Subscribe to get parts 1 and 2 of this now, ad-free. We continue from ep. 296 with our close reading on Martin Heidegger's Being and Time (1927), covering in this part of the discussion chapter 1. Featuring Mark, Wes, Dylan, and Seth. This selection (aka section 9) covers existence (in German, Existenz) vs. existentia. The former is Dasein's (humanity's) specific way of Continue Reading …
Ep. 297: Heidegger on the Human Condition (Part One for Supporters)
We continue from ep. 296 with our close reading on Martin Heidegger's Being and Time (1927), covering in this part of the discussion chapter 1. Featuring Mark, Wes, Dylan, and Seth. This selection (aka section 9) covers existence (in German, Existenz) vs. existentia. The former is Dasein's (humanity's) specific way of being, which involves possibility and thus choice. H was Continue Reading …
Science, Religion, and Secularism Part VI: Jonathan Hedley Brooke, Complexity Thesis
In previous articles, we’ve explored conflict, independence, synthesis, and dialogue models in science and religion studies. Since I’m a historian, or at any rate studying to become one, it would be remiss for me to not mention a fifth model, not discussed by Barbour, but squarely in the mainstream of historical scholarship. This is the complexity thesis: that the richness and Continue Reading …
Science, Religion, and Secularism, Part II: Ian Barbour—The Conflict Model
If one had to attach a name to the contemporary revival of interest in science and religion, the name would almost certainly be that of physicist Ian Barbour (1923–2013, pictured right). His 1966 book, Issues in Science and Religion, outlined four models for interaction between science and religion: conflict, dialogue, synthesis, and independence. These four models have Continue Reading …
The Poverty of Scientism
If you drop a hammer on your foot, is it real or is it just your imagination? You can run that test, you know, a couple of times, and I hope you come to agree that it’s probably real. –Bill Nye A great deal of time and attention has been taken up in the last few generations on the question of religion and science: Do they conflict? If so, how? And with what consequences? Or Continue Reading …
Why Substance Matters
Samuel Johnson's refutation of Bishop Berkeley's immaterialism, which says that matter does not exist, is one of those slightly famous moments in the history of philosophy. As the story goes, Johnson and his friends stood outside a church and complained about "Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the non-existence of matter." They did not believe the idea but did not Continue Reading …
Conversation vs. Crossfire (Philosophy, Arrogance, and the David Brin Episode)
Some of the initial listener reaction to our David Brin episode harkens back to similar comments we got about our Pat Churchland episode, our first attempt at including a celebrity author in the discussion. As Seth commented right after the recording with David, there was little purchase on his edifice in which to plant a foothold in real time. I did my best to engage him in Continue Reading …
Eliezer Yudkowsky and Luke Muehlhauser on Modern Rationalism (Conversations from the Pale Blue Dot)
I'm generally skeptical when someone proclaims that "rationality" itself should get us to throw out 90%+ of philosophy. So I was a bit puzzled when someone on our Facebook group pointed at some articles by Luke Muehlhauser (specifically "Philosophy: A Diseased Discipline" and "Train Philosophers with Pearl and Kahneman, not Plato and Kant"), host of the excellent Conversations Continue Reading …
Episode 48: Merleau-Ponty on Perception and Knowledge (Citizens Only)
Discussing Maurice Merleau-Ponty's "Primacy of Perception" (1946) and The World of Perception (1948). What is the relation of perception to knowledge? In M-P's phenomenology, perception is primary: even our knowledge of mathematical truths is in some way conditioned by and dependent on the fact that we are creatures with bodies and senses that work the way they do. Science Continue Reading …
PREVIEW-Episode 48: Merleau-Ponty on Perception and Knowledge
This is a 33-minute preview of a 1 hr, 42-minute episode. Buy Now Purchase this episode for $2.99. Or become a PEL Citizen for $5 a month, and get access to this and all other paywalled episodes, including 68 back catalogue episodes; exclusive Part 2's for episodes published after September, 2020; and our after-show Nightcap, where the guys respond to listener email and chat Continue Reading …
Hannah Arendt on Scientism
The question of the "pernicious influence" of scientism on modern life and philosophy gets raised fairly often here at PEL. I get the sense that Wes and Seth think the influence 'quite pernicious' while Mark thinks 'not so pernicious'. (Correct me if I'm wrong guys). So I thought it would be helpful to clarify what is implied by the term, so that we might open the way for some Continue Reading …
Topic for #48: Merleau-Ponty on the Role of Perception in Knowledge
Maurice Merleau-Ponty's magnum opus--his equivalent to Being & Nothinginess or Being & Time--is The Phenomenology of Perception. It is reputed (by Seth, at least) to complete Heidegger's project by paying proper attention to our embodiedness: we have bodies, with specific perceptual limitations and are not only culturally but physically situated in ways that (as Heidegger Continue Reading …
Naturalism & Philosophical Thinking
[editor's note: Here's our guest blogger Tom McDonald with a bit of original philosophizing. You can read more like this on his blog zuhanden.com. -ML] I want to pose some general questions to all readers, but especially to those scientifically inclined and favorable to a naturalistic worldview. The questions are about the naturalistic worldview that is presently normative but Continue Reading …
Naturalism & Philosophical Thinking
[editor's note: Here's our guest blogger Tom McDonald with a bit of original philosophizing. You can read more like this on his blog zuhanden.com. -ML] I want to pose some general questions to all readers, but especially to those scientifically inclined and favorable to a naturalistic worldview. The questions are about the naturalistic worldview that is presently normative Continue Reading …
“The Nation” on Brooks on Cognitive Neuroscience
We've bashed NY Times columnist David Brooks before on this blog for his attempts at philosophy, and I absolutely feel for the guy from a logistical perspective: he's not an academic that can take a sabbatical and hole up to write and revise. He's more or less a blogger who has to fumble around every few days to figure out something that he's read about to spit back in an Continue Reading …
When Keeping it Real Goes Wrong
A research physicist friend of mine who works at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is a bit of a global warming skeptic. When I brought up all the scientific research on the subject, he said, somewhat dismissively, "Yes, but anyone who gets a PhD in climate science goes into it with an agenda. No one goes into particle physics just to prove a point. So no, I don't always 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 …