Comments Page

Please leave any general comments here, or if your comment relates to a particular podcast, please post it on the relevant podcast page. You can also leave comments on Peter's blog.

For any technical issues concerning the website please use this form or email history.philosophy.gaps.podcast@gmail.com.

ADD NEW COMMENT

 

Olle on 3 January 2021

Relationship between Logic and Teleology

 

Hello professor, i hope you had a wonderful holiday and a happy new year.

 

There is a question that has stirred up in my rational soul and has caused some debate among me and my friend. It concerns the nature of teleology and its relation to logic.

 

What is teleology? Ie purpose, final cause, whatever one might call it. Is it an aspect or logic or is it more like aesthetics or even ethics? Or all of those things?

 

The most interesting implication here for me is whether teleological arguments can be properly called logical arguments. If so, the implication would bridge the gap between prescriptive and descriptive and overcome the fact/value distinction?

 

Surely i cannot be the first to ponder this issue. Can you recommend works and thinkers who have dealt with this issue? It feels like something that ought to be relevant to religious thinkes, a field of philosophy i have so far not explored. I know the logical positivists dealt with this issue from their view but to me it seems more like they were starting from the presumption of a distinction rather than going back to the beginning.

 

The closest i have come is perhaps Aristotle who in many places seems to imply that Final Cause and Formal Cause is identical, i.e a things purpose its defined by its essence. A man ought to philosophize because man is a rational animal. What we call analytical knowledge is thus inherently prescriptive. But does he ever prove or justify this assumption?

Plato also certainly must have thought the two were connected, because The Good is both the supremely Good and the Real, the Truth which is desired for its own sake, source of both Truth and Desire.

Best regards. 

In reply to by Olle

Peter Adamson on 3 January 2021

Teleology

Big question but I'll do my best! So firstly, the word "teleology" comes from the Greek telos, which means "goal" or "purpose." So "teleology" just means believing that some domain involves goals or purposes; like, everyone thinks there is teleology in chess (the purpose is to checkmate the king), but it is controversial whether there is teleology in nature.

I think a common misconception is that with his his/ought contrast, Hume somehow unmasked a mistake or confusion at the heart of teleological thinking. But in fact teleology, in Aristotle for instance, is always going to involve the explicit claim that there is no "is" without "ought," so for instance "to be a giraffe" comes along with certain norms, like that the giraffe "ought" to be healthy or able to reproduce.

You're right that teleology in nature has been important in the history of religion, for instance in arguments for the existence of God (one of Aquinas' five ways is called the "teleological argument" by scholars) but there is no immediate inference from purposes in nature to a God who created things with purposes: Aristotle believed in the former but not the latter, for example. As you say the history of Platonism is deeply informed (pun intended) by the conviction that being correlates to goodness. So Hume was at best simply identifying this aspect of traditional philosophy and questioning it, not, like, pointing out something that philosophers had been assuming without noticing it.

Hope that helps as a start, at least!

In reply to by Peter Adamson

Olle on 3 January 2021

Re Logic and Teleology

Great response. Appreciate the tie in with hume. Could it be argued that those who firmly held to a radical distinction between is and ought, such as our later logical positivists, did not so much deny that natural truths (as in Aristotles essence or Platos forms) if they indeed exist, could be logically prescriptive, ie, teleological at least in theory, but rather their rejection came from an enlightenment (nominalist?) view of nature and its relation to analytical knowledge. For Aristotle, "Man is a rational animal" is an ontological and metaphysical truth which is apriori to human description and has a metaphysical priority over other accidental predications, such as "man is a laughing animal" or "kangaroos come from Australia" .

For latter positivist thinkers this claim "Man is a rational animal" might certainly be deemed as true and correct, but only in the sense that it is an empirically correct description correlating with our sense deriven understanding of the world, and in the analytical sense of correct interpretation of language and concepts. Because they do not believe in natural essences they do not think that "man is a rational animal" has any ontological priority "over man is an animal capable of learning to swim" or "man may digest papaya".

The point im driving home here is that modern thinkers did not so much deny that traditional metaphysics could have valid teleological implications grounded in logic, rather they started from the point of denying that traditional metaphysics and its view of nature as de facto false. 

It seems then that the idea of natural law grounded in traditional logic might be worth revisiting, if traditional metaphysics and understanding of nature can be rescued.

In reply to by Olle

Peter Adamson on 3 January 2021

More on teleology

I would slow down there because I think you are running together a lot of issues that need to be kept separate. For example, whether or not someone is a logical positivist they should distinguish between empirical claims "there are kangaroos in Australia" and claims that are true by definition e.g. "two is a number" or "kangaroo is an animal." More importantly, you can be an essentialist without thinking that essences involve teleology: so for instance I could believe that there is such a thing as "what it is to be a carbon atom" (so, I think there are strict criteria according to which an object does or does not instantiate the essence of carbon atom) without thinking that carbon atoms have a purpose. And the same for kangaroos. This is important to see, because of the confusing fact that as you rightly say, essentialism and teleology were both put under pressure around the time of the Enlightenment. But these are two aspects of Aristotelianism that are, in principle, independent. (You could also believe in teleology without believing in essences by the way: like, be an occasionalist who thinks everything is produced directly by God as configurations of atoms or whatever, but God has purposes in doing so.) And then natural law is a whole other story, because that is a very specific way of cashing out what natural teleology involves, i.e. that you can actually articulate norms of moral and political life by appealing to natural principles, as Aquinas suggests. Aristotle had natural teleology but no concept of natural law. Finally, "logic" as such is nowadays usually taken to be independent of all these issues, since it is only the study of formal dependence and validity. That is less true of Aristotle but it would certainly be a controversial claim to say that Aristotle's logical writings commit him to the idea of teleology in any context, though they may (in my opinion, do) commit him to essentialism.

Rainer Fassnacht on 27 December 2020

Missing chapter in the history of philosophy

Unfortunately, a new chapter in the history of philosphy is missing: The "Hamburg Interpretation" by Dr. Michael Oliva Córodba and Prof. Dr. Rolf W. Puster (Universität Hamburg) based on Mises "Praxeoligie". It would be nice if this gap could be closed.

In reply to by Rainer Fassnacht

Peter Adamson on 27 December 2020

Praxiology

Ok, so I have to admit I have never heard of this, despite living in Germany. After some quick internet searching though it looks like a late 19th century and 20th century phenomenon? I am only up to the Renaissance so far!

In reply to by Peter Adamson

Rainer Fassnacht on 28 December 2020

Hamburg Interpretation of Praxeology

Thanks for the information. I am pleased to know that the Hamburg Interpretation of Praxeologie is now on the waiting list. I wish you good progress in your valuable work!

Can Valid Kohen on 23 December 2020

Unanswerable questions

The goal is to identify all answerable questions and all unanswerable questions. So you start with every combination of every letter to some sufficient length, then you put a question mark at the end of all of them. The greatest percentage of these are unpronounceable so you ignore them. Then the of the remaining, the majority of them are so difficult to pronounce that they will never make up words. Then only some are formed of only words in the dictionary or words that can in the future hold meaning. Now these questions contain all the right questions we need to ask ourselves to get to the answers of the universe. But we aren’t done, we need to exclude all questions that aren’t in grammatical order as well because although every word in these sentences make sense they hold no more meaning than the unpronounceable questions even though some examples can be changed in interpretation to give an answer like “What your name”. Continuing on, we have questions that ask for opinions like the best colour. This question is unanswerable because the definition of best requires expectations and the question never sets them out. This questions is formed to allow for people to easily interpret a meaning but really it’s simply unanswerable. There are also questions that seem to make sense grammatically like “what does a banana often eat”  these questions are also unanswerable because a banana doesn’t have the property of eating, even though we can interpret the nutrition it absorb as that which it eats, the question must be changed in an interpretation so this unchanged question is unanswerable. What about what happens when an unstoppable force comes across an unstoppable object. For an object to be immovable, regardless of the definition of moving, forces etc. the object has to have the property that all forces in the universe that act upon it don’t move it. This is the only way it can be objectively immovable. Otherwise for a force that is unstoppable all objects in the universe that meet this force must move. Meaning, from the perspective of the unstoppable force, for the unstoppable force to be qualified as unstoppable and also move the immovable object, the immovable object has to both be in the set of all objects that are movable and immovable which is a contradiction. To conclude, the unstoppable force not only does not have the property of acting on the immovable object, but the unstoppable object does not have the property of existing in the same universe as an immovable object. The question is as meaningless as “what a banana eats?” and “vdieowkhwusowj?”. These mispropertising questions are all unanswerable. The remaining questions can further be vague/relative, insufficiently defining, incorrectly assuming and finally questions that are unanswerable because the knowledge they seek is unattainable like the exact height of something or what you ate . These final ones are excusable. Otherwise,this is the one thing I don’t understand: Why ask unanswerable questions when you can ask answerable questions. Surely unanswerable questions are improper and only inhibit academia except in the search of answerable questions. So why spend ages searching for meaning in meaningless scrambles like “is knowledge virtue” and why not trade it for an answerable question like “Did Socrates believe his definition of virtue was attainable through what he felt enough to describe as the path of knowledge” which is still unanswerable due to a lack of historical evidence? I think either the reason needs to be taught or the answer made available easily for children to get interested in philosophy. Otherwise surely there needs to be a platform other than debating where the sophists don’t win and the truth never looses. If my comments were misplaced I apologise.

In reply to by Can Valid Kohen

Peter Adamson on 24 December 2020

What is the point of philosophy?

Those are obviously important and difficult questions you are raising. Actually your thought experiment about starting with all strings of letters reminds me of Borges' short story about the infinite library; if you don't know that you should track it down.

I am actually sympathetic to the direction you are thinking in here, because I tend to be skeptical that getting "answers" is the goal of philosophy. To me it is more about exploring the costs and benefits of adopting certain positions/answers to philosophical questions, and seeing how the questions and possible answers are interconnected. So if you think about it more as understanding a field of concepts and possible moves, that is more how I conceive of philosophy: it will never issue in a set of answers, any more than there will ever be a "solution" to the game of chess. But this is not to say that the questions are "unanswerable," like, "do we have free will?" certainly does have an answer, namely yes or no, once you have defined "free will" with sufficient precision. It's just that the point of thinking about free will is not really to say "yes" or "no" (I mean, that is boring in and of itself) but to understand why one might want to say yes or no given certain definitions of freedom.

Also, to respond to your note below about science: I think you are making the unwarranted assumption that all knowledge is empirical and can be achieved through the scientific method. This is not just false but obviously false: like, you cannot use empirical science to understand, say, what modernism is and why James Joyce's Ulysses is a good example of that literary movement (to use a non-philosophical example). Furthermore, one can pose questions about science itself that science cannot answer, e.g. concerning scientific method and why it works, or about scientific realism. So there is no danger that science will, as it were, be the only kind of knowledge we can have.

In reply to by Peter Adamson

Can Valid Kohen on 24 December 2020

Alright, that makes sense…

Alright, that makes sense. As a newcomer the fact that there is never a conclusion to the discussions seems incorrect. So I thought there a problem to solved. Thank you for hearing me out I find it difficult to move on from my thoughts unless I share them. On that note I have one final humerus argument. Say nothing in the universe is truly knowable: There is a limit of understanding which can never be surpassed. Then, a more accurate way of saying I know could be for example, from my senses and my perspective I have gathered enough evidence to not doubt that... Which we can say is more philosophically accurate. However, now we didn’t use the word know. Which I believe to be a perfectly nice and pleasant word. Instead of saying it is impossible to know which would make the word “know” obsolete, lower the definition of know to that limit so now, it is possible to know something and the word to “know” is useful. So to say it isn’t possible to know anything isn’t a productive statement because assuming it as truth leads to a lock of thoughts like the man who defined change so that it couldn’t happen and I doubt he made scientifically  correct or philosophically useful arguments afterwards. Anyways I’ll go back and listen to the whole library. Thank you so much for receiving me. 

Can Valid Kohen on 23 December 2020

Personal request

Hi I’m a curious teenager looking to vent my frustration. I started listening to this podcast from the start and so far, I’ve found it hugely helpful for the type of information I was looking for so I’m a happy customer. However, as a sceptic of the field of philosophy, listening to the first 25 episodes, I found why philosophy is practiced the way it is confusing. I believe I found a way to solve the nature of philosophy to never present a conclusion. I was wondering if I could somewhere, sometime discuss my ideas and alleviate my concerns with a benign conversation. I understand I’m asking for special treatment and risk wasting your time. 

Respectfully, Can

In reply to by Can Valid Kohen

Peter Adamson on 23 December 2020

The Phrustrations of Philosophy

Yes I can understand that reaction! Maybe you could spell out what your issues are here? I like talking to listeners here in writing on the website because then other people can jump in and join the conversation.

In reply to by Peter Adamson

Can Valid Kohen on 23 December 2020

Well the issues I find with…

Well the issues I find with philosophy are these:(1)philosophers have divided all fields of study within the original scope of the field into the scientific fields therefore a philosopher that isn’t a scientist is like a scientist without any knowledge because if the scientist had sufficient knowledge of anything the man would no longer be a philosopher but a scientist of the field of that knowledge. I know this isn’t strictly true but I present this argument to highlight a point that ,if disregarding the study of ethics, history and epistemology which is exempt from this argument anyways because no one can know anything about epistemology, philosophy doesn’t seem to have a general focus. Biology envisions to map out and understand life, physics plans to find the theory of everything yet philosophy ,for all I know, doesn’t have an agreed upon or unified goal. If the goal of philosophy is to argue then of course to conclude any argument is out of the question and without concluding any argument there can never be development in the field or more advanced and complex discoveries. Is there a concretely described focus of philosophy? I believe I know of a trick to finding answers to all of philosophy’s questions but that’s only if philosophy has goals that are based on truth. Before judgement, I know I sound immature but know that I have a duty to myself to get this off my chest. 

Andrea Furberg on 9 December 2020

Egypt

Hi! I wish you teached us about old Egypts mythology and philisophy.

thank you!

In reply to by Andrea Furberg

Peter Adamson on 9 December 2020

Egypt

Ask and you shall receive! There are four episodes on that already in the Africana series, starting with this one: https://historyofphilosophy.net/egypt

Michael Barr on 28 November 2020

Paperback editions?

Is there any chance you’ve a date for paperback editions of Medieval Philosophy and Indian Philosophy? I’ve asked OUP without reply. Cheers, MB

In reply to by Michael Barr

Peter Adamson on 29 November 2020

Paperbacks

Yes, those should come out next year I guess. Thanks for being patient!

Andrew on 27 November 2020

Aristotle, God, and the revolution of the spheres

Thanks for getting back with me on my question regarding Meno’s paradox. I have another question from antiquity. I am not sure if I have understood Aristotle correctly, but he seems to affirm 1) that the heavenly spheres revolve around “God”, and 2) that the universe is geocentric. Is this correct? If so, does this suggest that Aristotle somehow thought that “God” was present on earth? Or that humanity’s participation on the divine nous was enough to make the heavenly spheres revolve around the earth?

In reply to by Andrew

Peter Adamson on 28 November 2020

Rotation of spheres in Aristotle

I think you must have been led astray on point (1) there, God causes the rotation of the spheres but they do not rotate around him, rather as you say, around the earth, or to be more specific, the midpoint of the earth which is also the midpoint of the whole cosmos. There is only one passage where Aristotle says anything about God's location, which is at the end of Book 8 of the Physics and there he seems to be suggesting that God is at the edge (circumference) of the heavenly sphere, though there was an ancient dispute about what exactly this passage meant. Possibly just that God is "there" in the sense of exercising causation primarily upon the motion of the outermost celestial sphere.

Xaratustrah on 16 November 2020

Self-awareness

Hi Peter,

I was checking your theme list about "Soul and the Self" there are many episodes. I was wondering if you have a recommendation of whom to check regarding the topic of self-awareness specifically (all traditions are welcome!).

thanks!

In reply to by Xaratustrah

Peter Adamson on 17 November 2020

Self-awareness

Yes, I would check out the interview with Therese Cory in the Medieval series (242), also Avicenna on soul which covers the flying man (141), and then there is a lot about that in the India series but perhaps most on topic would be 55, Dignana on Consciousness. Maybe also Plotinus on intellect (88), Augustine on Mind (115 and the following interview with Brittain). Hope that helps!

Karl Young on 14 November 2020

Esoteicism

Hey Peter,

Maybe this is mostly just a chance to express my deep gratitude for your perseverance re. sticking with the podcast and continuing to make it fresh and captivating for all these years - and my perseverance - I don’t know if I’ve ever stuck with anything for 10 years but have been on the edge of my seat for every episode - though  as a geezer my retention isn’t what it used to be so we need get on OUP re. the paperback release schedule! :-) For some of us geezers reaching for a book is easier than searching a list of podcasts.

But I digress; the original purpose of writing was to say that I just listened to and greatly enjoyed your interview of a couple of years ago on the Secret History of Western Esotericism podcast. As a retired physicist I’ve strayed pretty far from my naturalist grant writing persona and am taking a lot more things “seriously if not literally” and as such have enjoyed that podcast as a kind of complement to yours. And as a quintessential peripatetic type (as well as Buddhist type) negotiating the Scylla and Charybdis of your and Earl Fontanelle’s approaches allows me to get ever closer to that middle way Dedekind cut.

In reply to by Karl Young

Peter Adamson on 15 November 2020

Esotericism

Thanks so much, for your kind words and for sticking with me over the last decade! It's funny you mention that old interview because just at the moment I am working on a script about magic and astrology in the Renaissance. I find this sort of topic really fascinating, it's a great chance to be confronted with the differences between our worldview and the views of the past.

Andrew on 14 November 2020

Meno and being and non-being

Greetings. I am not sure if my previous comment went through or not, so I will just give a real quick summary here. I just listened to Episode 21 on Plato’s Meno. If I understood you correctly, then you claim that the paradox had to do with partial knowledge, which doesn’t seem to be much of a paradox at all, as your explanation made clear. I am wondering, however, if the paradox is somewhat different: could it be that Meno is applying the whole “being vs non-being” debate to the issue of knowledge? In other words, if someone doesn’t know something (= non-being), then how could he or she know it (= being)? Not sure if my question is clear or not, but I hope you get the gist. I look forward to your answer. Kind regards.

In reply to by Andrew

Peter Adamson on 15 November 2020

Being and knowledge

That is a great question! (Both your comments worked by the way, I will leave them both up.) I think there is at least a structural similarity with the two issues, in that we have problems arising from an "all or nothing" approach to being/knowledge: so Parmenides says that being would have to exclude all non-being, the Paradox has it that knowledge excludes all lack of knowledge, and in each case we exclude possibilities in between. However if you want a text that makes this connection more explicitly then what you want is the Theaetetus, because in that dialogue Plato actually has the characters discuss the problem that false belief seems to be a grasping of "what is not," which is not grasping at all. I think that this is not only Plato making the connection, he's responding to a debate that was going on among the sophists, as we can see from Gorgias' On Non-Being.

Andrew on 14 November 2020

Meno’s paradox, and being and non-being

Greetings. First off, great podcast. I am a bit late to the game, and have gone back to the beginning episodes (hence the question about a topic from several years ago). I just listened to Episode 21 on Plato’s Meno, and I am wondering if Meno’s paradox actually is an extension of the “being vs non-being” debate from the previous century. Is Meno actually talking about the problem of partial knowledge (as I understood you to explain in the podcast), or rather of the problem of how one would acquire knowledge (= being) of something that they don’t know (= non-being). In other words, if something doesn’t “exist” in someone’s mind, then how would they acquire it? This would make sense historically, and is a much more interesting interpretation of the dilemma, but I don’t know if it is correct or not. I look forward to your reply. Kind regards.

Aaron on 2 November 2020

I noticed recently the…

I noticed recently the timelines have gone. Would it be possible to bring them back? I found them very useful and better than other timelines available on other websites. Thanks.

In reply to by Aaron

Peter Adamson on 2 November 2020

Oh yes, sorry about that -…

Oh yes, sorry about that - these will come back, as you can see from the appearance of the website we've been updating it so there are still some kinks to work out.

UPDATE: they're back!

Gernot Ernst on 29 October 2020

Dear Peter,Thank you for…

Dear Peter,

Thank you for the first 10 years. You make my world more beautiful (I mean it). I have learned, I was inspired, I read some sources. Thank you so much. We should have a possibility to give you a gift. If you ever need a time in the woods of Norway (where I live) you are invited to stay in our sidehouse. It is calm and beautiful. You would make me even more happy if you initiate a bilingual introduction to Arabic philosophy with original texts and Arabic main terms...

Best

Gernot

Emily on 19 October 2020

Happy Anniversary!

And thanks for teaching us dang kids a thing or two along the way!

 

In reply to by Emily

Peter Adamson on 19 October 2020

Ha! Brilliant, thanks so…

Ha! Brilliant, thanks so much.

Otterlex on 19 October 2020

Congratulations!

Congratulations on 10 years!

Hi on 7 October 2020

Hello, Mr. Adamson,

Hello, Mr. Adamson,

I'm interested in East Asian philosophy. So, could you let me know when Chinese philosophy series start? and also I'm curious about how deep you would touch Korea and Japan and how much volume they would take.

In reply to by Hi

Peter Adamson on 8 October 2020

China

The plan is to cover classical China with Karyn Lai straight after covering 20th century Africana thought with Chike Jeffers. I think that series will take a couple of years or so, so I would imagine we will get to China around late 2022 or early 2023. My plan would be to do Japan and Korea alongside later Chinese philosophy, but I don't know whether that would be right after the series with Karyn or not. Assuming I do get to Japan and Korea at some point though, as I hope, I would give them pretty extensive treatment. I'm guessing (without knowing enough about it to be really sure, yet) that the two together might get 20 episodes or so.

tachyon on 3 October 2020

Han Kitab

Dear Dr. Adamson,

Will you be discussing the reception of Islam in China? I think that would be fascinating.

In reply to by tachyon

Peter Adamson on 4 October 2020

Islam in China

Yes! I actually learned a little bit about that in the last few years - enough to know that it is a worthwhile topic - and regret not getting it into the Islamic world series. But I would definitely like to do an episode on this when covering China, if we get as far as that chronologically. The initial series planned on China will probably not go that far but I do hope to cover both later Indian and later Chinese philosophy in further series. So many plans, so little time...

Niklas on 29 September 2020

Looking for a specific episode

Hi! I'm writing a masters thesis on a subject relating to history of philosophy and I would love to quote the podcast in the introduction but I'm unable to find the epsiode I'm looking for. In one episode that I thought related to medieval mysticism, prof. Adamson states something in vain of that while history of philosophy is often justified through what it can contribute to current philosophy, it is often most fruitful when it challenges us by being nothing like current philosophy. This thought was very close to the reasons I have for writing about my subject, so I wanted to quote it, but despite my best efforts I have been unable to find the episode it was said in.

I'm sorry if this is not the proper channel, or if the question is unreasonable. Thank you!

In reply to by Niklas

Peter Adamson on 29 September 2020

Why to do history of philosophy

No, perfectly fair question! I am guessing you actually mean the episode on Averroes on Intellect (151), with the relevant part reading as follows: "Certainly, historical texts have contributed to contemporary debates, as with Aristotle's ethics. Others seem almost to transcend the time they were written. No one can read Epictetus, for instance, without considering how his teachings might apply to their own lives. But to me much of the fascination of the historical figures is how far they are from our ways of thinking, rather than how up-to-date we can make them seem. Indeed I’ve always been drawn to thinkers whose views seem a bit far out, at least from today’s vantage point. I find it fascinating that long-dead philosophers assumed certain things to be obviously true, which now seem obviously false, and that they built elaborate systems on these exotic foundations. To be useful, historical ideas don’t always need to fit neatly into our ways of thinking. They can shake us out of those ways of thinking, helping us to see that our assumptions too are a product of our time and place."

Is that what you were looking for?

In reply to by Peter Adamson

Niklas on 1 October 2020

Thank you

Yes, this is exactly what I was looking for! Thank you for you for the answer and your amazing podcast!

MajoraZ on 17 September 2020

Precolumbian Intellectualism

Do you plan on covering philosophy, theology, and intellectualism among Indigenous societies in the Americas? You've done a commendable job trying to stretch out into non-western philosophy, but unless I'm missing it (and I might be!) you haven't seem to have covered it in the Precolumbian Americas yet (or Indigenous American societies post-Columbus)

I realize that the relative lack of written records makes this difficult, but there's a lot more sources available then I think people realize: A good starting place might be with Aztec/Nahua philosophy, which is probably some of the most documented and written about. For some basic context, for the below text; Nahua is the broader Aztec culture, "Aztec" as a term variously refers to either it or the specific Mexica subgroup, who were the denizens of Tenochtitlan, the most powerful of an alliance of 3 city-states (it, Texcoco, and Tlacopan), with that alliance and their subjects states (of various Nahua and non-Nahua groups) making up the "Aztec Empire".

In terms of primary sources, The Florentine Codex is a series of 13 volumes written by the Spanish Friar Bernardino de Sahagún collaborating with Mexica scribes, elders, and nobles, documenting various facets of their history and society in great detail, with one of the volumes (Book 6) being focused on their ethical and moral concepts, adages and epithets, etc. Meanwhile, the "Cantares Mexicans" and "Romances de los señores de Neva España" are collections of Nahuatl songs and poetry also from the 16th century. There's dozens of other surviving sources of various subjects from direct, known Nahua individuals from the early colonial period, such as Domingo Chimalpahin, Fernando Ixtlilxóchitl (who is notably from Texcoco and the Acolhua Nahua-subgrou rather then Mexica, giving a different perspective from most), and Fernando Tezozómoc, etc.

In terms of modern texts on the subject, "The Allure of Nezahualcoyotl: Pre-Hispanic History, Religion, and Nahua Poetics" is a text on the king of Texcoco of the same name, who is acclaimed in much of the above sources as a poet, patron of the arts, and legal reformer, and seeks to act both as a biography of him as well as cut through some of the revisionism and romanticism about him present in such sources, such as from the aforementioned Fernando Ixtlilxóchitl, who was a descendant of his. Miguel Leon-Portilla has made a dozens of academic texts on Nahua thougt, two notable examples (the former probably being the single most notable) "Aztec Thought and Culture" and "Fifteen Poets of the Aztec World". James Maffie is another modern researcher focusing on the subject, having published "Aztec Philosophy: Understanding a World in Motion".

It is however worth noting that some of both "Aztec Thought and Culture" and "Understanding a World in Motion" has been criticized, the former for proposing the existence of a singular primordial diety (Ometeotl) in Nahua thought which some dispute, and the latter for taking an overly metaphysical interpretation of Aztec theology where gods don't really exist, just natural processes that then got misinterpreted as deities in Spanish sources, which some (Such as David Bowles, who has made many translations of Nahuatl sources, including Poetry itself, whose works are also worth checking out) have disputed as being inconsistent with actual Nahuatl writing. So both of those texts are perhaps, at least based on my understanding, best approached as more interpretative lenses to view the primary sources they cover through then anything else; but are still definitely worth covering as they are widely referenced as some of the most major texts on the subject of Nahua intellectualism and thought.

I know Maffie has done some interviews with people online before, and David Bowles is quite active on twitter and I've interacted with him a number of times (I'm not a researcher, just a hobbyist: I also only read English, so that limits my sources, there's MUCH more then what I mentioned that are obscure and are only really well-known in the Spanish academic community or are still only in Nahuatl that I'm unaware of), both or either may be willing to assist (some sort of assistance with primary sources would probably be helpful: I know that the english translation of Book 6 of the Florentine Codex I own just translates the moral adages literally with no context for the symbolism and metaphors they are trying to convey in the original nahuatl, for example) or be guests if you ask (and if your podcast features guests).

I apologize if this comment is overly detailed or comes off as condescending with all the suggestions: It's a fairly obscure subject so I'm used to having to provide a lot of contextual information! As a bonus/extra thing that might entice you, here's a short excerpt from Matthew Restall's "1491" where it covers some of the symbolic metaphors in two Nahua poems: https://i.imgur.com/Lb2ELJE.png

In reply to by MajoraZ

Peter Adamson on 17 September 2020

Philosophy in the Americas

Wow, thanks, that is super helpful! Actually I do have this on my to-do list: thanks mostly to seeing a paper a while back by Alexis McLeod, I have been thinking about this for a couple of years and I even have a file on my computer with notes on the potential series - to which I have added these very helpful suggestions! I actually had two ideas, one was to have a series looking at indigenous philosophies around the world (apart from African, which we already did). But then I had what I think is a better idea, which is to do a big series on "Philosophy in the Americas" which would cover Native American, Inuit, Incan, Aztec, Mayan, etc and then also Latin American philosophy during and after colonialism. The exact boundaries would need careful thought but tenatively, this is the plan and I am pretty excited to do it at some point. But it will be a while, since I at a minimum will be finishing Africana with Chike, then doing classical China with Karyn Lai. Anyway thanks again! (If you could email me at peter.adamson@lrz.uni-muenchen.de so I have your name and a way to contact you with further questions down the line that would also be appreciated, since you clearly know more about this than most.)

In reply to by Peter Adamson

MajoraZ on 25 October 2020

Hey, sorry for the late…

Hey, sorry for the late reply, my living situation is sort of crazy, even putting aside the craziness of 2020 in general.

I'll shoot you an email, but if you do have more questions, other ways to reach me which I check more frequently would be my twitter (@Majora__Z) and Discord (MajoraZ#7023) if you use either service: I check both daily (though I don't always have time to reply to things daily), wheras my email is a bit more of an ordeal for me to keep up with.

Also, I realized I forgot to mention another potential source and researcher you could read from/reach out to, which is Sebastian Purcell: He's done a few pieces for Aeon.co on Aztec/Nahua (See my original comment for Aztec vs Nahua vs Mexica as terms) ethical and moral philsophy, as well as some Medium blog posts on similar topics, such as Maya views on time or Aztec views on anger. I don't know if he's put out any actual books or scholarly papers, but if he has then those are probably worth checking out, as all of the pieces i've read from him have been excellent. 

Lastly, Kurly Tlapoyawa has two books on Nahua intellectualism as well. I can't personally vouch for them or his writings, but a friend of mine (@Zotzcomic on twitter) who is as or more informed then I am on Mesoamerican history/culture has said that his videos and comments online are good, though Zotz has also not personally read his books... so his content may also be worth looking into, but, again, I can't personally "endorse" it (though again, I'm just a hobbyist myself not an academic, so i'm not sure how much my endorsement really matters!) it, unlike everything else I've mentioned (though even then I gave some caveats for "Aztec Thought and Culture" and "Aztec Philsophy: Understanding a World in Motion": Again, both are very important books in the context of Aztec intellecualism, but both also have critics)

 

Brandon on 13 September 2020

Sound quality of podcast

HoP 355 sound quality was poor.  I was able to hear it but I had to turn up the volume too high to everything else I do on my computer.  Something you and your team need to pay attention to.  Other than that... great podcast and episode.

In reply to by Brandon

Peter Adamson on 13 September 2020

Volume

Hi, thanks for the feedback. I noticed when listening back before uploading that this one was a tad quie, but on my desktop if I listen to it at only half of maximum volume it is perfectly fine. Is it only the volume that is giving you trouble?

Anyway I'll ask my audio editor to make sure the episodes are not too quiet. Of course they vary a little from one recording session to another, just because of micro-changes in the room and so on (though the interviews are of course more variable than the scripted ones which I always record in the same place and with the same equipment).

UPDATE: We actually uploaded a new file for that episode with the volume turned up, and the next few should also be louder now.

bevin on 6 September 2020

How do you subscribe to emails

I am having trouble subscribing to get alerts for new episodes

In reply to by bevin

Peter Adamson on 7 September 2020

Email alerts

You should be able to do that by clicking on the blue button on the right sidebar of the home page. That should take you to the subscribe page. We just tested this and it works so perhaps try again; if that still doesn't work my guess is that your junk filter is catching it.

We publish new episodes every Sunday morning European time, apart from the annual August summer break, with Africana and Renaissance episodes in alternating weeks.

Ammar on 22 August 2020

classification of islamic period

hi,

thank so much for your podcast which has been a savior through quarantine! I realize it's not the standard in HoP to classify philosophy in Arabic as Western philosophy, but wondering why you also made that choice in this podcast. if anything, the narrative in the podcast seems to emphasize the continuity of philosophy in Arabic with Greek and Roman philosophy before and philosophy in Latin after. Arabic philosophy seems to fill the 'gaps' in Western philosophy in the 10th through the 12th centuries. do you think the Arabic philosophy covered could've competed for e.g. the 'Early Medieval' header in the podcast? or is Western philosophy tied to Christianity in a way that doesn't allow for neatly fitting philosophy incubated in an Islamic context directly in the timeline? (or something else?) would love to hear your thoughts!

In reply to by Ammar

Peter Adamson on 23 August 2020

Classifying Arabic philosophy

Well, basically what I wanted to do is just have philosophy in the Islamic world be treated as its own thing, hence it is a separate book in the series and item in the dropdown menu here on the website. It obviously connects to European philosophy in various ways, indeed to some extent it is European philosophy since a big chunk was about Islamic Spain; on the other hand thinking of, say, Avicenna as part of Western/European philosophy is clearly untenable in geographical terms, since he lived in central Asia. Then also I wanted to reject the idea that Islamic/Arabic philosophy is part of "medieval" philosophy even though it greatly influenced medieval scholastic philosophy in Latin Christendom, since I covered the history of philosophy in the Islamic world all the way up to the 20th century. So what I would say is that you have a lot of connections to European thought but it is better not to define philosophy in the Islamic world solely in terms of those connections. Does that makes sense?

Ajith kumar on 19 August 2020

non inclusion of Sree Narayana Guru , among Indian philosophers

Hi, I am surprised that the name of Sree Narayana Guru of Kerala(1856-1928) is not finding a place among the philosophers of India in your list.  

Regards,

      Ajith Kumar

In reply to by Ajith kumar

Peter Adamson on 20 August 2020

Indian timeline

So you mean on the timeline of Indian philosophers, is that right? That is probably pretty far from complete actually, for everything after the period we covered in the podcast so far (up to Dignaga) we just reproduced the timeline from a book Jonardon had edited. So it will presumably be filled out quite a bit when we return to later Indian philosophy for the podcast, as I hope to do. Thanks for the suggestion!

Joseph Edmondson on 3 August 2020

Promoting you

Hi, I'm going to publish content online and will use you as a resource. I plan to drive traffic your way as much as possible. Are there any permissions necessary when linking to your content? Please let me know and thank you for what you do for philosophy. 

In reply to by Joseph Edmondson

Peter Adamson on 4 August 2020

Permissions

Thanks, that's very kind of you! No restrictions or permissions needed, it is a free podcast so anyone can listen or link to it as they like.

Kayla Kassandra on 31 July 2020

Any possibility of reconsidering your policy?

Hi, thanks for the information in this podcast, especially the Africana philosophy section.

You may have heard the news already, but YouTube is now getting rid of their community captions feature, which was a feature where volunteers could add captions to videos for non-native speakers, Deaf people, and hard of hearing people. The reason they are doing this is because they'd like to transition to relying on third parties which do captioning for a fee, which will mean profit for Google. They are essentially creating a disability fee, which while shocking in how brazen it is, is sadly a very common experience for disabled people.

There has been a lot of discussion about this everywhere, and my social circles are no exception. These conversations have naturally led to discussion of your podcast and its policy on transcripts. Your policy, as I understand it from your FAQ, is against circulating transcripts as that would decrease demand for your books.

I'm writing to you now because twice now, I've spoken about your podcast, citing it for certain things I came to learn, and someone Deaf asked where they could find the transcripts so they can access it too. They discovered that the only place where it's written down is in the books, and furthermore that there is a policy against any transcripts, which usually ruins their week. This is to some extent their interest in the podcast, I'm sure. But as exciting as the premise of your podcast may be, it's usually more a reaction to yet another instance of something like this in their lives.

Having lost job and academic opportunities because I'm a woman (and a woman in philosophy at that), I sympathize deeply with their experience and psychological toll of having to pay for being who they are. This sort of disadvantage existing no matter where you look can really wear you down. This is (at least partially) why I am making this appeal.

My hope is that you'll find that there's plenty of reason to want the books even with the transcripts provided, and that you'll sympathize with the experience I've described enough to reconsider your policy on transcripts as well. If you no longer have the scripts yourself, I'm sure that plenty of your fans would be willing to create the transcripts provided your encouragement.

Hope to hear from you soon.

In reply to by Kayla Kassandra

Peter Adamson on 1 August 2020

Transcripts

OK, that's a good point. My reluctance to release transcripts is only in part because it would undermine the books, it's also just because they are a bit of a mess before I go through the revision process of getting them to the stage of book manuscript. So I really don't want to just, like, put them up on the website publicly. But I would be happy to be contacted directly by people who have a special need for typescripts because of deafness or hearing problems, and would like to see scripts of special interest to them before the relevant book comes out.

You can perhaps just let people know they can email me at peter.adamson@lrz.uni-muenchen.de.

Thanks for bringing this issue to my attention!

Lee Grixit on 29 June 2020

Several things

1. Will you be doing a series on China? I'm intrigued especially about the mohists, who apparently did propositional logic using full sentences. You could call the episode "Not Minding Your Ps and Qs".

2. What about Persia? You've barely mentioned the zoroastrians at all, let alone the mazdaists before Zoroaster.

3. Will you be doing anything on the effect of printing before Gutenberg? I've often wondered why wood block printers never bothered to do whole pages of classic works that were in high demand, or failing that, simple texts for beginning readers.

4. You spoke of the process of copying and the problem of errors. Will you be refering to the technique devised by jewish scribes for copying Torahs? I mean the one where each page is regarded as a fixed matrix of letters and the copyist can get a quick accuracy check by counting the letters in each row and column. I've seen articles that extol the method but i've never heard of it being used for any other work.

5. Also, you've mentioned philology a few times, but rarely numerology. Were there any philosophers who used numerical equivalence of words as a basis for theories?

 

In reply to by Lee Grixit

Peter Adamson on 29 June 2020

Several things

Thanks for the questions! I'll just take them in turn:

1. Yes, I already have a co-author lined up. See the link "FAQ" below for more information on this.

2. True, I didn't really do much with Persian culture prior to the coming of Islam and ideally I should have found somewhere to talk about Zoroastrianism. Of course one could argue this would be more urgent for a history of religion than a history of philosophy. But with my broad approach, it would have made sense to cover it, maybe I should have done that early in the Islamic world series as background.

3. Yes when I get to the Reformation series, coming right after Italian Renaissance, I expect to have a whole episode about printing.

4. Actually I didn't know about that scribal technique among Jewish scholars, that is interesting! That makes sense because also pagan literature in Greek etc was written in blocks of text in antiquity. I do discuss this in more general terms in episode 317.

5. I think the closest I have come to discussing that is when I talked about Kabbalah, it may come up again soon since we are going to talk about Renaissance magic.

Thanks for listening!

Dustin Zozaya on 23 June 2020

Medieval basque philosophers

Hello! I'm interested in how philosophical concepts made their way to the people through the sermons of medieval masters like Aquinas. Can anyone recommend any medieval masters who may have had contact with the Basque community in places like Navarre?  

Jay Sherman on 22 June 2020

Often overlooked

Jews as both a religious group and a culture/ethnicity have made many contributions to philosophy, logic, and related disciplines. Jews are known by some other cultures as People of the Book. But it was not limited to just one "book"; Jews have valued literacy, scholastics, and analysis, throughout modern history (CE) at least.  One might call them People of the Mind or People of Ideas. Anyway, please have a look at these and see if there are some you might want to include.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jewish_philosophers

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Jewish+philosophy&…

Note: In the seven college courses I had in philosophy & political philosophy, I don't remember learning about any of these except Spinoza and Marx.  Aquinas, yes, Maimonides, no. I suspect Christian-centric Western education simply doesn't know about many of these.

In reply to by Jay Sherman

Peter Adamson on 23 June 2020

Jewish philosophers

Thanks - just to make sure you haven't missed them, there are about 20 episodes in the series so far on Jewish philosophers (Philo, Saadia, about 15 episodes in the series on Andalusia, and more recently Jewish Renaissance thought). So plenty to dive into and of course more to come as we move forward chronologically!
 

Lee Grixit on 17 June 2020

Academic lineage

Hi. Great series! I downloaded it last fall and i've been listening to it while doing chores. It really helps pass the time. I just finished episode 278, so i've got a ways to go.

Anyway, i was wondering if Peter has ever tried tracing his own mentor/student lineage? It would be cool if he could go back to Plato, but i don't expect it.

In reply to by Lee Grixit

Peter Adamson on 17 June 2020

Lineage

Ooh, nice question! Well the first thing that leaps to mind is that one of my graduate advisors was Stephen Gersh (he has appeared here on the podcast) and he studied to some extent with the pioneering German Neoplatonism scholar Werner Beierwaltes. Who, as it happens, taught where I now work, LMU Munich. When I was a grad student I came to Munich a few times to sit at his feet and discuss Neoplatonism; a wonderful man. He would discourse at length in a mixture of Latin, Greek, and German which at the time I think I understood all equally well. I should look into tracing his teachers, and their teachers, etc...

Yotam Schremer on 16 June 2020

Mind, Soul and Matter: Aristotle to Descarts

Dear Prof. Adamson,

First of all, I would like to dearly thank you for your rigorous work on the podcast. I am a first year undergraduate Israeli student at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, at the department of philosophy, Jewish thought and Talmud. For me, a student of philosophy who approches the study from a deeply historical perspective, your podcast has been nothing short of spectacular and most valuable to me. In terms of method, our department is not unlike the majority of the english speaking ones, in the sense that it is mainly comitted to methodical courses and research from a contemporary ananlytic approach; as such, historical courses are scarce, especially ones concerning the less-than-canonical parts of the history of philosophy, most noteworthy Arabic and Islamic philosophy. The study of such matters is essential especially for me, as I am interested namely in Maimonides in his non-jewish context (in order, naturally, to understand that very jewish context of his!). And so, it can be said of HOPWAG: "Like cold water to a weary soul, So is good news from a distant land" (Proverbs 25, 25) [in hebrew it would sound somthing like this: mayim kareem 'al nefesh 'ayeffa ushmua tova me'ertz merhak].

 

I am concerened today with a wide-scope matter in the history of philosophy. I have just learned Aristotles Physics 1-2 and de Anima for the second time, and upon finishing de Anima at my class, my teacher compared Descarts' dualistic theory of mind to Aristotle's heliomorphic world view. It can be said that Descarts' view is one that fits harmonically within the scientific revolution that took place at his age, as it emphasises a distinctions between the mechanistic view of the world of matter and a non-mechanistic one for the mind. Contrarywise, mind for arsitotle is a part of the living creature as much as the body (soma) is. Aristotle's mind the the form of the living creature - and as such, its' actuality (entelecheia), while its' material aspect is its' matter or potentiality (dunamis). Both the actuality and potentiality are natural aspects for Aristotle, of any Ousia. Thus, and correct me if my analysis is wrong sofar, it can be said the mind, for Aristotle, belongs to the same ontological category that any other scientific term concerning the world belongs.

Now, this view is quite different from our way of understanding the mind, following descarts' cogito. On the other hand, I am not sure what would  the Neo-Aristotleanism in its' medival Arabic-Islamic iteration would have to say about that. Furthermore, what can be said of these philosophers treatment of the soul and it's relation to the physical world as they have come to know it through the traditional Islamic prism, that is saying - views concerning the Nafs, is to be thought of. I predict that the answer may be complicated and most likely is to vary from each thinker to another. I am mainly interested in pre-Maimonidean thinkers, such as al-Kindi (although I wouldn't classify him as a Neo-Aristotelean), al-Razi, al-Farabi, Ibn-Bajja, Al-Ghazali (who very clearly was aquainted with the Aristotlean tradition), Ibn-Sina, and Averroes; and, if relevant, on even earlier late-antiquity interpretations of Aristotle that influenced them, and even Neo-Platonic sources, following all the way back to Plato and his discussion of the soul in Phadeo.

This subject is especially interesting in the Maimonidean context beacuse many of the disagreement in modern research of Maimonides circles around the question of 'Olam ha-Ba', the jewish version of the afterlife, or another version of it: "T'hiyat ha-Metim", meaning the rising of the dead (come Judgment day) -  both of which are terms that coincide culturally with ideas such as 'الجَنَّة' in their Religious and Philosophical contexts. I am interested in figuring out what how Maimonides' refrences of the soul or the mind should be read in light of these questions. The consequences of this inquiry may be remarkable, as far as perhaps revealing philological evidence of a non-ontological understanding of the eternality of the soul according to Maimonides, rather eternality akin to the eternality of Aristotelean forms or numbers (that is to say, eternality of the soul only in virtue of actualizing its' potential fully, and intelectualizing itself or God) - not even a so-called 'spiritual' one.

 

Many thanks and the very best regards - and a sincere apology for the probable many inaccurate points I may have laid out throughout this letter.

Yotam Schremer.

In reply to by Yotam Schremer

Peter Adamson on 17 June 2020

Aristotle vs Descartes on the mind

Thanks for your kind words about the podcast! That's obviously a big issue you are raising in your question there. I guess the first thing I'd say is that, while I largely agree with the contrast you draw between Descartes (one could mention Plato here too) and Aristotle, there are resources in Aristotle for a more dualist account of the mind. In particular, in De Anima 3 he argues that the  mind has no bodily organ, plus we have the treatment of thinking as divine in Nic Eth 10 and Metaph 12. So taking up these hints, already in late antiquity the Platonist tradition had been pretty successful in integrating Aristotle's account of soul into a dualist, Platonist framework, the idea being that the bodily functions of life are powers projected by a separate soul into the body. We see this also in al-Kindi, Avicenna, etc. Averroes has, I would say, a more faithfully Aristotelian account since he ties each individual soul closely to its body, with intellect as universal and not individual. Maimonides though has a more traditional view here, with an immaterial soul that can survive the death of the body, and he would have seen that as at least compatible with the tradition of Platonized Aristotelianism that came down to him.

Does that help?

In reply to by Peter Adamson

Yotam Schremer on 17 June 2020

Mind, Soul and Matter: Aristotle to Descarts

Yes, that it indeed a very helpful account and analysis. What is left for me is further inquiry into the specifics. Would you happen to know where exactly in Avicenna I could find the relveant discussions? Same goes for Averroes, and if any relveant Farabian writing comes to mind that would complete the picture.

Yotam

In reply to by Yotam Schremer

Peter Adamson on 18 June 2020

Reading on mind

Yes, in Avicenna you would need to read the sections on Psychology of the Shifa, Najat, and so on. The Najat psychology is translated into English as Avicenna's Psychology by Rahman. Tommaso Alpina has a book coming out soon on the longer treatment of psychology in the Shifa with substantial chunks translated in English, there is also an older French trans. by Bakos. For Farabi you should read his Epistle on the Intellect which is in the old Hyman and Walsh collection of texts on medieval philosophy (somewhat abridged if I remember right). And for Averroes of course the Long Commentary on On the Soul, translated by Richard Taylor, which also has a very long and informative introduction.

Alexander Johnson on 14 June 2020

Finally Caught Up

Finally caught up after more than 2 years (I have about 30 podcasts I split my time between, so I only did 3-5 per week).  and I guess it felt appropriate to give feedback now that I have heard all of it.  First, I'll start with letting you know what type of audience I am, cover the sections, then let you know what I thought of the podcast so far as a whole.

Audience:  Demographically, I am a white male in my 30's from the USA with a math and economics degree who loves history as well.  My background in philosophy before this was that I learned about the cliff notes version of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle in high school.  I knew Descartes, Pascal, and Leibniz existed through math.  I heard "I think therefore I am" with no idea what he was trying to say.  I also knew about the political theory of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, and the economic theory of Smith, Marx, and the Austrians.  In my non-western history class I learned about Confucius, Taoism (which I really don't like), and Legalism (Han Fei!), and the Buddha.  And I read the Bhagavad-Gita in humanities.  And my impression of philosophy was largely shaped by the one person I knew who talked about it being the type of person who would say "what if what you see as red is what my green looks like?"  Which made me have no interest in learning about it.  I got into your podcast because an entertainer I watch mentioned that he took philosophy and it was totally different than what he was expecting.  Then you were the only review on the back of Mike Duncan’s book I didn’t know about, and history of japan podcast mentioned liking Philosophize This, so I figured I’d give both of you a try.

Classical:  I actually really liked that the podcast started with what I would describe as largely natural philosophers, because I had been wondering what scientists did before they had access to our array of scientific tools.  I also liked that you covered what modern philosophy talked about in Parmenides.  Finally, I think the investment in Plato and Aristotle early on was well worth it, as I learned a ton and got to hear a little baseline about most of the topics talked about.  Further, this showed that “without any gaps” could be extended to a major philosopher’s lesser known works in the same way that it could for covering minor philosophers.  I kind of hoped that we’d see 1 last deep dive covering something like “Hume, Kant, and Hegel (1 section with the 3 of them sharing it).” or something like that, but I’m sure however they get covered it will be good.

Later Antiquity:  I knew the name of 3 of the schools off the bat, so I looked forwards to this as well, I was surprised when the Epicureans (who I didn’t know the name of prior) were my favourite.  I thought that was a great section overall and was glad we saw something similar pop up in the India section.  Late Antiquity didn’t make much of an impact positively or negatively, and I was uncertain about Early Christianity but thought it was good, though Augustine maybe got too much attention for my liking. 

Islamic World:  I came in not knowing what to expect, but I knew of the great work of Al-Khwarizmi, so I was hoping we’d see that the golden age of Islam was also a golden age of philosophy.  I have to say that balance wise, this felt like the best era of the podcast.  You struck a great balance between talking about topics, and talking about minor philosophers, talking about major philosophers, and background.  The balance was also good in Medieval, though with less minor figures by themselves and more topics.  (In both cases the major figures got about 27% of the episodes, though late antiquity was closer to 37% depending on how the schools were counted, which was also good.  I think the major philosophers make for nice sign-posts for getting caught up on topics I may have somewhat zoned out on, or seeing how sections of seemingly unrelated topics may hang together).  The one trend that started her that I liked was that the default for the major figures was 2 scripted episodes plus one interview, with more for the major major figures.  Andalusia was surprising because barely any Muslim philosophers showed up, but if most of Andalusian philosophy was done by Jews, I don’t think that would be a problem.  Eastern Tradition I got the impression in the introduction that we were going to get a treatment closer to the way Hellenistic was covered, so then not having it covered that was a bit jarring.  Mulla Sadra was great, but the historical wrap up lasted too long.

Medieval:  As I said above, this also had a wonderful balance, and I liked the lead in segment that all the time spent on various little topics like Individuation and Transcendentals.  I was really sold on the Scholastics being serious philosophers worth paying attention to.  The treatment of Aquinas was really strange though.  You didn’t cover any metaphysics from Aquinas during the Aquinas segment, which made it feel like something was missing, in addition thanks to the interview on self-awareness, the episode on soul knowledge, and the interview on human knowledge, I felt like a lot of what was talked about instead was repetition.  Then you also repeatedly said that Aquinas was not that important in the medieval era and kind of odd man out, but innovative individuals do stand out from the pack, and I hear in way more episodes than I expected people responding to Aquinas, which makes him feel more important than Scotus and Ockham (who I got the impression you were trying to make the case that were more important than Aquinas?).  Overall I felt the treatment of him was full of mixed/muddled messages and overconcentration on one aspect at the expense of the rest, as well as the first time I felt like the podcast was being addressed to one specific type of audience in such a way that made it harder for me, a non-academic philosopher, to follow.  However, this did not spoil the rest of the series.  This series also have several that would make a list of my favourite episodes, such as the Angels episode, and I think these deep dives into one very narrow topic was a nice trend.

Byzantine/Renaissance:  Byzantine was hard to categorize.  I enjoyed all of it, but I also struggle to say what I really learned from it.  Some religious stuff was at the beginning and end, but otherwise, it was mostly rhetoric and advice for emperors?  One omission I thought was notable was that the great schism came and went without much attention, which I thought might have had things to talk about given the earlier attention given to the trinity debate as background where philosophy was used by both sides, but you’d know better what actually is out there.  For the Renaissance, I am very unimpressed with the humanists, but I am pretty sure that has nothing to do with you.  So far it is an interesting section. 

India:  I was pleasantly surprised by India as well.  I knew The Buddha and the Bhagavad-Gita were going to be cool, but the Age of Sutra was one of my favourite sections in all of the podcasts.  I especially liked the Nyayas, but every group in the age of sutra, even the ones I thought I wouldn’t like, were interesting.  It was here I was sold that Indian philosophy was every bit as interesting as Greek philosophy.  The Buddhists and Jains were almost as good as well, but I thought tracking which sect of Buddhism was which, and what they branched off from was hard to keep track of.  I also thought Dignaga section could have been more clear, as you spoke a lot about Idealism and Phenomenology, but I don’t think I had a very good idea what those two meant in relation to these two.  And was more confused when I tried to research it and found that Idealism and Phenomenology have multiple branches and so which sub-branch you were relating both Dignaga and Dharmakirti to could change the message.  I also didn’t get a good impression of how Dignaga actually improved upon Nyaya logic, but I know logic can be hard to get into detail with via podcast form. 

Africana:  I know there are a lot of naysayers on this part, so I will try to keep it to things I don’t think I heard others say.   I guess the precolonial bounced off of me because I didn’t really hear many arguments for the things they were arguing for, so I ended up being no more convinced than I am with the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.  And because I couldn’t see why anything couldn’t reasonably been independent of one another, the idea of “Africaness” linking them didn’t feel convincing.  Slavery/Diaspora has been a bit more interesting, but for a lot of it, I am just hearing them make the case for “slavery bad,” but that is my default position.  So if I’m not hearing the “slavery is not bad” side they are arguing against, and I’m not seeing people influenced by the arguments, it gives the impression that people from Jefferson to Davis just heard the arguments on why slavery is bad and went “yeah, but so what?” and then weren’t really impacted by it.  The topic of if violence is justified has been more interesting, but since most of the people were of two minds about it, that part too came out muddled.  I’ll keep sticking with it though

Overall:  This is one of my favourite podcasts, and has really gotten me into philosophy, and gotten me to read Aristotle and Plato, and indirectly got me to read Montesquieu, and Han Fei.  Overall, I am very happy with the podcast you have put out, and I look forwards to seeing where you go, especially when you cover China, India part 2, China part 2, and the enlightenment.  I would be worried about how you cover the continentals, but I think your rules essentially forbids you from the empty dismissals I’m used to seeing from them, so I doubt you’d end up not covering the properly due to priors.  And I hope you keep going for the long time it takes to find out!

In reply to by Alexander Johnson

Peter Adamson on 14 June 2020

Story so far

Wow, thanks for taking the time to write all this out! I don't think I've ever seen such a detailed reaction to the entire series; it's actually amazing that you have such detailed recall of each section and how you felt about it all. Of course I'm not surprised that you didn't find it all equally successful, probably that is inevitable, but I'm glad that you got so much out of the series overall.

Xaratustrah on 9 June 2020

Reason

Hi Peter,

Usually Kant is associated with "Vernunft" and "Verstand". Do you know, which one of the figures mentioned in your podcast (Western / Islamic / Africana / India) discussed "reason" and "mind"? Avicenna in Shifa? Abelard? Nagarjuna?

Thanks

 

In reply to by Xaratustrah

Peter Adamson on 10 June 2020

Reason/mind

These topics come up a lot, probably the best way to see where it has come up is to go to the "themes" page:

https://historyofphilosophy.net/themes

and go through the episodes on the topic "Mind."

Matthew Breneau on 18 April 2020

The Woman Who Loves Giraffes

Hi Peter:

I'm a regular listener and lover of the podcast from Detroit, MI. During the the Coronavirus shutdown, the cinema for which I work is offering an "at home" series of films that includes a title which right interest you. The link is below. I hope you and Hiawatha will be willing to devote a little of your time to it.

https://kinonow.com/the-woman-who-loves-giraffes-detroit-institute-of-a…

Stoically yours,

Matthew Breneau

Samer Darwiche on 12 April 2020

Islamic culture

I wonder why there is no mention about Ali ibn Abi Talib in the Islamic World? 

 

 

In reply to by Samer Darwiche

Peter Adamson on 13 April 2020

Ali

Well of course he is mentioned a lot in the historical sense, I mean, I talk a lot about Ismailism and other forms of Shiism and members of the Shiite intellectual traditions. I guess you mean treating Ali himself as a philosopher though? The answer to that is that, in general, I made a decision early on not to include historical figures who are also major religious founders or teachers, e.g. there is no episode on Jesus or on Muhammad himself. Nor do I have episodes on the Bible or the Quran. I have been asked about this before, regarding Jesus, and my explanation of the decision is that in part I was just nervous about tackling such figures -- the potential for offending people is very high -- and in part I just didn't know how to go about it, even if I had wanted to. Like, a single episode about philosophy and (or in) the Quran, or the New Testament? Seems daunting. So anyway I considered Ali to fall into that category. You might by the way pull me up here on the example of the Buddha, who of course was covered, so that was arguably inconsistent. But I think it was possible to do the Islamic world and Christian philosophy without doing special episodes on religious founders, whereas I don't think we could have done that with Buddhism.
 

In reply to by Mirza Beglerov…

Peter Adamson on 23 March 2020

Contemporary

Funny you should mention that. I actually did have the idea that eventually ("once I finish" sounds like far in the future) I could do an all-interview series looking at the history of some contemporary areas of philosophy. I wasn't expecting this to be as detailed as, say, supervenience, more like branches such as Philosophy of Mind. Would be a cool series, right? Every episode could focus on what has happened over the last, say, 30 years.

Paul Lee on 22 March 2020

No Chinese & Japanese philosophy?

The tagline is "A history of philosophy without any gaps".  While I understand why Indian, Islam, and African philosophies are included because they interacted with Western philosophies, I would hope you would include Chinese & Japanese philosophies despite roughly progressing on a parallel track.

In reply to by Paul Lee

Peter Adamson on 22 March 2020

China and Japan

Yes, this is actually covered under FAQ below. The plan is to do classical Chinese philosophy with Karyn Lai once the current series on Africana is over. After that, not sure but I do hope to get to Japan and Korea as well. (I hope to get to everything!)

In reply to by Paul Lee

Samer Darwiche on 12 April 2020

Japanese and Chinese phlisophy

Yes couldn't agree more. We need more about Chinese and Japanese culture.

Daniel Young on 17 March 2020

Kudos

Dear Professor Adamson,

I thought you would be pleased to know that your titanic philosophical podcast is one of the things that consoles and sustains me here in New York City as we face an indeterminate period of "social distancing." I am rationing myself 2 to 4 a day. As a small token of thanks I invite you to go to my website, paradoxyproducts.com and select any items you and your collaborators would like. I will be happy to send them to you as a gift if you give me a mailing address. Do not hesitate to choose as much as you would like.

Smith George on 17 February 2020

review

This is really wonderful to be here, glad to know the philosophy behind it., thanks for sharing with us.

Emily on 14 February 2020

For Valentine's Day

"We must discover the power of love, the power, the redemptive power of love. And when we discover that, we will be able to make of this old world a new world. We will be able to make men better. Love is the only way." -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Liam on 4 February 2020

Many thanks

Mr. Adamson,

I live a pretty good life and listening to your podcast ranks among my favorite activities. Your lectures and conversations are both richly pleasurable and deeply nourishing. Thank you very much for doing this work, and more thanks to you and your sponsors for making it freely available. The world is better for your efforts.

Cheers,
Liam

Alexander Johnson on 24 January 2020

Neo-Platonists

As long as you are in Neo-Platonic philosophy, I was wondering.  You refer to a lot of the Scholastic and Islamic philosophers as "neo-platonic" from time to time, but it seems like some of them are obvious (Eriugena, for example), and others are seem more straight forwards Aristotilian (Averroes, though i'm not sure you have ever refered to him as neo-platonic).  So I was wondering if you see...  al-Kindi, al-Farabi, Avicenna, Abelard, Aquinas, Maimonedes, Scotus, and Ockham as neo-platonists, or a more fushion of neoplatonism with Aristotilianism? or Aristotilians with neo-platonic influences?  or is it more of a spectrum?

In reply to by Alexander Johnson

Peter Adamson on 25 January 2020

Neoplatonists

It's definitely a spectrum. Averroes, I would say, is about as un-Neoplatonic as it gets in the medieval period, whereas for instance Kindi or Aquinas have clearly been strongly influenced by Neoplatonism. But it isn't a yes or no question in any case: Neoplatonism was so dominant in late antiquity that in a sense all medieval philosophy was inevitably colored by it. So it makes more sense to think in terms of particular doctrines, e.g. does God emanate necessarily, is the soul only accidentally related to its body, etc, and then you can discuss more usefully whether a given thinker adopts that particular bit of Neoplatonic doctrine. Of course we should also remember that late ancient Neoplatonists strongly disagreed on many topics, e.g. whether the soul descends completely from the intelligible realm. So that is an additional complication.

Xaratustrah on 15 January 2020

Fiction

Hi Peter, Have you ever thought of writing a philosophically themed fiction / novel? Like bringing back to life philosophers of different epochs and traditions into a nice story line where they interact? Like Ficino discussing with Nagarjuna and Averoes on reincarnation and world soul on a banquet where Nietzsche was not invited!? I would be the first to buy the book!

Btw. whom would you choose as your main protagonist?

 

 

In reply to by Xaratustrah

Peter Adamson on 15 January 2020

Fiction

Funny you should ask because when I was young, like, a teenager, I wanted to write fiction when I grew up. But I'm not sure my talents really lie in that direction and I guess if I were going to write a novel I would pick a topic that got my head out of philosophy for a bit!

Also my first choice would be Avicenna and there is already a novel about him, called The Road to Isfahan (also the movie, Der Medicus).

Grace Hibshman on 10 January 2020

Modern Philosophy Podcast?

Hi Peter!

 

Thank you so much for this wonderful gift to the world!

 

I am a philosophy graduate student at Notre Dame. I am very grateful for this podcast. It's wonderful for filling in the gaps I have in my philosophy education. Do you know of any podcasts that might be able to fill in my gaps in more modern philosophy?

 

Thank you!

Grace

In reply to by Grace Hibshman

Peter Adamson on 10 January 2020

Modern philosophy podcast

Hi there, nice to hear from a fellow ND philosophy grad student! Got my PhD there in 2000, as you might know.

Re. your question there isn't one that goes through that in bewildering detail like I am planning to do. But you could look at relevant episodes of other podcasts like Examined Life, In Our Time, Philosopher's Zone, and Philosophy Bites. There is a list of other such podcasts under Links below.

Or if you wait... um, 5-10 years I will have covered it all by then with any luck!

Anonymous Comm… on 2 January 2020

Religious figures as philosophers

Dear Peter,

Thank you so much for all your great work, I have been a regular listener to the podcast since 2012 and always look forward to new epsidoes being posted. 

I wondered whether you ever considered doing episodes on the religious scriptures of the Abrahamic faiths as philosophical texts? This would certainly seem to be in keeping both with your inclusion of things like mysticism in your history of philosophy, and with your treatment of similar sources in non-western traditions.

It would be interesting to know how the thought of, say, the historical Jesus fit into the intellectual trends of the time. I have heard from popular sources that, for example, the teachings of the new testament may have been inspired by contemporary eastern thought. Does modern scholarship back this up?

I understand that such historicization of religious figures could be seen as disrespectful and/or offensive, which may be why you chose to stay clear.

I also wondered specifically whether you considered covering the thought of St Paul, who seems to fit the bill even more closely for the kind of figure you would cover.

Interested to hear your thoughts

 

 

In reply to by Anonymous Comm…

Peter Adamson on 3 January 2020

Religious figures

Your guess is right: I shied away from that feeling that it would be very contentious to include texts like the Bible or Quran in a history of philosophy podcast. Also difficult, given the mountains of scholarship on these texts. Insofar as I had a good reason, as opposed to cowardice, it would be that the philosophical themes in such texts wound up getting covered anyway when looking at the various figures who interpreted them.

Still I think you are right that this could be done, and St Paul is a good example; people often pick up on themes in his thought that remind them of ancient philosophy, especially Stoicism.

Xaratustrah on 25 November 2019

Philosophy Magazines

Hi Peter,

what are your favourite philosophy magazines, like not academic journals but normal magazines (those with colorful pages)?

In reply to by Xaratustrah

Peter Adamson on 25 November 2019

Magazines

Well, I write a regular column for Philosophy Now so I feel honor-bound to direct you towards them! The online forum Aeon is also worth checking out, they have a lot of philosophy content curated by Nigel Warburton.

JW on 11 November 2019

Expanding horizons!

Any plans to explore East Asian philosophy? Rather large gap. :)

In reply to by JW

Peter Adamson on 11 November 2019

East Asian

Yes indeed, this is actually covered in FAQ below but the short answer is, I have a co-author lined up to do classical China and hope to do later China and Korea and Japan at some point.

Frank Michael Bowman on 6 November 2019

The ‘so what?’ question...

Hello!
I’m a former child & adolescent neuropsychiatrist broadening my horizons In early retirement by, amongst other things, listening to your podcast series; currently at #099.
OK so it’s a HISTORY of philosophy series, but... here’s my ‘so what?’
This-opolis stated that the world is a pool table supported by five giraffes whereas that-opolis disagreed, stating that there were in fact seven giraffes. The commentators argued about how the balls were racked in the triangle and if chalk was truly necessary or even really blue.
We now know (or currently think we do) that the earth is sphere of accreted matter orbiting a rather non-descript star. Hence my question: so what does it matter what a bunch of ancients mistakenly thought?
I recall in training in psychiatry having to present an analysis of one of Sigmund Freud’s writings to a seminar group. I did a great job - you could say my presentation had no gaps - but, in the end, the substance of what had been written was archaic and meaningless; it was pool tables, giraffes and blue chalk.
Help me out here!
Frank.

In reply to by Peter Adamson

Frank Michael Bowman on 7 November 2019

Will keep listening...

Thanks for taking the time to reply. 

I've followed the link and enjoyed reading  the interview. Not sure I'm any further forward. For some perverse reason I enjoy engaging with subjects that seem beyond my understanding so will keep listening and perhaps update you on my progress @ #199! 

Elliot on 22 October 2019

Book feedback?

Hi Peter,
This might come to you as a fairly unusual request. My name’s Elliot and I’m a 22-year-old officer in the US Army. I’ll start by saying that ever since I started listening to your podcast, it’s changed my life. It’s done so much, in fact, that it’s inspired me to try my hand at philosophical writing of my own. The discipline that has always interested me the most, even before I started listening, is philosophy of religion, and that’s what I’ve decided to write about. Earlier this year, I began writing a book on that topic in dialogue form (drawing on Plato’s literary style), and I just completed it. My dialogue pits an atheist (who is a representative of my own ideas as the author) against a devout religious person (although the specific religion abided by is never revealed). Some of the particular issues I touched on in the conversation were heavily inspired by your discussions on theological philosophy of the Islamic world. I was fascinated by your explanation of the divide between Mutazilism and Asharism, in terms of trying to understand God’s power, and either the potential limitations or boundless nature of it. I also incorporated elements of Avicenna’s theories on existence, such as God’s knowledge of particulars or universals, as well as the problem of arbitrary creation of the universe. This all, of course, is in conjunction with the household issues such as the problem of evil, and free will vs. determinism. I self-identity as an existentialist, and for that reason I attempt to clash these problems with the more contemporary views of Sartre and Heidegger, with the intention of drawing on their explanations of how we can have morals without God. Although I never mention any of these particular thinkers by name, my ultimate goal is to bring back their age-old ideas to attack modern problems, in a format that’s attractive to a wider readership, not just philosophical academics. I’d love to try and get my work published someday, and for that reason, I’d like for it to be the best it can be. I know you’re a busy guy, but I was wondering if you’d be interested in reading a short excerpt or two from my work and sharing some of your thoughts on it. It would honestly mean the world to me, and then some, since your show is essentially what motivated me to do any of this in the first place. Thanks for your time and keep making those incredible podcasts!

In reply to by Elliot

Peter Adamson on 22 October 2019

Book feedback

Hi there, and thanks for your kind words about the podcast! Glad it has been so helpful to you. Maybe just email me about this and send me a couple of extracts from the book? My email is

peter.adamson@lrz.uni-muenchen.de

David Montgomery on 14 October 2019

Fellow podcaster looking ahead to Positivism

Hello —

My name's David Montgomery; I'm a longtime fan, and also host the podcast The Siècle, covering France 1814-1914. In addition to covering the political narrative I also try to cover the social, economic and intellectual currents at the time. As such, as I plot out future episodes, I'm hoping to do an interview episode about Comte and Positivism. As a longtime listener of the "History of Philosophy" my first thought was to reach out to you to see if — though Positivism is many years away for you yet! — you could recommend any experts in Positivism who I might be able to reach out to about possible interviews. (I will also recommend any reading suggestions, especially books or articles aimed at a lay audience.)

Thank you!

In reply to by David Montgomery

Peter Adamson on 15 October 2019

Comte and Positivism

Wow, cool, I will have to check out your podcast! I'm afraid positivism is not my area and you're right that it will be a long time until I get there. You might check out the Stanford Encyclopedia page on Comte: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/comte/ and consider asking the author of that entry or the authors of more recent publications in the bibliography.

somedogs on 30 September 2019

Album Cover

I made this Album cover for your podcasts I downloaded.

I thought I'd make it available to everyone, at your discretion.

In reply to by somedogs

Peter Adamson on 30 September 2019

Album cover

Thanks but I think the uploading of the image didn't work, can you try again? Maybe send a URL link to it instead.

In reply to by gary

Peter Adamson on 2 December 2019

Young Peter with old philosophers

Thanks so much! Boy, that picture of me is from a long time ago, I had a lot less gray in my beard then...

Matthew Pradichith on 24 September 2019

Timaeus

Hello! I absolutely love your podcast and have been listening to it for the last few months (still not caught up yet, but I'll get there!). I'm really interested in the influences that the Timaeus has had through late antiquity and even into medieval philosophy. Could you recommend some further reading in regards to this? It seems like there's absolutely no love for it today...

Richard on 11 September 2019

This podcast is was the

This podcast was the catalyst that got me reading philosophy again and now also studying it in the university. Just letting you know that you got that on your conscience now. ;)

In reply to by Richard

Peter Adamson on 11 September 2019

Responsibility

Wow, amazing! I think I can live with that on my conscience. Best of luck with your studies!

Karl Young on 28 August 2019

Suggested interview for philosophy in China

Hi Peter,

I know this is a little premature but figured I'd float it anyway (given the extra time I'm afforded by the summer break !). I'm reading The Fifth Corner of Four by Graham Priest which has a pretty narrow focus re. Buddhist Metaphysics but a rather broad historical scope. It occured to me that when you get to the Buddhist section in the Chinese philosophy podcasts, an interview with him might be a great way to connect your excellent podcasts on Mahayana metaphysics in India to later developments in China re. setting some context.

In any case, I'm sure whatever you choose to do in those podcasts will be edifying; e.g. I'm really anxious to learn more about some of the areas with which I'm not very familiar like Mohism and Legalism (of course I'm sure I'll also learn a ton about the areas that I kid myself that I'm somewhat familiar with, like Confuniacinism and Taoism).

 

In reply to by Karl Young

Peter Adamson on 28 August 2019

China

Yes, that is indeed getting a bit ahead but thanks for the idea! You did see we interviewed Priest in the India series, right? Episode 54.

In reply to by Peter Adamson

Karl Young on 29 August 2019

reprieve

Yes, I enjoyed that episode and was just hoping there were no rules against reprieves ! :-)

In reply to by Karl Young

Peter Adamson on 29 August 2019

Repeat offenders

No, we have actually had a number of people on more than once, like MM McCabe or John Marenbon, and in fact the next guest will be Jill Kraye who has been on before. With Priest I was lucky that he passed through Munich, with any luck maybe he will again.

In reply to by Stephen Reid

Peter Adamson on 26 August 2019

Broken link

Ok thanks for letting us know! We'll try to fix it.

H on 13 August 2019

Dear Peter,

Dear Peter,

Having listened to almost every episode of the podcast, I just want to extend my deepest gratitude for your outstanding work – to call it a pinnacle of the digital age is not an overstatement, I believe, especially in these times of misguided thought and frailty of reason. Not only have you reinvigorated my personal interest in philosophical inquiry and opened my eyes (or ears, rather) to areas of thought I had yet not come across, but these series have led me to further studies, guiding me to works I had otherwise probably not learned about.

For this I am ever so grateful.

 

 

Xaratustrah on 12 August 2019

Paracelsus

Hi Peter, do you plan to cover Paracelsus?

In reply to by Xaratustrah

Peter Adamson on 12 August 2019

Paracelsus

Oh definitely, he will be part of the northern Renaissance and Reformation series.

Dan on 1 August 2019

Second book dedication

Hi Prof. Adamson,

 

I just picked up the second book in the HoPwaG series. I noticed you dedicated it to your brother, and was curious as to why? Why that particular book rather than any of the others in the series? Does he have a particular attraction to the Hellenistic and Roman periods?

In reply to by Dan

Peter Adamson on 1 August 2019

Dedication

Oh no, not particularly - it was mostly because he was really into listening to the podcast, so I thought he would appreciate it. More generally I am kind of dedicating the books to one family member at a time as I go along. Hopefully the number of family members and number of books will line up in the end!

Dean on 25 July 2019

Philosophy Major

Hey Peter I'd just like to say thank you so much for your wonderful work on the podcast. I started getting into philosophy a little over a year ago when I was 17 and did som very basic research on my own which mostly included watching videos, reading wikipedia entries, and reading a few books. I started to listen to your podcast around February of this year and I am only up to episode 250, but your podcast has partly inspired me to try and become a philosophy professor and I am heading off to my first year of undergraduate school this September. I plan on majoring in philosophy and then attempting to get my masters and PhD. Although I am more interested in modern philosophy I still find your podcast episodes very interesting and it has shown me that ancient and medieval philosophy can be very interesting. I especially liked the episodes on Abelard. This summer I have read De Anima and I am reading Fear and Trembling as the existential philosophers interest me very much.Thanks for making such a great impact on me and maybe if you're not done with the podcast by the time I receive my PhD and get a position at a university in 12 years or so I will be able to come on the podcast.

In reply to by Dean

Peter Adamson on 26 July 2019

Major success

Thanks, that's amazing! Exceeds my wildest hopes and expectations in terms of the podcast's impact. If you haven't seen it you might want to check out this blog post I did on working towards a career in philosophy.

Xaratustrah on 4 July 2019

Privation

Hi Peter,

I am not sure if we discussed the idea of "privation" anywhere in Aristotle or Thomas. Would love to finally understand it, or at least to make sure they all use it in the same way. It seems that Cusa also did say something about it, not sure. Do you plan to cover that?

cheers!

In reply to by Xaratustrah

Peter Adamson on 4 July 2019

Privation

I probably talked about it in episodes 38-39 on the basics of Aristotle on substance and change; maybe I didn't use the word "privation" but it definitely came up. Of course I have also talked a lot about non-existence. I guess with Cusa I will talk about it under the heading of learned ignorance.

Roy Albin on 30 June 2019

Yay we made it

I've listened to all of the episodes in this European Focus track and I'm excited we finally hit the Renaissance and really like the way you laid out what you're going to do for the next year or two along these lines. I know this is a bigger project than what you originally thought of but I have enjoyed it today and I'm really looking forward to what new understandings you're going to bring to the Renaissance thinkers

C Kheser-John on 20 June 2019

Renaissance Timeline

Minor point - Marsilio Ficino is listed twice -

Looking forward to podcasts!

In reply to by C Kheser-John

Peter Adamson on 20 June 2019

Double Cap-Ficino

Right! Someone else pointed it out on Twitter too, already fixed it. Glad you are excited about the series!

Gavin on 6 June 2019

Philosophy of Quantum Physics

Is this a thing?  I mean colloquially it seems to be.  But it should be a thing.  How is this not a thing?  Quantum physics or study of the nature of reality at fine detail brings up the nature of reality itself.  That's pretty heavy philosophy.  Eat your heart out Brian Green, Feynman had his day.  Let's get on this one.  Also what if ..... such a small question had big implications?  

In reply to by Gavin

Peter Adamson on 6 June 2019

Philosophy of quantum physics

Oh my, yes, this is most definitely a thing. There is a major field of contemporary philosophy usually just called philosophy of physics and they do a lot of thinking about quantum theory; also it is routinely discussed in more general philosophy of science. But of course it won't come up on this podcast for a long time! For a primer on this you could look at the page on quantum mechanics on the Stanford Encyclopedia: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm/

In reply to by Gavin

Emily on 7 June 2019

Meet Me In the Middle

There is a wonderful book by Professor Karen Barad (PhD in Particle Physics) entitled Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. It deals with this topic in an accessible and exciting manner (if I can understand it, you can, too!). Her chapter on Agential Realism addresses some of Feynman's work.

Side note: Dr. Barad has written extensively on LGBT issues. As this is Pride Month here in the US, I am proud to recommend this excellent work from a member of our LGBTQIA community.

Andrew on 11 May 2019

First 30 Episodes

Greetings!  I was introduced to this podcast from the interview on The History of Byzantium podcast.  I'd like to get started in the series, but I notice the first 30 episodes are missing on the Apple podcast library.  It begins with episode 31.  Why is that?  I realize I can download directly from the website, but I like to keep all the podcasts in one place and it's more convenient for me to listen to it on the Podcast app.

Thanks for your consideration and all you do!

In reply to by Andrew

Peter Adamson on 11 May 2019

iTunes limit

Yes, this is a lamentable but unavoidable consequence of the rules at iTunes, who only allow 300 episodes to be visible on the iTunes store for any podcast. So it just shows the most recent 300 episodes (of course we only learned this once we posted our 301st episode!). But if you subscribe via iTunes rather than clicking on individual episodes, that will give you access to the whole feed.

Dan on 1 May 2019

Xunzi

Hi Prof. Adamson, I'm not sure if you've gotten this far with the series on Chinese philosophy, but I was wondering if there's a tentative list of episode topics yet. If so, will the Confucian philosopher Xunzi get his own episode?

In reply to by Dan

Peter Adamson on 1 May 2019

Xunzi

Hi there! Karyn and I don't have a list yet but we will put one up once the series is closer to launch. I am pretty confident that we will cover Xunzi extensively but I don't know yet whether we'll do Confucianism by theme, covering the contributions of Xunzi and others on each theme in every episode, or go figure by figure. My sense is that Karyn has approached things more thematically in the past but that in itself could be a reason to go figure by figure.

Matthew O Weber on 26 April 2019

Putting the Podcast on Google Play

Hello Mr. Adamson et al.,

I have really loved listening to your podcast. Unfortunately, I am currently using Google play to listen (as opposed to different methods that I have used in the past) to podcasts, but I cannot find yours there. I believe the process of adding your podcast to their system is pretty quick and easy by going here:

https://play.google.com/music/podcasts/publish

I tried to add it, but it also requires a verification via email, so you may have already received an email (it uses whatever is embedded in the RSS feed).

Thanks,

Matt

In reply to by Matthew O Weber

Peter Adamson on 28 April 2019

Google play

Many thanks for this suggestion, which I would like to follow up. I did get the link in an email but it told me the service is not available from Germany. I'll see if I can figure something out.
 

In reply to by Peter Adamson

Peter Adamson on 29 April 2019

More Playing with Google

Update: thanks to web support master Julian it looks like we are probably going to be able to get both feeds on Google Play. Please keep an eye out let me know if it turns up! It is still being approved by Google now, I think.

Eric Kaplan on 18 April 2019

aphorisms, proverbs, parables

 What are your favorite cross-cultural works of aphorism, proverb, and parable?



I am wanting to read up on this.  Also -- do you have any thoughts or have you read anything on what is behind these genres, and what makes the good ones good?  Obviously, memorizability is part of it -- but why are some things easy to memorize?

In reply to by Eric Kaplan

Peter Adamson on 19 April 2019

Aphorisms

Great question because it is something philosophers don't think about a lot but has been very important in the history of philosophy. One of my favorite examples was the text "Secundus the Silent Philosopher" which we covered in episode 8 of the Africana series, but I've also worked on Kindi's report of the aphorisms of Socrates, and one might also think of Nietzsche for a more recent example of a thinker who writes aphoristically. I agree that memorability is really important but I don't really have a theory about this to offer - except maybe that a good aphorism often has the features of a good joke, like striking reversal or contrast. Maybe others would like to pitch in with their own favorite examples.

In reply to by Eric Kaplan

Emily on 25 April 2019

Truth Be Told

I think a good aphorism - like a good joke - works because it's based in truth, pleasant or otherwise. Memorability is also strongly linked to emotional resonance. We easily remember - and have difficulty forgetting - words and phrases that evoke emotional responses.

Voltaire produced several perennially pithy aphorisms, some politically poignant presently:

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

"It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong."

"Common sense is not so common."

And then just a nice, happy, hopeful one:

"Let us read, and let us dance; these two amusements will never do any harm to the world."

And let us not forget Confucius ...

"Silence is a true friend who never betrays."

Emily on 12 April 2019

Research Implications

Hi Peter,

One of the many things I enjoy about your podcasts is they get me thinking about ideas I normally wouldn't come across in my daily life. Having recently familiarized myself with basic research terminology for an exam - P value, null hypothesis, independent and dependent variables, confidence intervals and the like - I began wondering how scientists today, both hard and soft, reconcile the existence and/or involvement of God in their research. I realize this may be more of a theology question than a philosophy question, but so much of what you have covered in the evolution of philosophy seems to involve humankind developing a system to investigate/justify/explain the ineffable.

Recently, there have been interesting comments left by mathematicians and other scholarly listeners, and I'm curious how God factors into modern day research, if at all, for those involved. In my limited academic endeavors, I've run across beautifully designed studies that yielded results no one could have anticipated, as well as unethically funded, poorly designed studies rife with sampling bias, that still would not yield the researchers' desired results. Do modern scientists who believe in the existence of God characterize God in the vein of Teilhard de Chardin, with human scientific advances moving us higher and higher to an Omega point, or do some see God as "tri-personally" involved directly in their research? Could God be considered the ultimate confounding variable in our perpetual randomized clinical trial? And is there a current school of philosophy or a particular philosopher who is focusing on that area of inquiry today?

Full disclosure, I am no longer a religious person (although I do enjoy the occasional ritual and the smell of burning incense from time-to-time), but I am truly fascinated by the metaphysical world and open to the possibility of God's involvement at both the micro and macro level in our messy, complicated little lives.

Thank you for your time and patience. I always enjoy reading your responses, as well as those from your listeners, to comments from people like myself - those of us tentatively unfurling our philosophical tendrils - as well as to the deeply-rooted philosophical sequoias with whom you engage in sophisticated technical and analytical discussions. I never fail to learn something!

Gratefully,

Emily

In reply to by Emily

Peter Adamson on 13 April 2019

God and science

Hi Emily,

Thanks for your very kind words about the podcast! That's a great question though I don't have a correspondingly great answer. I guess two familiar approaches would be the scientist who is religious on Sunday, as it were, but doesn't try to bring together faith and research; or the "God of the gaps" model where the divine is used to explain whatever science doesn't cover. Obviously one could start there with things that empirical science doesn't address, e.g. morality or whatever. I'd guess a lot of scientist theists just think of themselves as studying the majesty of God's creation using reason - which is for instance exactly what a figure like Averroes thought of himself as doing so they would be in good company.

In reply to by Peter Adamson

Emily on 15 April 2019

The God Cell

Thank you, Peter. I think that was a great answer - and very helpful!
I will let Averroes and Aristotle inform my thinking on the relationship between God and science.

"Some think that the soul pervades the whole universe, whence perhaps came Thales's view that everything is full of gods [and water]." -- Aristotle

Bruce Clark on 4 April 2019

feedback

Just want to compliment you on this. What a wonderful resource. THe podcasts are so well written and, for those of us with less of a background , are clear and concise. Can't believe you're allowing us access for free. Congratulations and all the best.

Bruce from NZ

ps have heard Prof Adamson on "In Our Time" and found his explanations to be of the same order.

Daniel Ahlsén on 30 March 2019

Philosophy of mathematics

Hi Peter!

First off: your podcast is great. To do a history of philosophy without any gaps in such an accessible way is very impressive.

I have a question/suggestion. Will you be doing any work on the philosophy of mathematics in the future?

What springs to mind is the Grundlagenkreise in the early 20th century, culminating in Gödel's incompleteness theorem and intuitionism (a long time away). But both Kant and Mill developed interesting takes on mathematics. Frege developed predicate logic primarily to complete his, ultimately failed, attempt to reduce mathematics to pure logic. There is also the debate over the status of infinitesimals (infinitely small numbers), the arithimetization of analysis, and the new role of mathematics in natural philosophy, starting in the Renaissance.

The reason I ask is that it would be interesting to hear about these issues in a larger philosophical context: a historical take on them, so to say.

Cheers,

In reply to by Daniel Ahlsén

Peter Adamson on 30 March 2019

Philosophy of mathematics

Thanks, glad you like the podcast! Yes, I would certainly do that when (if) I get that far, you can't really understand Frege, Russell and early analytic philosophy without getting into mathematics quite a bit. It might be worth flagging that I've discussed mathematics already a number of times here on the podcast, e.g. in the episodes on the Pythagoreans, late ancient science, Islamic musical theory, the various treatments of astronomy/astrology, and especially the episode on the 14th century Calculators. Of course this was more about what was seen as "mathematics" in these earlier periods but my point is that it is already an abiding theme of the podcast and will continue to be so.

Peter Adamson on 29 March 2019

Gopnik

Oh yes, we actually discuss Gopnik's original article on that in episode 60 of the India series.

In reply to by Peter Adamson

Emily on 29 March 2019

Replay

I will go back and listen - thanks!

Emily on 28 March 2019

Book Review

Hi Peter,

When Googling the phrase "the cudgel of religion," I came across this latest work from David Farrell Krell - The Cudgel and the Caress: Reflections on Cruelty and Tenderness.

https://books.google.com/books?id=bXiJDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA82&lpg=PA82&dq=the+…

I thought he might be a philosopher with whom you would be familiar and wondered if you had any comments on his latest endeavor. Do you think his work would be accessible reading for a non-academic like me? It ain't cheap and I would hate to spend money on an exercise in self-perplexion (unless it was Maimonides' guide!).

Thank you,

Emily