In reply to What will the cutting off point for Classical China?? by dukeofethereal
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.
In reply to Cutting off point by Peter Adamson
Neo-Daosim timeline included > ?
By any chance will you and Karyn Lai discuss Neo-Daoism (Xuanxue) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neo-daoism/ ? So culminating with the JIn Dynasty (266-420 C.E) - I recommend checking Dao Companion to Xuanxue by Springer.
In reply to Neo-Daosim timeline included > ? by dukeofethereal
Neo-Daoism
I think that is after where we'll finish, we were talking about doing up to 2nd c CE. So that's the sort of thing a second series on China would start with. Thanks for the reading suggestion!
I love your podcast and have…
I love your podcast and have learned so much from it. I had already thought myself better-educated than the average bourgeois bohemian, who thinks religion is bunk and history began with the French Revolution and culminated in Marx. But I had no idea of the role of Byzantium in transmitting philosophy to the Arabs or the Italians, and shamefully had no idea of the Roman Empire as continuous through it. I also did not appreciate the extent to which philosophy today follows along lines laid down by Aristotle. I got a decent education in the moderns, but not much of the ancients.
I think, however, you make an error in globalizing what you are calling philosophy, a misnomer for what are wisdom traditions that command respect as foundational of entire ways of life, but which are not at the origin of the sciences that have decisively transformed the world, and which began in ancient Greek thought. Czeslaw Milosz characterizes "that little peninsula" of Western Europe as having conquered the world through technology that has natural philosophy to thank for its emergence, and he does not shrink from the fact that he praises the West at Poland's expense, Copernicus notwithstanding. One commentator on your website argued that the Torah should be seen as "philosophy," as though it is not enough that we have originated monotheism and the ethics of billions of which it is the source, but must must claim everything as our own and allow nothing its distinctive privilege of being different. There is a kind of talking down to others and not believing what we are saying when we label wisdom traditions "philosophy." Besides, between you and me, the argument that the Torah is philosophy is a politically loaded argument aimed at that Western philosophy that is simply a reiteration of Christianity at a secular level, claiming a universalism that denigrates particularity of all kinds. This is an internal Jewish debate pitting liberal democracy against Jewish nationalism, but a leveling of all wisdom traditions into philosophy is an insult to particularity of another kind. (There is no "solution" to the question around which this internal Jewish debate turns.) Give credit where credit is due, I say. If every culture has labored to produce something of its own, the Greeks and the Western Europeans should not be robbed of this in the name of a misguided notion of equality.
In reply to I love your podcast and have… by Brad R
Globalizing philosophy
Firstly, glad you like the podcast! Secondly, leaving aside the thing about the Torah which seems like a digression, I guess you must be talking about the coverage of Indian and Africana (and upcoming, Chinese) traditions? If so I think I would want to hear more about why "philosophy" is a word that can be applied only to thought that is tracable back to ancient Greece. If you are confronted with, say, an Indian text that discusses the sources of reliable knowledge and asks whether testimony is such a source; or the debate between Confucian virtue ethics and Mohist consequentialism, what word would you want to use if not "philosophy"? Seems sort of like encountering a furry animal that barks and refusing to call it a dog because it comes from the wrong country.
Obviously there is a further question about how far to push the notion of philosophy, e.g. should we have covered things like Tantra or oral African traditions (in that case, we of course thoroughly discussed the debate over whether to consider these as "philosophy" so there was a lot of meta-level discussion). But I don't really see it as a viable, or even intelligible, position to deny that philosophy was done in contexts like ancient India and China. Of course philosophy in those contexts may have been done in a larger framework that included religion or holistic issues about how to live, but that was true of ancient Greek and medieval European philosophy too, so I don't really see how that consideration would lead us to apply the term "philosophy" in one case and not the other.
In reply to I love your podcast and have… by Brad R
My own two cents
First - Depending on what you count as philosophy and where you are looking exactly, I wouldn't say that philosophy today follows the lines laid down by Aristotle. Sure, in a broadly anglo-american analytic context this might broadly be true (with the addition of Aesthetics as its own discipline), when we include stuff from outside that specific tradition (like a lot of what is lumped under "continental philosophy"), sure they may be still concerned with a lot of those issues, but wouldn't divide up philosophy into these neat separate disciplines. Not to mention the so called "death of metaphysics" that a lot of 20th century philosophy proclaimed, which was pretty central to Ancient, Mediaeval, and Early Modern Philosophy.
Second - One the one hand, isn't a lot of the modern sciences a result of precisely breaking away from the natural philosophy developed by "the Greeks", if we are going to lump them all in together as having the same ideas when who we are most likely just referring to is Aristotle? Whereas Aristotle's natural science was based off, at its foundation, his metaphysical concepts of telos, nature(s), essence(s), form(s) etc. modern science explained the world through rejecting (or if not rejecting then at least relocating them beyond its domain) these concepts as valid explanations and substituted for them (originally with Newtonianism anyway) a much more mechanistic explanation. This isn't to deny that ancient greek thought had an influence on the emergence of modern science, just that the relationship is far more complicated than just the idea of continuity and development implied by saying it begun with ancient greek thought. On the other hand, some of what you are terming "wisdom traditions" did have a role to play in the development of modern science (I'm not going to argue this point in-depth since I haven't studied modern philosophy (or formally any philosophy for that matter) or the scientific revolution, but when I make this claim I am primarily thinking of the origin of zero from India (a pretty important concept for modern mathematics and science in my book anyway), Leibniz being a self proclaimed sinophile (and a side note himself recognizing what the Chinese were doing as philosophy as well) etc.)
Third - The ancient Greeks themselves would disagree that they originated philosophy. Sure, they coined the term, but they also said that philosophy actually originated from Egypt, not with them.
Fourth and finally - while you have mostly put importance on the development of the modern world as to why you call one philosophy and the other "wisdom traditions" and just "ways of life" (the reasons why such a distinction falls apart in my previous points but just to give direct arguments - I wouldn't really say that the Stoics for example really have an important role to the development of modern science, but from another angle could be just called a "wisdom tradition for a way of life" given how influential their ethics have been, and that developments from the other parts of the world are instrumental to the development of modern science (see paper for a big example) and a (admittedly questionable influence) of other cultures' philosophy on both modern philosophy (Leibniz again) and (more questionably) science (thinking of zero again)), content wise I don't see why we should make a distinction here - it is just quite clear (to me anyway) when you look at what other ancient cultures were doing that you would call it philosophy just based on its content.
In reply to My own two cents by Andrew
Timeline
When hovering over the timelines button at the top of the website, it lists Renaissance twice
In reply to Timeline by Andrew
Timeline
True! Thanks for catching that. Better twice than not at all but we'll fix it.
podcast appearance
Hey Peter,
I just discovered a podcast called Robinson’s podcast and noticed that you were on in April re. a discussion of Plotinus and Porphyry (a current topic of interest for me, e.g. went back through the appropriate chapters in Philosophy in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds before trying to plow through The Enneads). I was just curious as to why you didn’t do a blog post mentioning that (or I missed it), i.e. should I save that hour and half for plowing ? :-)
In reply to podcast appearance by Karl Young
Robinson's podcast
Oh you may be right, I think I added it under my podcast appearances (under "links" below) but may have forgotten to put it up on the blog. If you're interested in Neoplatonism I hope it would be useful, sure - it's quite a wide ranging discussion of the topic.
In reply to Robinson's podcast by Peter Adamson
Robinson’s podcast
Thanks, that indeed was a good one; among other things I enjoyed the reminder of the Neoplatonist’s takes on the infinite/finite time universe debates. But the disputes on who’s fundamental principle is more ineffable can get a little dizzying !
And in this time of the reign of analytic philosophy it was nice to hear that the arguments of Porphyry et al re. animal rights (well, I guess in Porphyry’s case more about the effect on humans re. the disposition of humans toward animals) resulted in some actual soul searching (so to speak…).
Byzantine Music
The link for the music you used for the Byzantine series is broken
In reply to Byzantine Music by Andrew
Link
Oh thanks, that can happen easily of course - I will see if I can fix it.
books!
Hi Peter, love the podcast but love the books even more! I haven't seen anything recently about the first Africana book; I'm assuming that's the only one even close to being published, but any news would be great!
In reply to books! by Brian
First Africana book
Yes that's right, I hope we'll be sending it to the publisher soon; and then the next one would be the Reformation volume but obviously that will take a while since we still have most of Britain and the whole Counter-Reformation to cover in the actual podcast. Glad you like the series!
What happens after
Hey Peter,
I know this is still quite far away, but considering how never ending potentially this project this podcast is, what will happen when you feel or just can't continue it anymore? Maybe someone else will take over? Or will the podcast just stop?
In reply to What happens after by Andrew
After
Now that is a good question. One I have occasionally pondered, but it's really hard to say; I think it would depend on what the situation is when I stop. Like, if I manage to reach a satisfying ending point while health and energy allow - I turned 50 last year and I guess I have at least 15 more years worth of series planned, so this is not something we can take for granted - then probably that would be a wrap and I would focus on trying to ensure that it remains accessible into the foreseeable future. I would hate to inflict it as a project on anyone else! But the transition from the History of Rome podcast to the History of Byzantium, with a different host and also excellent, shows that in theory this can be done.
In reply to After by Peter Adamson
After
What would constitute a satisfying ending point though? Like, I know there has already been a lot of philosophy done, but it feels like the further we go along, the more fractal philosophical movements become. The 20th century alone I could probably many different currents and rabbit holes of thought that may just be as long as this podcast has been. Guess that depends on how sensitive we are as to how we measure what a gap is though. It is a bit like the coastline paradox if you have ever heard of that.
Like to take a few examples, there is phenomenology, existentialism, psychoanalysis, structuralism, poststructuralism, the many directions marxism was taken in by many thinkers both "east" and "west" insofar as those are meaningful terms, the many strands of feminism both as its own tradition insofar as it makes sense to say there is a single tradition which there isn't really and feminist influenced versions of basically every other movement, posthumanism, post-marxism, process philosophy, movements that the history of philosophy has largely forgotten about like british idealism etc. Then there is the tiny pockets of thought as well, like the madrid school, and not so small pockets like the Frankfurt school which lead to critical theory which is its own beast. This is not to mention anything of analytic philosophy, which has its own detailed history I am sure. And ones that exist outside of this continental/analytic divide like pragmaticism. Then there would be the huge impact of maoism to cover as well. Speaking of which, there is also all the millions of currents and pockets that exist outside of this eurocentric list I have made, like America, both north and south, not to forget Japan and China trying to grapple with modernity and their own history, like the kyoto school. And to put the cherry on top, this little thing called fascism (for how much we can say there was any philosophical substance worth anything at all in its contents), which definitely would be a messy thing to grapple with.
I did say a few examples, but there would be so many more stuff to list, like the philosophers in the soviet union for example like Evald Vassilievich Ilyenkov and the many people we wouldn't usually call a philosopher who did do interesting philosophy (I am thinking here for example of the many physicists of the 20th century like Albert Einstein). The 20th century is absolutely dizzying. Just the 20th century alone is part of what I meant by a theoretically endless project. What would count as a satisfying end point, given all that and the question of when it bleeds over from the history of philosophy into just contemporary philosophy?
In reply to After by Andrew
20th century
Hm, that is a pretty convincing case for just stopping at 1900, isn't it?
In reply to 20th century by Peter Adamson
Wish it wasn't
What have I done haha. I believe the 19th century itself is also quite chunky (but obviously not to the same extent) but I probably should stop myself before the stop date is pushed further back. I can see why that would be convincing but also feel like I have shot myself in the foot here since there is so much interesting stuff in the 20th century.
In reply to 20th century by Peter Adamson
Proper counter-argument
So, stopping right before the 20th century might be unsatisfying for multiple reasons. First of all, it is just using an arbitrary date to cut off whatever the narrative will be when we have (if we do) get there, especially since a lot of 19th century thought does lead to 20th century (history doesn't care for our arbitrary way of measuring it), Marxism is the perfect example. Second, it would definitely feel like you would just be stopping right at a cliff hanger. I mean, a lot of 20th century philosophy is all about reexamining the "western" tradition, root and branch, and critiquing it from many different directions (a lot of talk among some philosophers of trying to overthrow metaphysics, either through existential phenomenology like with Heidegger, deconstruction with Derrida, linguistic and logical analysis from the analytic tradition etc.) and I definitely feel like using what we have learned through what we have covered it would be extremely interesting to hear your opinion about their views. Related to the second but finally, you said yourself you were interested in getting to the 20th century in your AMA because you didn't understand them yourself but was interested in finding out more (I think you were specifically talking about "postmodern" philosophers, a term I avoided in the previous list since it isn't actually that good of a term really, but they are part of the 20th century so my point holds).
In reply to Proper counter-argument by Andrew
Stopping point
Yes, that's convincing too! Actually any stopping point would be dissatisfying for similar reasons: if this project has shown anything it is the continuity of philosophy and its development. I think that, since these decisions are so far in the future for me, the sensible thing would be not to commit to anything one way or another for now; I would love to do "everything" but don't underestimate the difficulty, or even unfeasibility of that.
In reply to Stopping point by Peter Adamson
Guess so. But still…
Guess so. But still important to think about in the meantime I think. I do very much hope you get to at least some of it anyway, it would just be fascinating I think to hear your opinion of what these 20th century philosophers are trying to do with the tradition after going through the entirety of it and considering just how immersed you have been with "western" metaphysics (I know you technically specialised in Islamic world philosophy but you are also a professor in ancient, late antiquity, and medieval philosophy as well right? And you probably do have, if not a professor level knowledge, then some knowledge of modern philosophy (Descartes onward I mean, not contemporary philosophy) as everyone had to study that just by doing a philosophy degree I believe. Other gaps you might have would be cleared up as the podcast goes along I think. That gives a huge range for the tradition they are grappling with, no? The 18th-19th centuries would also be very exciting for similar reasons, given that the 18-19th centuries was also a big time for philosophers to grapple with the tradition as a whole, thinking of Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche etc.)
In reply to Guess so. But still… by Andrew
My own gaps
Yes, exactly - I had the fortune to go to Notre Dame for my PhD which actually required doing a big exam on the whole history of philosophy and for that, plus some courses both at undergrad and grad level, I did learn a fair amount about early modern; I also took courses on both "continental" and history of analytic philosophy. Just being at KCL from 2000-2012 I also picked up a lot about contemporary analytic philosophy and had colleagues doing early modern too. (There was a lot less "continental" going on in London though, so I haven't really looked at Hegel and onward since, like, 2000 - I'm pretty rusty on these authors.) Anyway, I'd say that where with antiquity and the middle ages I had lots of knowledge with some gaps, once we got to the Renaissance it was more like I had lots of gaps with some knowledge. By advancing so slowly I think or at least hope that I have time and capacity to get my head around it all, so I am learning as I go, along with the audience!
Combahee River Collective
Hey Peter,
Are you going to cover the Combahee River Collective? They were a Black feminist lesbian socialist organisation in Boston USA. Just learned about them recently and seeing that they were the ones who coined the term "identity politics" they seem like they would be an important group to cover in the history of Africana podcast. I'm guessing they are going to be covered in the Black Feminists episode right?
In reply to Combahee River Collective by Andrew
CRC
That's funny you ask because the last thing I read for the podcast was literally a book about the Collective. Yes, they will feature prominently in the Black Feminism episode!
In reply to CRC by Peter Adamson
Black feminist groups + Sankara
Nice! You know, it is a small shame. There probably are so many interesting black feminists, both individuals and groups that both a. I don't know about and b. would deserve so many episodes on their own but they only get one episode. I feel like someone could do an entire podcast on Africana thought that could be as long as this entire podcast as a whole, both the western and non western tracks (well, now that I think about it, africana philosophy, especially 20th century africana philosophy, isn't really separate from western philosophy is it? Guess it depends on how you interpret what "western" means, putting aside how problematic that category is).
Anyway, since I have you here, have you ran past the idea of going over Sankara with Chike? I am really curious if you will cover him.
In reply to Black feminist groups + Sankara by Andrew
Feminists
Well actually we will have the general episode on Black Feminism and further episodes looking at specific figures like Lorde and Davis. So there will be quite a lot of coverage of this.
We haven't decided on Sankara yet but thanks for the reminder!
In reply to Feminists by Peter Adamson
Brixton
Speaking of reminders since we are on the topic of black feminism, will the Brixton Black Woman's Group be covered?
Also forgot about the individual episodes, so my bad. Still though, there probably is a podcast worth of episodes just as long as the 20th century series episodes that could be dedicated to black feminism alone.
In reply to Brixton by Andrew
Brixton
Yes, thanks to the previous conversation I made a note to touch on the Brixton group. But you're right, there is so much to cover it is hard to know where to stop! Obviously not a unique problem in this series or the project as a whole...
A GAP?!?!
Any note to y’all would be remiss if I didn’t start with many thanks. You have produced something truly remarkable (and terribly punny). The podcasts remain, for me, an intellectual highlight.
You did however “miss” (or at least reduced to background status) one of the most important African American political thinkers (and my personal hero). Sure, you mention Rustin, but his uniqueness and impact in the Civil Rights movement is almost impossible to overlook. Here is a pacifist who went to jail rather than serve in even a support position in WWII (his letter to the draft board is, as all Rustin’s writing cogent, piercing, and well reasoned). As AP Randolph’s right hand, he was also a man at the center of political power. Not only did this include planning the cancelled March on Washington, through which he and Randolph won concessions from the FDR, but also the principle organizer of the more famous one in 1963. He was also the man who pushed Randolph to push Robeson out of the movement for fear of the damage he might do.
Here is a thinker who stood astride the whole of 20th century African American politics, pushed to the background because of his sexuality (though in his later years his strong zionism also doubtless played a role). If there is a figure who should be included to fill in tragic gaps, I can’t imagine a more important figure to include. Rustin is long overdue. Perhaps a later filler episode?
Again, all my thanks.
In reply to A GAP?!?! by Jordan Magill
Rustin
Actually we wrestled with that - I remember Chike wondering whether to give him his own episode or cover him in the ones you mentioned, and he opted for the latter simply because we were trying to keep the total number of episodes down. But you are right, he was an important figure and maybe we should do more on him in the book version.
Two things
Hey Peter, I was wondering - are you going to cover Thomas Sankara? He was another African revolutionary and Pan-African. I looked and I don't think there has been any mention of him anywhere on the website. Is there nothing interesting to cover with him? I would be surprised if that was true.
The other thing is that the comments link at the bottom of the home page of the blog leads to 404 page.
In reply to Two things by Andrew
Sankara
Thanks for the question! I'll run the idea about Sankara past Chike, who may already have that on his radar (I tend to find that he usually does). And we'll fix the broken link, thanks.
British Renaissance/Reformation - Francis Bacon
I would like to hear in particular about Bacon's distinction between active Hebraic inquiry and passive Aristotelian receptivity, a distinction I heard he has made. If my information is incorrect, I would be happy to be corrected. At a minimum, I would like to know where in Bacon this distinction can be found, if indeed he makes it. I would be happy to learn about that in a reply to this comment, if you know the answer. Thank you for your work on this podcast.
In reply to British Renaissance/Reformation - Francis Bacon by Brad R
Active vs passive
Interesting! I don't know about that off the top of my head but I'll keep a look out for it when I get to Bacon.
philosophy
Thank you for a most impressive web-site!
I live in South Africa and had no idea that that Africa boasts such an impressive gallery of philosophers. Not to mention Indian & Byzantine philosophers!
Is it the sheer volume of your work that has kept you from going beyond the Reformation or are there other reasons why your website does not seem to include post-Reformation philosophers?
In reply to philosophy by Jan Reinecke
Post-Reformation
Don't worry, I'm getting there! The most recent episodes have been on the Renaissance/Reformation but after that I'll move on to the 17th century. Glad you are excited by the range of the project!
Hey Peter, Not to saddle you…
Hey Peter,
Not to saddle you anything more than all the great stuff you already provide but I was wondering if there might ever be the possibility of posting a super index for the books on the website. When you refer to a thinker you’ve discussed in the past in one of the episodes, it’s easy to find the volume and section for the big names. But sometimes you mention an idea associated with a less well known thinker and don’t have time to mention their dates. I know it’s easy to look them up re. the podcast index. But (as a geezer) I sometimes find it easier (and faster) to grab one of the books and skim there for a little more on that idea. No worries if that seems unreasonable; just wanted to float the idea…
In reply to Hey Peter, Not to saddle you… by Karl Young
Index
Hm, interesting idea. I think it would be more useful for topics than figures (I mean, you know which volume to find Thomas Aquinas in, or whoever). Would be a lot of work to compile it all though...
Popular culture and Descartes
Thought you might enjoy this, from Mad Magazine, late 60’s
Stuck with me all these years..
In reply to Popular culture and Descartes by Dave Ewanchuk
Descartes
Nice! Here is the link:
In reply to Popular culture and Descartes by Dave Ewanchuk
Islamic Jurisprudence
Peter,
Good evening - long time listener to your series here, and have enjoyed it immensely. I tend to drop in on specific episodes, and often revisit those that delve specifically into areas of interest of mine. There is of course so much to consume. I certainly applaud the time, and detail that you take to this process.
My question concerns the meeting point of Jurisprudence and theology with that of philosophy proper, specifically within the Arabic and Islamic traditions. I should mention that I am a student in history more so than philosophy - but the two topics have many fascinating points of overlap. In any case, I have long been fascinated by the divergent ways in which the major figures of Christian theological history have been treated philosophically - be it Augustine, Boethius, Aquinas, Scotus and so forth - as opposed to those within the Islamic sphere. For instance, within the Islamic intellectual sphere Abu Hanifa, Malik ibn Anas, Al-Shari’s, and Ahmad ibn Hanbal assume a position of greater reverence over most anyone, the prophet aside. Yet scant mention is made of any of these figures within most overviews of Islamic philosophy. Later predominant theologians, such as Al-Ghazali, Fakhr Al-Din Al-Razi and others to warrant more consideration. I suppose I am this curious as to whether these four Imams, and originators of jurisprudence in Islam, indeed have any connection to philosophy, or whether their efforts were somewhat aside. I have tried, without success, to determine for instance, was Malik ibn Ana’s familiar with Aristotle - or centuries later did Al-Farabi or Ibn Sina draw any knowledge forth from Al-Shari’i. I have also attempted to discern whether later Latin theologians, specifically those operating within such matters as law - such as Aquinas - were familiar with any of these early Muslim jurists. Would be very curious as to any thoughts you may have.
One additional thought - I have wondered why the jurisprudence transition within Islam is so much greater than that of Christianity. As well as why theology seems to be less of a focus by Muslim’s during the medieval period than Christians. At some point I came across the perspective that Islam was itself such a comprehensive, complete faith - one that through the Qur’an already attempted to address most every concern of life - and those that were missed, the Hadith would take up the task. Whereas, even from the outset, Christianity had a more perhaps patchy, approach to things. Thus, within Islam theologians who carry the proverbial water of explaining entire concepts within the faith were less necessary - but what was needed were interpreters of law. Whereas in Christianity, a less thorough screed opened the door for Augustine, Aquinas and many others to have greater say and influence on the direction of the religion. I have come around to that perhaps too-simplistic interpretation but again would love for someone of your knowledge to weigh in on its veracity.
thank you
In reply to Islamic Jurisprudence by Lowell
Jurisprudence
Yes, couldn't agree more about the philosophical interest of Islamic law. You might have noticed I had an episode on it (number 147) and also I edited a book with de Gruyter called Philosophy and Jurisprudence in the Islamic World. However my impression is that there is not much influence on jurists from what we more narrowly call "philosophy," at least until after Avicenna when his terminology and especially his logical ideas start to infect pretty much all areas of Islamic intellectual activity. So earlier jurists like al-Shafi'i would not, as far as I know, have been thinking about Aristotelianism or anything like that.
As for the point in the last paragraph, I am not so clear on what the purported phenomenon is that we are trying to explain. There was a heck of a lot of theology in the classical period of Islam - we call it kalām, and it was a far more dominant feature of the intellectual scene than philosophy (falsafa) which was quite a marginal phenomenon, culturally speaking. So if the question is "why was there more theological reflection in medieval Christianity than medieval Islam?" I would deny the premise of the question. Actually Muslim theologians have a spur to reflection and argument that medieval European Christians mostly didn't, which is that they were in close contact with Jewish and Christian communities so there was a lot of need for arguments to be used in interreligious debate; and of course there were plenty of debates within Islam between mutakallimūn as well. On the other hand you're right that jurisprudence is very dominant in Islam. Not sure it is more dominant than in Christianity - think of the massive tradition of canon law, legal theory going back to Justinian, etc. (We had an episode on this too in the Medieval series.) But since Islam, like Judaism, is a law-based religion it was always going to have a lot of room for legal reflection and writing.
Your Podcast
Hi there! I recently discovered your podcast on Spotify and I love it! I'm only up to Episode #38 so far, but it's been really fascinating and I'm so glad to see you're still doing it. Thank you for all the philosophy!
In reply to Your Podcast by Kevin Street
Up your street
Great, glad you are enjoying it! You have a long way to go before you catch up with me...
Brixton Black Women's Group
Hey Peter. I have recently found out myself about a group called the Brixton Black Women's Group, and they seem really fascinating, being that some of the founding members were previously active in the British Black Panthers. After reading a pdf of one of their works, I really want to learn some more about them. Do you plan to cover them? I'm guessing that if you are, it would be just a mention in the Black Feminism episode though.
In reply to Brixton Black Women's Group by Andrew Maclaren
Brixton
Oh that's new to me, too. I'll look into it, thanks!
Philosophy of Music
Hi Peter,
Thank you so much for this podcast! I have enjoyed it immensely so far! I joined relatively recently and am not yet up-to-date but I have just reached the end of your coverage of the Italian Renaissance (Episode 370). Where I’m up to you’ve been discussing Galileo and I’m wondering if there will be any coverage of the developments in music and aesthetics soon. Particularly I think Gioseffo Zarlino’s first book of Le institutioni (recently translated by Lucille Corwin) might be of interest as he explicitly uses ideas of form and matter in his conception of music. Zarlino was involved in the church and worked at st marks in Venice. He also studied philosophy and logic under Ligname as well as Greek and son Hebrew. He is a fascinating figure in the history of music and a wonderful blend of music theory and philosophy. His work was based upon antique readings as well as the humanist writings of H Glareanus. Also he was an influential teacher and Vincenzo Galilei was a student of his, who also made important contributions. Anyway, I’m getting a little carried away but I just wanted to put a good word in for some excellent musical philosophers and philosophers who wrote of music (Descartes comes to mind). Alright, thank you so much for the wonderful work you are doing!
Sincerely,
Kai
In reply to Philosophy of Music by Kai Gerbi
Music
Thanks for the suggestion! I am actually coming back to the Italian Renaissance as part of the Counter-Reformation but I am not sure whether this would fit in there, I will think about it. In general we have done some stuff on music in the past, like episode 133 in the Islamic World series; actually in the Africana series there are some episodes coming up where we talk about Bob Marley, Fela Kuti, Sun Ra, etc.
In reply to Music by Peter Adamson
17th century
If you can't fit them in for Reformation, you could still get them in under the series on the 1600's, as the most famous works to be influenced by said writings were operas from the 1600's, so would we well appropriate to have them lead off a wider musical aesthetic episode during that series.
In reply to 17th century by Alexander Johnson
17th century music
Oh that's a nice idea - I think I like that better actually, because I had been thinking about a special episode towards the end of the Reformation series about visual art, so I could save music for the later series. Thanks!
Thanks!
I've immensely enjoyed your podcast and just received Classical Philosophy. Thank you sincerely for your work and attention to detail. Your clever presentation makes me wish I could actually meet your sister. I'm sure she'd have tales to tell.
Franz Xaver
Hi Peter, just wondering, is Franz Xaver missing from the timeline?
In reply to Franz Xaver by xaratustrah
Xavier
Oh yes, I guess I will discuss him when I talk about the Jesuits. I add names to the timeline as I go along, probably there are a number of people missing from the Iberian Counter-reformation.
Ethics Shift
I noticed the focus early on for ethics was built around ethics as the study of the best way to live one's life. But now, the general case is taken to be what is acceptable in society. When and why did this transition take place?
In reply to Ethics Shift by Alexander Johnson
Ethics shift
That's a long story but I guess the short version would be the rise of utilitarianism, which is the ethical theory that has come to dominate public policy thinking. So, 18th or 19th century, I'd say.
Searchable website
+JMJ
Greetings -- Have been enjoying the podcast immensely and learning a lot. I especially enjoy the puns and wordplay! I just delved into this website today -- have been aware of it but not really looked into it. Is there a Search capability? That would be very helpful.
Thanks for all the outstanding work.
Best wishes.
In reply to Searchable website by Fr. John Rickert
Search
I have a search function but I think it is restricted to me as a user (i.e. comes with editorial control over the website). But I don't use it much myself... between the menus and the linked list of "themes" (see the bottom of the page) it should be pretty navigable. What would you be searching for, like, keywords in comments maybe?
A Gap
Peter,
Enormously educational and entertaining series - have enjoyed every episode and have almost caught up to the current releases. I have also been using the ebook versions for the full text search and hyperlinked index features. Here, there seems to be a “gap” - the Kindle version of volume 2 is not available, will it be released at some point?
In reply to A Gap by Dave of Sarasota
Kindle version
Yes this has been pointed out before to me - I flagged the issue for OUP on Twitter but maybe stronger measures are required! I will look into it, thanks. PS I think maybe it is available in some regions (UK?) on Kindle but not others (USA?). I don't use Kindle myself so this is a bit of a mystery to me.
Controversal traditions?
Hey Peter,
I was wondering how far you are going to take your expansive view on philosophy, especially as you get to modern times? So far, most of what you done hasn't attracted controversy as far as I know, outside of maybe the eastern traditions in the islamic world with the whole Persian thing with the Iranian revolution maybe. But I was thinking, if you are going to tackle Marx eventually, what to say for an episode on Lenin or Mao? For Mao, he would be important for Alain Badiou, and there were philosophers in the soviet union (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_in_the_Soviet_Union). How willing would you be to tackle these, despite the definite controversy they would attract? Or what about Nazi philosophers? I am mainly thinking of Carl Schmitt, but there are probably other examples. I am sure there is something to find in Gaddafi as well.
I am putting this more so as a interest in how far the boundries for "without any gaps" is going to go, but also there is (potentially perverse, depending on your perspective) curiosity of you actually covering these people, despite the controvery. I feel the need to say this before I get weird eyes from people.
In reply to Controversal traditions? by Andrew Maclaren
Marx
Oh yes I would obviously need to cover Marx; I think you can't even do the rest of political philosophy without having covered him. And certainly would do Schmitt too - actually here in Germany he is a pretty standard figure to cover in courses on the history of political philosophy, interestingly enough.
I have occasionally entertained the idea of a mini-series at some point on Russian philosophy and Lenin could certainly go there.
Anyway I agree covering figures who were also responsible for many deaths, like Mao and Lenin, is tricky but they need to be understood both as emerging from the history of philosophy and as influencing it, so I wouldn't shy away.
Playing with audio
Hi Peter, just a random thing that popped in my head.
You should find ways to take advantage of the fact that this is a audio medium. You have to some level, like the music video in the islamic world, and that random law and order clip I can't remember which episode it is from, but it has been extraneous to the philosophy so far. To be fair, I don't really know how you could for some of the philosophy you are currently doing but one example in my head would be when explaining the Phenomenological tradition (if you ever get there). I think leverging the medium can help get across (especially Phenomenology) the philosophy in a way that the philosophy isn't usually presented, since most philosophy people encounter is via books.
Just a random thought.
In reply to Playing with audio by Andrew Maclaren
Audio
Yes, that is an excellent point. Actually a wonderful example of what you're thinking about is this episode of the brilliant podcast Hi-Phi Nation. I love the series as a whole and this is one of my favorite episodes.
In reply to Audio by Peter Adamson
Maybe you could do something…
Maybe you could do something with Frantz Fanon? I don't know too much about him, just that he is related to existentialism, which is somewhat related to phenomenology (I know, very airtight right?) and psychoanalysis, which may be more amenable to my suggestion although not as much as phenomenology (don't really know psychoanalysis either).
Will have a listen to that episode. Thanks!
Reformation podcast series
Thanks for this ambitious podcast series. I just noticed that the Reformation series is skipped in the "All Episodes" tab. You may want to add it!
In reply to Reformation podcast series by Jon
Reformation
Hi - thanks but I think it is there. If you scrolled all the way down to the bottom you'd miss it because the Indian and Africana series follow it.
Western philosophy
A suggestion for your Links page: 81 lecture series - A History of Philosophy - Prof Arthur Holmes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yat0ZKduW18&list=PL9GwT4_YRZdBf9nIUHs0z…
Frantz Fanon
Just interested when episodes on Frantz Fanon will appear, and if you will be covering Angela Davis and Kimberlé Crenshaw.
In reply to Frantz Fanon by Simeon
Fanon etc
We'll get to Fanon this summer! Three episodes will be devoted to him, which will run on either side of the summer break: these will be episodes 105-7, with the last of these an interview with Lewis Gordon (we already did it, and it's great!).
And yes we have an episode on Angela Davis planned (#125 or so) and one on Critical Race Theory that will include Crenshaw (#130 or so).
These numbers are obviously subject to change as we add/subtract topics and shift things around but they should be approximately right.
Missing Episodes or Misnumbered Episode?
What happened to Episodes 392 to 395?
In reply to Missing Episodes or Misnumbered Episode? by John Briggs
Oops!
That was a mistake! I put up 395 ahead of time, the sound file is ready but it is not supposed to publish until May 8. It will reappear then, thanks for letting me know.
Trying to remember A particular philosopher
My recollection is that 1 of the Islamic philosophers Believes that God-created the universe And it and everything it can continues to exist simply because God continues to will it. Should GodCease to willSomething or someone's existenceIt would cease to exist instantly.
I thought it was Al razi But I Re listened to that episode and I see that he was the one who believed in the 5 Eternal substances...
No is a great answer but do you happen to recall Who might have Held that unique theory I would love to be reminded.
In reply to Trying to remember A particular philosopher by Roy G Albin
Dependent on God's will
That's a tricky question because the position you're describing was held by so many figures; basically anyone who allows for a "voluntarist" God who creates by arbitrary will rather than necessity. It would fit al-Kindi for instance and I wonder if you are thinking of this passage in the podcast on him:
"Al-Kindī, by contrast, wrote a little treatise defending Aristotle’s conception of the heavens as being made from a unique, indestructible material. This at first seems inexplicable, until we get to a little caveat towards the end of that treatise. Indeed, al-Kindī says, the heavenly spheres are indestructible. So they will exist forever… so long as God wants them to. Here he’s changed the rules, by implying that even a body whose nature is not subject to destruction will vanish if God stops making it exist. This is perhaps why al-Kindī thinks the universe’s eternity is a matter for metaphysical theology, and not physics. It is not the nature of the universe that determines how long it exists, but the will of God."
So that's my guess as to what you're thinking but it would apply to other thinkers too like al-Ghazali for example; it's far from "unique."
In reply to Trying to remember A particular philosopher by Roy G Albin
This view was also widely…
This view was also widely held in Medeval Judaism, most famously by Nachmainidies of Spain. The idea was further developed by Issac Luria and It continues to the present day in many Jewish circles.
Spinoza
I am hoping that you will spend some time on Spinoza soon.
In reply to Spinoza by Alan D Bent
Spinoza
Spinoza will certainly get multiple episodes including an interview, but you'll have to be patient: my plan is to cover the Reformation era around Europe, and then Spinoza will be part of a series of episodes on 17-18th century France and the Netherlands. So, maybe in 2024?
Rhetoric and hermeneutics
Professor Adamson -- Great job on the podcasts. I'm working my way through them (mostly by subject matter, not in chronological order) with enthusiasm.
At the appropriate place in your historical timeline, I hope you do one or more podcasts on Friederich Schleiermacher, Dilthey, and the other early German originators of hermeneutics. In particular, it would be of great interest to hear the historical reasons why rhetoric (but not the theory of interpretation, hermeneutics) assumed a dominant place in the trivium and why the theory of interpretation did not gain footing as a separate discipline until Schleiermacher (or maybe Herder). My guess is that this is in some large measure a function of Aristotle's treatment of interpretation (in On Interpretation) as a matter of the logical form and the logical relations of individual propositions, as contrasted to his far broader characterization of rhetoric as applying to complete texts (speeches, written works, etc.). It's only a guess, and I would welcome your informed views on this. (Apologies if you have covered this turf already, as I've said, I've not heard all of the podcasts.)
Best regards,
Jim Scheuermann
In reply to Rhetoric and hermeneutics by James Scheuermann
Hermeneutics
I'm afraid those figures are a long way off yet, since I am only up to the 16th century. But speaking of that I did just do a podcast episode that referred to an early modern Croatian (!) pioneer of hermeneutics:
I LOVE IT!
I've been reading the first book and I'm so happy to finally have a comprehensive guide of philosohpy through history.
Already bought the whole series but kind of bummed out that all of them except the second are available for Kindle. What's up with that?
In reply to I LOVE IT! by Sebastian
Kindle
Yes, someone else pointed this out, I think it is not available on the US site but is on the UK site, or vice-versa? You might see whether you can get it directly from Oxford University Press rather than Amazon. Anyway glad you like the series!
JB
To notice Valentin Weigel and not Jacob Boehme (d. 1624) is fairly disorderly. In fact, to notice any part of idealism without a competent conspectus of JB is like discussing the world without the Triune God who, as Hegel said, is the only thing worth thinking about.
In reply to JB by R. Schleyer
Boehme
Actually I have struggled a bit with Boehme, I mean, knowing where to put him. It goes without saying that I will cover him in due course (no gaps, after all!), but like many of the thinkers who were active around 1600 it was not so clear to me whether it would be better to cover him as part of the current Reformation series, or later when I get to 17th-18th c German philosophy. But I decided on the latter, basically because of what you are suggesting, namely that he seems to be important as background for figures like Hegel who I will be covering in that future series.
Origins of Philosophy
Hi Peter,
I’m exploring the wonderful world of Ancient Greece and your podcast is one branch that is helping put the puzzle together. I’m neither a scholar or philosopher but listening to the first few episodes I have a question eating away at me and hopefully it isn’t to stupid. You speak of Thales as the first philosopher. If philosophy is understanding the world around us or at least it seemed that way back then before becoming so complex. Wouldn’t the people or person who created the original Greek Gods be considered the first philosopher(s)? Each deity had purpose and explained happenings in the world around them. Also, the ancient Greeks worshipped the Iliad almost as a holy text, who’s to say their wasn’t an old Bard or wise man wandering around making sense of the world and sharing tales of how they believed things worked to the point where it went from story to religion.
In reply to Origins of Philosophy by Maria
First philosophers
Actually, if you have a listen to the early Africana episodes you'll hear that we actually significantly revised this idea of Thales as the beginning of philosophy: not only do we talk about much older philosophical works from ancient Egypt but we even have an episode on the idea of associating philosophical ideas with things like prehistoric cave paintings.
Looking for specific Neoplatonist reference
Dear Peter,
I remember listening to an episode where one of the Neoplatonists was mentioning how we are always connected to “the source” even though it appears we are not (I am muddling the terms for sure). Then another neoplatonist disagreed, saying that if this were true there would be no point in doing philosophy.
I’ve listened back through many episodes but haven’t yet tracked down that moment. Do you by any chance happen to remember which thinker thought we were perhaps always in a state of henosis or something similar?
thanks,
adam
In reply to Looking for specific Neoplatonist reference by Adam Wadley
Undescended soul
I think you are thinking of Plotinus' doctrine of the undescended soul: that the soul maintains a connection to Intellect at all times, but may be unaware of it. This was then rejected by Iamblichus, Proclus, and other later Neoplatonists. The classic study of this is Carlos Steel's The Changing Self.
In reply to Undescended soul by Peter Adamson
THANK YOU
Thank you so much Peter. I am running to get this book as quickly as possible!
Ineffable gratitude!
Adam
Absolutely Great Series!! I love it! except...
I want to congratulate you on an absolutely great series, Peter. It made me look forward to my long commute twice a week.
I just got through the Islamic part, so I'm *way* behind, but I guess that's ok; I'll catch up eventually. :-)
There is some truth to your claim that to a large extent the History of Philosophy *is* Philosophy.
However, there is a slight but important difference: i.e. the main purpose of the entire enterprise.
Maybe it's because I'm a practical engineer; maybe it's because my parents suffered through WWII as teenagers and spent the rest of their lives wondering, "Why did this happen?"
I don't know for sure about WWII (there are lots of good answers to my parent's question), but I am pretty certain that ideas have consequences.
So it was with great interest that I listened to your broadcast on Ibn Khaldun and his theories about the rise and fall of civilizations. He had some great ideas, especially in terms of using empirical evidence to prove his theories, though I think that Islamic fatalism may have tripped him up a bit. As a Catholic Transhumanist, I ask: Why can't the cycle be broken?
The thing is, people are pretty much the same everywhere. Granted, a harsh environment will generate a harsh religion (e.g. Norse and Islam), but incorrect ideas can also lead to fatal behaviors (for the latter, I'm thinking of the Azteks in particular).
My point is this: What is the essence and purpose of philosophy?
It is not to record who came up with which interesting idea, and who was able to criticize that idea in new and different ways. Philosophy is the love of wisdom. Nothing more, nothing less.
Knowing who came up with some idea, and interplay of different aspects of that idea, and what the context all this played out in--i.e. what you talk about a lot in your podcasts is useful because it helps us keep track of the ideas themselves. And now that we know whose idea it was, we know how to look it up. So it's ok.
I just wish (now that it's too late) that you would have put a wee bit more emphasis on the ideas themselves, and a little less on the people.
Oh well, maybe next time around.
OTOH, you have *great* puns! I hope you keep them!
Sincerely.
Tihamer T. Toth-Fejel
In reply to Absolutely Great Series!! I love it! except... by Tihamer T. Tot…
What's the point?
Thanks, glad you like the series so much! I think my answer to your question is that there is no further point or external purpose to philosophy, but that philosophical reflection can be and maybe should be a purpose unto itself. This is of course inspired by Aristotle. My idea here is that if you are reflecting on the most fundamental questions there are, i.e. doing philosophy, it is kind of strange if I come ask you "why are you bothering to do that, and what are you going to get out of it?" I mean, it might have some further purpose (to get/keep a job, in my case, or impress your friends, or more seriously, to achieve some political objective) but it doesn't need to.
hugonauts
where and when are the Hugonaughts from what happened to them. why don't they exist anymore at some point you should probably do a wrap-up episode the quickly talks about the dead forms of Protestantism
In reply to hugonauts by alexis dedpland
Huguenots
Oh they are still coming; we are going to cover Protestantism in France later, as I move through Europe geographically (so far we have been in central Europe and the Low Countries).
Indigenous critique
David graebers book dawn of everything makes interesting argument that the criticism of european philosophy on the part of north american indigenous thinkers was an impetus for enlightenment philosophy in europe
great podcast
Hi,
I discovered this podcast series recently (July of this year) and I enjoy it very much. Very clear presentation and easy for me to understand.
I'm an engineer (at least in my heart), I'm 53 years old, lost my religion (Catholic) about 10 years ago (thanks to Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris) and started to wonder more deeply about what we are doing on this planet. If someone told me that I would be interested in philosophy 30yrs ago, I would laugh. I feel that I missed so much in the meantime but at the same time I'm very excited to discover that this huge void in me that I wasn't ever aware existed, can be filled to a great satisfaction with philosophy, amongst other branches of knowledge.
I listened to every of your episodes since July, but my goal is to also start from the beginning and eventually catch up completely in a year of so.
I also started to read the Bertrand Russell's book 'History of Western Philosophy' a few years ago but that stalled due to my time constraints. I will return to it, after I finish your podcast :).
podcast suggestion
Please make a podcast of the history of western modern philosophy, from Descartes, Hume, Kant to modern philosophers such as Ayer, Wittgenstein and Nietzsche ... even up to more recent philosophers in the 80s and 90s.
I guess that might also be called contemporary philosophy.
In reply to podcast suggestion by dan
Modern philosophy
That's the plan! Well, not sure if I will tackle 20th century philosophy but I certainly hope to cover "modern" philosophy up to the 19th century, if all goes well. But since I go chronologically and don't skip anything, it will take me a while to get to everything you mention here.
add 2x option
please add a 2x audio option as I can't even listen to your podcast on your website on account of how slow you talk
In reply to add 2x option by john john
Need for speed
Really! I'm amazed, because I always thought that I was if anything talking too fast. I don't know whether this is technically possible, maybe you can do it at your end?
Peripatetic podcast
I have been listening to your wonderful podcast on my daily walks. Walking and philosophy are natural companions. I was a philosophy major in my undergraduate days (the late 70s), and back then, I got the history of philosophy with the near two millennium gap. So nice to fill it in! Besides your lucid expositions, Peter, I appreciate the disinguished guests you bring on board to go deeper with selected philosophers. Also love the humor, and references to giraffes and Buster Keaton. Keep up the great work!!
In reply to Peripatetic podcast by Jeffrey Allen
Coming back to philosophy
Thanks, that's great! I really enjoy hearing about listeners who came back to philosophy in part because of the podcast. Glad you are enjoying it!
Re: Episode 002 - The Soul as Breath
Hi there,
Just started listening to your show and I've been enjoying it a great deal. Your comment on Anaximander's notion reminded me of Adriana Cavarero's work in For More than One Voice, where she links these notions to a translation of ancient Hebrew theology that describes the breath of God as what creates the world instead of the word of God.
Thanks for your work,
Zen
In reply to Re: Episode 002 - The Soul as Breath by Zen
Soul as breath
You should definitely check out the Indian philosophy series too then, especially the episodes about the Upanisads and Tantra, which explore the idea of breath as being somehow constitutive of the perosn.
Enjoying the Podcast
Sir,
Been listening to your podcast during my daily lunch walks for several weeks now & am truly enjoying it. The length of the episodes is perfect for an hour long walk away from my desk. The questions raised & the answers provided are enlightening for someone whose education & profession is as a software engineer.
I never realized that philosophers & engineers are similar in that they both use systematic processes to work towards an answer, i.e. asking/answering a series of simpler questions until a more complex idea is developed. A difference being that as an engineer I do in the end need to provide a distinct final answer as opposed to providing material for yet another question.
I do somewhat feel like I’m missing a lot of the concepts simply because there is just so much information, though I know some of it is sticking because I find myself going over some of the ideas in my head on my drive home in the evenings.
Keep up the good work. I’m currently at episode 140 & am looking forward to the rest of the series.
Jeff J. Edelbrock
p.s. in the past 57 years, I have not heard the word giraffe or the name Buster Keaton as many times as I have in the past several weeks.
In reply to Enjoying the Podcast by Jeff J. Edelbrock
Philosophy for engineers
Thanks, that's great that you have found it rewarding. I listen to a lot of podcasts myself, especially about history, so I know what you mean about the challenge of retaining so much information. But if a general overall idea sticks, that is something. Plus of course you will always have Buster and Hiawatha.
“Music”
Peter, I salute your undertaking of this ambitious project. I am approaching the end of what you now have on offer.
The content has been interesting on the whole. I would like to take exception with two points where I find the
presentations fall short.
The interviews with colleagues are most often too long and more lecture than discussion.
Your intro and closing “ music “ is cringe worthy for most of the segments. An exception, the Islamic World.
More melodious music would improve the enjoyment.
Again, thank you for this educational, ambitious and entertaining work.
Carl
In reply to “Music” by Carl
Music
Oh really? I'm surprised you say that, for example I think the Renaissance clip is very beautiful and a lot of people have told me they like the music choices more generally. Well, taste differs. (By the way also bear in mind I am restricted to what I can find copyright free, plus it has to be chronologically appropriate.)
As for the interviews they vary of course but they usually clock in at about 30 minutes and we get through about 7-8 questions (I know this because I give them the questions in advance) so they are actually only speaking for about 4 minutes per answer. Just to make the point that it isn't usually like a lecture.
But I can imagine that some people might like the scripted ones better than the interviews; others vice-versa.
Anyway glad you like the series despite these aspects you aren't so crazy about!
Martin Luther and the Bondage of the Will
Hi Peter. I just listened to your Erasmus–Luther episode. You did a good job treating it from a philosophical background, but I thought you might be interested to have a theological perspective. Luther’s point in talking about the bondage of the will is that we can choose whatever we want, but that every choice will be “turned inward”, that is, selfish and proud. Thus, there is no chance that we would ever, as you put it, choose the things that really matter, but the perspective is different: everything, big and small, has been infected by sin, and thus all decisions are sinful, or, to use the language of the Erasmus–Luther debate, “bound”. What God’s grace does is allow us to recover what we lost in the Garden of Eden: to love God and neighbor. Kind regards.
4 Classical Virtues
I was having a discussion with one of my friends on if the 4 classical virtues (temperance, courage, piety, and justice) are held as such now-a-days. During said discussion, I tried to play around with the definitions a little bit as we may hold the same virtues in other terms, or hold similar virtues still. While I was doing this i noticed that they could be set up in an interesting pair of parallels.
Temperance is resisting pleasures that are bad for us
Courage is enduring pains that are good for us
Piety (or Reverence is the term i had switched it to at the time) is respect for that which is greater than us
Justice is respect for that which is lesser than us (the idea being that it is of greatest concern when one side has the power to enforce an unfair situation).
While these parallels line up nicely, I doubt they came up at the time, but I was wondering if there is prior president for some of these, or the relations between temperance/courage or piety/justice
In reply to 4 Classical Virtues by Alexander Johnson
four virtues
That's clever! It doesn't really ring a bell for me, though your definition of courage there looks a lot like Aristotle's. Maybe someone else can connect it to a historical precedent.
What a great discovery
I randomly came across your podcasts on the history of philosophy a few hours ago, and am now deep into episode 7. Thank you for sharing such a wonderful wealth of knowledge!
In reply to What a great discovery by Amelie
Discoveries
Great, glad you are enjoying it! Plenty of episodes still to come if you are only up to 7. (I think the series actually gets better as it goes along, there was a learning curve.)
Perennial philosophy
Hi Peter,
a couple of times we got very close to the topic of perennial philosophy (Pico, Ficino, Nasr, ...) but I am not sure (although I am a long time listener and have listened to all episodes so far), did you cover it separately somewhere in any of the episodes?
thanks!
In reply to Perennial philosophy by Xaratustrah
Perennial philosophy
No, there is no separate treatment of it; you are right though about it coming up in those episodes. Maybe also worth revisiting on this would be some of the late ancient stuff, like on Iamblichus.
Spotify
This podcast seems like exactly what I needed to build an understanding of philosophy, starting from the very base.
However, I was wondering, do you maintain the Spotify version or is it unofficial? It would be much more convenient for me (and probably for other people who don't use Apple software as well) to listen to that. But there is no mention of it on this website, which is a reason why I hesitate to use it.
In reply to Spotify by Andrei Miculita
Spotify
That should be the same feed as the normal RSS feed, so you can listen to it that way just as you would on any other podcast interface. Enjoy!
Notice the Classical India and Africana series are on a separate feed so on Spotify or any other interface you need to look for the separate series.
Hussites
I'm guessing that Jan Hus and the Hussite's aren't getting an episode? I can't recall if you mentioned them when you did an episode on Wycliff or not.
In reply to Hussites by Zachary
The Hussites
That's right, I touched on them in the Medieval series - actually in the episode right after the one on Wyclif, where I talked about scholasticism across Europe, while talking about Prague.
In reply to The Hussites by Peter Adamson
Right, my mistake. I couldn…
Right, my mistake. I couldn't find Hus on any of the timelines so I couldn't recall if you had or not.
HoP - the early years.
Peter:
I've been listening to this podcast on Spotify for some months - I'm up to HoP 067. It is one of the best podcasts I've followed in the last 10 years. Brilliant!
History of Indian philosophy
I have been listening to your podcast on Indian philosophy lately. While overall it’s a nice effort, one can’t help but sense a constant undertone of a subtle bias and mockery against the Indian thinkers in your voice. Your efforts to play them down are a put off from time to time.
In reply to History of Indian philosophy by Harish Goel
Bias and mockery
Really? That would be very surprising because I loved the classical Indian philosophers and was totally blown away by how amazing they were in every single way. Plus, to state the obvious, I devoted numerous hours of my life every week to producing a podcast about them for several years, not something one would do if one were not enthusiastic about the topic. So you are clearly picking up on something that isn't there; maybe it is just my attempt at a "light" delivery? Anyway I don't think my speaking style would be any different in the Indian series than in the other series, except insofar perhaps as I am sometimes reading Jonardon's words and not my own (we wrote about 50/50 split) so having a harder time getting it to sound natural.
In reply to Bias and mockery by Peter Adamson
Hello Peter, Thanks for…
Hello Peter,
Thanks for your reply - maybe I didn't take the humour and assessment in the right spirit.
First of all, it was surely wrong of me to call your podcast a "nice effort" when it's so interesting - considering I have finished more than 36 episodes in 12 days.
In fact, your series has kindled an interest in me for the Hindu philosophy that I hope to pursue for years to come.
And the best parts were the interviews with the experts.
It's just that I somehow couldn't appreciate references like that of tiger's growl on the tape recorder and how philosopher X or philosopher Y didn't anticipate/ accommodate the possibility of tape recorder playing the tiger's sound.
Thanks again for your podcast and the coverage it offers!!
Regards
Harish
In reply to Hello Peter, Thanks for… by Harish Goel
Tiger's growl
Oh I see. Yes that is just a general feature of the podcast - amusing examples and witty asides (or, depending on your sense of humor, "dad jokes"). Actually I think there are probably fewer such jokes in the India series than in other parts of the podcast.
Africana
Hi Peter,
among the 20th century topics, are you planing to consider NOI / MalcolmX and figures like Fanon in the Africana series?
In reply to Africana by Xaratustrah
Afrciana topics
Indeed! Actually funny you ask about Fanon, I just taught a class on him today and to prepare for that I wrote a draft script already on "Wretched of the Earth"; Chike will be writing one on "Black Skin White Masks" and we're planning an interview on him as well. And we will do Malcolm X as well; in general the coverage will go up to about the 1980s I think.
Aristotle, Demonstration, and Plato’s “ancient quarrel”
Greetings once again. I believe it was in episode 373 where you briefly alluded to Aristotle’s definition of a “demonstration” in his Posterior Analytics. If I understood you correctly, you said that Aristotle says that it is different that a dialectical argument, but actually just a really good one, so good that it couldn’t be questioned. Is that correct? If so, then my question is: what is the relationship between a demonstration and poetry, that is, poetry as understood by Plato in his “ancient quarrel” between poetry and philosophy. In other words, if philosophers used dialectical arguments, then does this imply a relationship between poets and demonstration? Thanks in advance.
In reply to Aristotle, Demonstration, and Plato’s “ancient quarrel” by Andrew Messmer
Poetry and demonstration
That's a complicated question. To start with the relation between dialectic and demonstration, the idea there is that dialectical arguments proceed from "accepted" premises (this too is complicated but basically it means, premises you can get your interlocutor to accept - they don't even need to be true) whereas demonstrative arguments have rock solid foundational principles as their ultimate basis. And also meet some other criteria, e.g. have to be universal, necessary, and always true.
Now, the tradition of commentary on Aristotle tried to fit rhetorical and poetic discourse into the framework of logical "arguments," but it's far from clear that this makes sense, especially with poetry. So for instance you'll find later commentators saying that poetry involves "arguments" whose premises are metaphorical. But Aristotle's Poetics does not present poetry (which means, basically, tragedy since that is what he covers in the text as we have it) in this way, really. He doesn't, in other words, present poetry as an attempt to convince the audience of something, as he does with dialectic, demonstration, and also rhetoric.
Question about a point in the Sorabji interview, 042
I’ve finished the series up to present but I went back to episode 42 because there’s a point Sorabji makes that really bugs me and I wondering if I’ve missed something about the argument.
Sorabji says that a golden mountain won’t exist at any point in infinite time even though it’s conceptually and physically possible, and adds it’s like how that monkey’s typing randomly over infinite time won’t produce the works of Shakespear.
But he seems wrong on both points. On the monkeys, the probablity of typing shakespear is simply (1/(27*numbers of letters in shakespear)) ie greater than zero, for 26 letters and a space bar (assuming the probability of striking each key is the same but unless they always skip a key the probability still won’t be zero). Given an infinite number of key strokes then the probability of occurence is 1. I’m extremely confused why he says otherwise, but he says it with such confidence.
That’s fine but the mountain example might say something more interesting about Aristotle. The conceptually and physically possible mountain implies that there is a finite probability of stocastic geological processes accumlating gold in one spot and eroding it, etc, and so again the probability is definently 1 if you integrate over infinite time - if geological processes are stocastic. But I might be missing an aristotlean point here instead of a statistical one. A counter example, Aristotle doesn’t seem to think that all forms of animal that are conceptually and physically possible will come into being based on what is said in the episode, but based on other episodes I assume that’s because animal forms are teleologically, not stocastically, determined. But still Aristotle talks about mountains deforming around eruptions, etc, so the particular form of the Earth doesn’t seem to a strict teleologically determined thing. I don’t see any reason the gold mountain won’t appear in infinite time - but I’de love to know if I’m missing something. I presume has Sorabji thought abot this more than me.
In reply to Question about a point in the Sorabji interview, 042 by Joseph Byrnes
Golden mountain
I seem to recall that there is a long discussion thread about this golden mountain example on the page for the Sorabji episode, so you might check that out. I'm not a statistician but one thing he might be thinking is this: suppose you roll a 6 sided die 6 times. The probability of rolling a 3 at least once might seem to be 100%, since it is a 1 in 6 chance and you rolled 6 times - but of course it isn't. Instead the more you roll the die, the closer the probability of the three gets to 100%. However it will never be 100%, it only approaches that like an asymptote in geometry.
Still if this is the only problem then it seems you are effectively right: over an infinite number of trials the probability of getting Shakespeare will get at least infinitely close to 100%, if not actually to 100%, which is more or less the same thing in practical terms. So, I tend to agree that Sorabji was wrong too but he's smarter than me, so...
In reply to Golden mountain by Peter Adamson
Statistics
One thing I haven't seen brought up in the discussion here is also that the golden mountain and the monkey aren't all the similar. To make the mountain example work, the point seems to be stressing that it was possible that the universe would align to make a golden mountain, but given that it did not, there is no probability it will ever reconfigure in such a way as to make a golden mountain, no matter how much time. Or in other words, a golden mountain may be impossible GIVEN the current conditions, even if it were possible previously.
For the infinite time monkey on the typewriter, we can't use this example, however, because nothing about what a monkey has typed should rule out the possibility of the monkey typing something in the future. Therefore, the golden mountain example doesn't really apply here. Instead, to prevent the monkey from ever typing the words of Shakespeare, we'd need to find an impossible combination. For example, we would need to argue that a monkey, having typed "wheref" will never next type an o, no matter how many iterations we go through, making "wheref" possible, and "ore" possible, but making "wherefore" impossible, (given monkey behaviour).
Although both these examples operate on "probability B not = 0, but probability B given A =0", they are different in that the golden mountain was but no longer is possible, but the monkey can only have never been possible. (note, the method of the monkey, however, could possibly apply to the golden mountain example, just not the other way around)
In reply to Golden mountain by Peter Adamson
comment boards, whoa
I had no idea there were boards for each episode page! This is terrible news, I have work to do but lots I want to dig into for many episodes.....
Lesson Plans?
I am a big fan of your podcast! Just a quick question...I am a public school teacher of World History at an IB (International Baccalaureate) school. Part of the school's diploma program is a course called Theory of Knowledge in which students must examine how they know what they know (examining both different types of knowers and different ways of knowing, and solving knowledge problems).
Ok...the question...are there any thoughts about developing lesson plans for teachers around the podcasts, especially for a course like my World History and/or the Theory of Knowledge course?
Just a thought!
In reply to Lesson Plans? by Andy Wasserman
Lesson plans
Thanks for the question! No, not really but of course I would be very happy for teachers to use episodes in their teaching - actually I run a course remotely at King's College London that works in some of the podcasts. One tip might be to look under "Themes" (the link at the bottom of the page) and go to the list of episodes on Epistemology, that would take you to installments that are relevant for the course you describe.
Comparison to a Minor
So I noticed there are now roughly as much podcast material as there is classroom hours spent by people who have a minor in philosophy. So I was just curious, given that you also teach, how do you think the two compare? (obviously, being history of pre-modern philosophy, the scope will be different at the very least, but it still might be interesting to hear if the range of issues discussed is comparable as well)
In reply to Comparison to a Minor by Alexander Johnson
Minor in HoPWaG
Wow, that is a great question! Well obviously it would only be a minor in pre-modern, Indian and Africana philosophy. But actually I think someone who has listened to the whole podcast thus far would probably be served reasonably well, at least in thematic terms. We've seen a huge range of positions on every major topic within philosophy (see the list of "themes" with episodes for each theme, at the bottom of the page) albeit that we haven't looked at all these things the way modern day philosophers do (Augustine's philosophy of language is not like what they do nowadays for instance). To be honest I think that, if given a choice between giving a student only what HoPWaG has covered, and only 21st century analytic style philosophy while ignoring non-western thought completely, the student would have a more profound understanding of the subject the first way than the second. Though both would be terribly partial.
On the other hand, I hasten to add, the podcast is no substitute for classroom learning; I think it can supplement that but students really need to be in a room with each other and an instructor to learn how to develop their own ideas, sharpen their argumentative skills, etc.
On Later India and Classical Chinese Philosophy mini series
Regarding Classical Chinese Philosophy/Indian series, I have some question.
1. Where do you and Karyn Lai both intend to stop with the series? is it with the introduction of Buddhism in China? is it before the arrival of the Tang Dyansty?
2. is Karyn Lai willing to work on after Classical Chinese given her expertise seems to be classical Chinese? where as Jonardon Ganeri is well versed in later Indian works well after Dignaga given his research and has released more Scholarly works for example.
3. If Karyn Lai won't be doing after Classical Chinese, has there been any other collaborator that at this moment of time you're aware of that might be willing to do work after Classical Chinese that will tackle the Neo-Confucianism period/Modern Era, Islam in China and the influence of Chinese philosophy and Buddhism in Korea and Japan
4. Given the extensive Materials of Japan and Korea, one would assume they would be separate series as opposed to being lumped with Medieval/Modern Chinese Philosophy ?
5. Have you thought about tackling Tibetan tradition? they have a rich history of Buddhism and have enough material. Also continues the tradition of Buddhism that would eventually die out from India.
6. Regarding Post Dignaga India, I believe it would best for you and Ganeri (if he is willing to) tackle this tradition once you have concluded Classical Chinese Philosophy. Having listened to episode 61 on Later Indian Philosophy, there is that sense of cliffhanger looming about lol. Given that you and Chike are wrapping up the entirety of Africana philosophy in the next 2 or so years it would be a shame if Indian philosophy did not get that sense of closure. Post Dignaga India is extremely under-appreciated and unknown to many people.
In reply to On Later India and Classical Chinese Philosophy mini series by dukeofethereal
Later Asian philosophy
Yes, Karyn and I were planning to go up to the introduction of Buddhism for classical Chinese philosophy. Not sure what will come after that but I guess I was thinking that Tibetan philosophy could be covered either alongside later China, or India. I once thought that Korea and Japan could be covered together with later China but that would probably be too much material, so yes that would probably be its own series/book. Gosh, lots to do!
Anyway I don't have co-authors lined up securely for any of this though Jonardon and I did talk about picking up the story again at a future date.
In reply to Later Asian philosophy by Peter Adamson
I hope Karyn will cover 'Xuanxue' (Neo-Daoism) + sources
Neo Daoism, the 3rd intellectual development of Daosim took place during the Jin-Sui Dynastic era (220-420 CE) which runs parallel to the introduction of the various forms of Buddhism that arrived in China (Chan Buddhism, Three Treatise/Sun Lu, Wei-Shi Buddhism, Tian Tai Buddhism and Hua Yun Buddhism). Think of your 3rd part of Classical Indian Philosophy ('Buddhists and Jains').
Perhaps the order to this classical Chinese series could be;
1. Origins= Pre Imperial Philosophy (I.e Pre Qin Dynasty)
2. Early Imperial Philosophy (Qin-Han Dynasty)
3. Early Buddhism + Neo-Daosim (Eastern Han Dynasty - Sui Dynasty) which will correspond at the same time as you stopped Classical India (6th century being Dignaga era). You can then do in the future Tang Dynasty (7th century Chinese Philosophy) - Modern Chinese thought in the future. Just like with Post Diganga - Modern India.
Sources;
Dao Companions to Daoist Philosophy edited by Liu Xiaogan, etc.. Springer)
Dao Companion to Xuanxue by Chai, David (Springer)
Reading Ji Kang's Essays Xuanxue in Early-Medieval China by Chai, David (Routledge, forthcoming)
Philosophy and Religion in Early Medieval China by Alan Chan (SUNY press)
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neo-daoism/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-metaphysics/
https://www.earlymedievalchinagroup.org/journal/latest-articles/
https://www.earlymedievalchinagroup.org/resources/bibliography/
That bibliography page (early medieval china page) has extensive sources !! on Early Economic, Political and religious thoughts which would be handy for your mini series on Chinese Philosophy.
Suggestion: African geanology of computing
The European development of modern computing is well-established, but would you cover the African genealogy of modern computing, as presented by Ron Eglash in the latter part of his "The fractals at the heart of African designs" TED talk (although the entire presentation may be of pertinence)? Surely its implications would significantly locate the role of Africa and expand deliberations in issues of epistemology, science and technology, philosophy of science, and African philosophy itself. In other words, filling in a gap.
Eglash traces the roots of modern computing from binary geomantic algorithms from sub-Saharan African into Andalusia, eventually passing through Leibniz, Boole and von Neumann. The particular binary nature facilitating emergence of computational calculus is stressed because eight-factored geomancy predominated in other areas of the world.
Repairing myths (greek term?)
Hello Peter,
I am a recent fan of the monumental work you have undertaken. I'm listening to every episode sequentially--without any gaps--and I'm up to #81 now. In an episode before #81 (which I can't locate now) you mentioned a greek term that translates as "repairing/healing myths" and I was wondering if you could remind me what the term is and whether there is any academic work on it. My spouse is a scholar of postcolonial literature, and many of the authors she is studying are doing something similar in their work: repurposing indigenous mythology in a postcolonial context.
With thanks,
Graham
P.S. I, myself, am a specialist in classical Chinese literature, and I was also wondering if you have any plans to venture into East Asian philosophy with the podcast--not that you need more on your plate!
In reply to Repairing myths (greek term?) by Graham Sanders
Repairing myths
The original is "therapeia muthon" which is nice because you don't even need to know classical languages to see what it means.
A good reference for this is George Boys-Stones' book on Post-Hellenistic Philosophy.
As for East Asia, yes! After Africana is over, I will tackle Classical Chinese Philosophy with co-author Karyn Lai.
In reply to Repairing myths by Peter Adamson
Thank you, Peter, for the…
Thank you, Peter, for the prompt and helpful response. And I'm excited to hear that Chinese Philosophy with Prof. Lai as your co-host is on tap! I've been struck by some of the resonances between the pre-Socratics and the Daoists. (Although, for my money, Heidegger is the most thoroughly Daoist of the European philosophers.) I look forward to many more hours of enjoyable listening, and continue to be amazed at how you manage to keep up your level of output!
How does making an episode work?
Hi Peter,
I would like to ask you how you go about researching, scripting, and recording the episodes on a given week. In the Q&A episode, you said that you don't like thinking about how much time you spend writing the podcast. I'm hoping that it was mostly a funny way of saying that it really does take quite some time, and you won't find my question too annoying.
My question is not how long you take to write an episode but rather, how you go about it on a given week, and how do you make time for this project while also having to make time for research, teaching, being a parent, husband, and football fan? I truly appreciate that you also seem to manage to make time to read and thoughtfully react to the comments posted here on this website.
I'm especially curious when it comes to making episodes about philosophers like Saint Augustin whose work seems so extensive and the subjects touched in these texts are (at least for me) not the easiest to grasp, much less summarize into something approaching a coherent and entertaining narrative. This conceptual difficulty seems only to be compounded with the need to familiarize one's self with the cultural, religious, historical, and (obviously) philosophical environment in which a particular work, idea, or author developed as well as being familiar with the language and the specific meanings of terms in relation to a specific author, time and place.*
Your output sometimes makes me think that "speed reading" is actually a thing and not the hoax I always thought it was. Is there's something magical about Ph.D.'s that makes your reading comprehension beyond that of us mere mortals? Then again, you did say that it took you one summer to try and figure out what Kant was saying in the critique of pure reason, so how do you manage? Is it rather that you just constantly read (I remember that in a previous episode you said that you got yourself into trouble by trying to read while doing something else like walking)? Or is there something else that can explain it, barring fictitious basement-dwelling sisters?
I'm asking this a person who struggles with time management and procrastination (I'm procrastinating right now by writing this question), and who is very slow at reading and writing. I would like to know just what is it that makes it possible for you to release something which I consider of such high quality in terms of content and entertainment so consistently. How does your week look like regarding the process of making an episode and how does it fit in relation to the rest of your responsibilities?
How do you go about collecting and structuring the information that goes into creating something coherent and engaging and not getting lost in the weeds while keeping this deadline? Do you start from an outline, a central idea, clever title, or do you write the silent movie star jokes first and make the philosophical ideas fit around them? Does it change and depend on the particular philosopher or episode? Is it even a weekly process or do you write the scripts at one stretch of time and record them later?
More particularly, what are the specific ways in which you go about making an episode? Do you write it down by hand or type them out on a computer? How many revisions do you make? Do you read it out loud to see how it sounds before recording? When do you consider an episode finished? Is there a particular day of the week when you read the sources, another when you write, and another when you record? And how do you choose what to read? Is there a time of day allotted to this task?
If you already answered this in some blog post or comment, please feel free to redirect me to it.
As always, thank you for your podcast,
Jorge.
* The initial reason I fell through the rabbit hole that is listening to your podcast was to get a bit of historical background about the idea of substance after multiple failed attempts to read Spinoza's Ethics. As you might expect, this greatly backfired since I found myself sidetracked by getting interested in philosophers I didn't even know existed before!
- Add new comment
- 178076 views
Cutting off point
Yes that's it! We had a conversation this spring about whether to stretch to the Han and decided it would be better to do that, to reach the point where the India and China stories converge as it were, with the arrival of Buddhism.