
Start with part one, or get the full, ad-free Citizen Edition. Please support PEL!
End song: “Make It Clear” by Feelies; hear Glenn Mercer on Nakedly Examined Music #41.
On the Platonic dialogue written around 380 BCE about an encounter between Socrates and one of the leading Sophists of his day.
What is virtue (“the political art” according to Protagoras), and can it be taught? What are the relations of the various virtues to each other? Do they really amount ultimately to one and the same thing, i.e., wisdom? In this entertaining dialogue, Socrates and Protagoras swap positions, and Socrates seems to parody the Sophists’ style.
Don’t wait for part two; get the full, ad-free Citizen Edition now. Please support PEL!
Sponsor: Visit thegreatcoursesplus.com/PEL for a free trial of The Great Courses Plus Video Learning Service.
On the Platonic dialogue written around 380 BCE about an encounter between Socrates and one of the leading Sophists of his day.
What is virtue (“the political art” according to Protagoras), and can it be taught? What are the relations of the various virtues to each other? Do they really amount ultimately to one and the same thing, i.e., wisdom? In this entertaining dialogue, Socrates and Protagoras swap positions, and Socrates seems to parody the Sophists’ style.
End song: “Make It Clear” by Feelies; Mark interviewed Glenn Mercer on Nakedly Examined Music #41.
On “Ethics as First Philosophy” (1984). More existentialist ethics, with a Jewish twist this time! Seth returns to join Mark and Wes in figuring out how to best leave off all this aggressive “knowing” and other forms of individual self-assertion to grasp the more primordial appearance of the Other in all his or her vulnerability, which Levinas thinks makes us wholly responsible for others right off the bat.
End song: “To Valerie” from The MayTricks’ So Chewy (1993).
On “Ethics as First Philosophy” (1984). More existentialist ethics, with a Jewish twist this time! Seth returns to join Mark and Wes in figuring out how to best leave off all this aggressive “knowing” and other forms of individual self-assertion to grasp the more primordial appearance of the Other in all his or her vulnerability, which Levinas thinks makes us wholly responsible for others right off the bat.
End song: “To Valerie” from The MayTricks’ So Chewy (1993).
On The Ethics of Ambiguity (1947), parts I and II. We return to existentialism! Instead of describing our predicament as “absurd,” de Beauvoir prefers “ambiguous”: We are a biological organism in the world, yet we’re also free consciousness transcending the given situation. Truly coming to terms with this freedom means not only understanding that you transcend any label, but also recognizing that your freedom requires the freedom of others. The full foursome discuss whether this attempt to ground an existentialist ethics works.
End song: “Reasonably Lonely,” by Mark Lint.
On The Ethics of Ambiguity (1947), parts I and II. We return to existentialism! Instead of describing our predicament as “absurd,” de Beauvoir prefers “ambiguous”: We are a biological organism in the world, yet we’re also free consciousness transcending the given situation. Truly coming to terms with this freedom means not only understanding that you transcend any label that you or anyone else has put on you, but also recognizing that your freedom requires the freedom of others. The full foursome discuss whether this attempt to argue for an existentialist ethics works.
End song: “Reasonably Lonely,” by Mark Lint.
First, a sad story: on 4/27, we recorded a discussion of Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia with Slate’s Stephen Metcalf. It went fairly well (Stephen was impressed, and gave us a nice traffic bump by promoting us on his Culture Gabfest podcast), but within the next couple of days, the hard drive on which my part and much of Continue Reading …
On P.F. Strawson’s “Freedom and Resentment” (1960), Galen Strawson’s “The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility” (1994), and Gary Watson’s “Responsibility and the Limits of Evil: Variations on a Strawsonian Theme” (1987). With guest Tamler Sommers.
On P.F. Strawson’s “Freedom and Resentment” (1960), Galen Strawson’s “The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility” (1994), and Gary Watson’s “Responsibility and the Limits of Evil: Variations on a Strawsonian Theme” (1987). With guest Tamler Sommers. Learn more.
End song: “Irresistible” by New People. Download the album.
On Elizabeth Anscombe’s “Modern Moral Philosophy” (1958), Intention sections 22-27 (1957), and “War and Murder” (1961). With guest Philosophy Bro.
On Elizabeth Anscombe’s “Modern Moral Philosophy” (1958), Intention sections 22-27 (1957), and “War and Murder” (1961). Anscombe thinks that our moral language was developed in a theistic context, and without a law-giver, the idea of a moral law or obligation doesn’t make sense. However, there are lots of evaluative words like “justice” that have established social contexts and can be used unproblematically, but they can’t be added up into some overall judgement that “This is good! You must do it!” With guest Philosophy Bro. Learn more.
End song: “Adds Up to Nothing,” by Mark Lint.
Guest Philosophy Bro introduces Elizabeth Anscombe’s “Modern Moral Philosophy,” and Intention sections 22-27.
Both Sartre and Anscombe say that they’re teasing out the logical consequences of atheism for ethics, and of course we saw this back in Nietzsche too. If you ask “are these figures moral realists or moral irrealists?”, I think they’re going to say you’re missing the point. No, a sentence like “X is right” no longer becomes simply true or Continue Reading …
Guest Philosophy Bro introduces Elizabeth Anscombe’s “Modern Moral Philosophy,” and Intention sections 22-27.
On Jean-Paul Sartre’s “Existentialism is a Humanism” (1946), “Bad Faith” (pt. 1, ch. 2 of Being & Nothingness, 1943), and his play No Exit (1944).
On Jean-Paul Sartre’s “Existentialism is a Humanism” (1946), “Bad Faith” (pt. 1, ch. 2 of Being & Nothingness, 1943), and his play No Exit (1944).
What is human nature? Sartre says that there isn’t one, but there is a universal human condition, which is our absolute freedom. If you claim to be determined by your character or circumstances, you’re acting in “bad faith.” Learn more.
End song: “Minnesota Freak” by Mark Lint and the Fake (2000).
Rawls’s principle 2a, to remind you, is (quoting from wikipedia here): Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that (Rawls, 1971, p.302; revised edition, p. 47): (a) they are to be of the greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society, consistent with the just savings principle (the difference principle). This has appeal to modern liberals because it Continue Reading …
We’re barely more than a day away right now from our interview with Frithjof, which he says he’s “thrilled” about, and I’m certainly looking forward to as well, though I can picture any number of things going less than ideally as I introduce these two known elements (Frithjof on the one hand and Seth/Wes/Dylan on the other) to each other. Continue Reading …
One of the comments on Mark Satta’s recent very hot post about universal salvation has been zooming ’round my brain, and demands, I think, a PEL episode at some point. A comment by our listener Bear stated: My questions about Atheists wanting to redefine orthodoxies of particular belief systems, be it Christian, Buddhist, Mormon, Islam &c., demanding those within the Continue Reading …
