Comments Page

Hello Peter - I would just like to make a technical suggestion. When you introduce a new thinker (or geographical location)please try to mention their name frequently. I don't think I'm the only listener who finds it easier to remembers the flow of ideas described in the podcasts than the associated proper names.

Hi Peter,

first of all, thanks for sharing this knowledge with the community at large. It's amazing to have access to a specialist perspective over this matters outside of academia.

I'd like to ask you if you could share what is the music used as intro for the episodes on andalusian philosophy. (If you could tell also what are the other songs used in previous episodes it would be nice too).

Thanks a lot for all the effort you put on this project. I imagine it's not an easy task, but I bet there's a lot of people very thankful for it.

Dear Professor Adamson,
I am a second year undergrad student at Carleton College in Minnesota. I am fascinated by the questions, problems and topics of the history of philosophy, and I was curious how you personally became part of the field? Did you study a great deal of history throughout your undergrad years and grad years or was your focus primarily in philosophy? Did you spend a lot of time studying languages, you seem to be fluent to some degree in at least Arabic, Latin, Greek and possibly German? Any thoughts or experiences you want to share would be greatly appreciated.
-Zach

Dear Professor,

I love your podcast! A question though, do we have any sources which tell us what the skeptics thought of mathematics and the certainty it provides? After all wasn't that why the Pythagoreans and Plato loved geometry? And also, do we know what the stoics thought of mathematics (or were they always more concerned with what is material)?

Thank you!

Dear Professor Adamson,

First, I'd like to say that I'm very glad to hear of your plans to cover Chinese and Indian philosophy, and I wish you good luck in your research thereof. Second, I would like to ask you some questions regarding both the podcast itself and some of the philosophies you have covered.

I noticed that you've spent considerably less time on each of the later philosophers than on Plato and Aristotle. Is this because you view their importance to the history of philosophy to be that much greater than the other philosophers you've covered, or is it simply that a strong base in Plato and Aristotle allows later philosophers to be covered much more quickly? Some combination? Something else?

I also have a question regarding philosophy in the Islamic world. Have any Islamic philosophers ever employed the concept of God being the source of morality to tackle the issue of the failure of human language to describe him? I feel that this would be a useful way to explain the descriptions of God found in the Koran. If God decided that it would be best to include these inherently inaccurate descriptions of himself in the text, then that would both explain and justify their use. This could possibly be for the reason of making Islam more appealing, to influence the behavior of its adherents, or for some reason inscrutable to us mere humans.

I apologize if these issues have already been covered in the podcast. I have been listening religiously for the past several weeks, so many of the ideas you have covered have become mixed around in my mind.

Sincerely,

Tim Noonan

Dear Peter,

I thoroughly enjoy your podcasts, but I have been meaning to alert you to a major gap in your history, at least as it appears up till now: Byzantine Philosophy. This is a period in philosophy that is often passed over in silence, but hopefully a project such as yours will rectify this lacuna.

Best wishes,
Nick Trakakis

I must happily complain, Professor Adamson, that you have caused me to want to know more, which has thrown my planned reading list for philosophy off.

I had decided that the only book on Islamic philosophy I would read would be the Decisive Treatise and the companion book you contributed to. Now I find I will have to track down, Ibn Arabi, Ibn Khaldun, and most expensively, Avicenna's The Metaphysics. I am thankful that you have introduced me from this often neglected part of Western philosophy, but now I will have to re-adjust my reading schedule and save money for those insanely expensive BYU translations.

When I heard you mention that you were working with other history bloggers on a project I immediately hoped it involved a presentation/discussion type program where historians/experts of various disciplines would each present a cross-section look at a period of time followed by a discussion of how philosophy, science, religion, economics, politics, etc. of a certain period interacted to form the broad concept of history. Our students are so used to walking from a math class to a history class to science when in real life history is formed by the interaction of everything. Do you think this kind of radio or TV show or podcast would work? Even if you used a SKYPE audio conference to produce a demo it would be fun to see what resulted.

Anyway, perhaps you could interest your other history bloggers to try it out. Even if it never happens I would be interested in hearing how you feel philosopher of a given period affected the times in which they lived. Or do philosophers have to die and hope their words are preserved and read centuries in the future? Is there a current day philosopher influencing us and what our history will be.

Toward your declared end of "ungapping" Chinese and Indian philosophy, I thought I'd propose one or two shows you could do

* without a lot of detail, sort of a "10000 meter view of history of philosophy"
* to sketch your intentions regarding these domains
* to illuminate one (or maybe two) historical question(s), ...

... Namely, what influences, if any, are exchanged between Islamic philosophy (on the one hand) and Chinese and Indian philosophy (on the other hands)? And if there's not much, why not? Why I ask:

I remembered your line about "my father was a man of Balkh" when listening to

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio3/essay/essay_20131128-2300a.m…

which briefly discusses the Battle of Talas. Spatially, Talas is not all that far from Balkh (OK, it's ~1000 km, but we're talking *Central Asia*) and temporally the battle is not that far from Ibn Sīnā's birth (OK, over 2 centuries, but this is pre-modern time). Plus we know (unless I'm missing something) that

* the Silk Road was happening for millenia before, and at least a half millenium after, these events
* the spatiotemporal reach of Ibn Sīnā's writing was waaay greater than the distances above--like, to Renaissance Europe
* contemporary Chinese and Indian societies were also learned, philosophical, and technological
* Indian philosophy has a major influence on China (via Buddhism, via Central Asia), so obviously distance is not an insurmountable factor

Yet my impression is

* Islamic philosophy influences India only much later, via the Mughals
* Indian technology (notably, arithmetic) has some influence on the Muslim world, but not so much Indian philosophy
* Chinese technology (notably, paper) has a major influence on Islamic philosophy, but not so much Chinese philosophy
* Islamic philosophy has almost no effect on Chinese philosophy

Am I missing something? If not, why is there so much Islam/Europe philosophical exchange, but so little Islam/China and Islam/India philosophical exchange? Given there's so much happening in philosophically in Central Asia, and the Muslim philosophers are "known good" at absorbing useful work from pagans?

So that's kind of a big topic or two :-) but, like I said, think of this as something you could do an interview show or two on relatively soon, and use to as an intent marker (aka, teaser :-) until you're ready to, ummm, "do China and India."

I was reading through some of the comments and was amazed to hear that you had the eventual plan to cover Eastern thought. You are really ambitious! After I ran through your podcasts, I looked for new material on Plotinas and found a site called "The Ideal in the West". I prefer your presentation and appreciate the depth and richness of your scholarship, but the other site was interesting for its attempt to connect Platonic philosophy with a wider transcendentalist western tradition. This, (as well as the fact that I had some philisophical indigestion after listening to Saint Augustine's " "City of God"), made me homesick for Eastern philosophy.

I found that Peter Yearsley has recorded the whole of Tagore's "Sadhana" on Librivox, (Previously every chapter had its own reader, which was disappointing). I was wondering if you think there is any single work in all of the Western European philosophical tradition outside of the "Phaedro" that has the eloquence, depth and beauty of Tagore's "Sadhana"?

For your convenience I have uploaded a link to the files here:

https://www.hightail.com/download/OGhlRGwrK3hFc0o3czhUQw

The files are in the public domain and can be downloaded directly from Librivox as well, but this might be a bit faster. Just a last question- I would consider this a work of philosophy, it has only a few premises taken from the Bahagavad Gita and draws its conclusions in a reasoned manner, treating many of the ethical and perceptual issues discussed by ancient philosophers in a manner that is refined and logical. Would you agree with this?

Thanks for your efforts,

Kurt Wenner

I was listening to Robert Gleave on Ali (as in, caliph 4)

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio3/essay/essay_20131126-2300a.m…

thinking "dude *really* needed a copy of 'The Prince'!" Which made me wonder if anyone in the "early Islamic world" was doing that kind of practical/descriptive hands-on (pun intended :-) political philosophy before, say, ibn Khaldūn. As in, *not* "al-Fārābī on Religion and Politics," which, unless I'm misremembering, seemed about as useful as The Republic. Anybody doing (somewhat) less normative, (substantially) more positive work, like the earlier Chinese ("cast of thousands" including Confucius, Legalists, Mencius, Mozi, Daoists), Indians (e.g., Chanakya), or Greeks (e.g., Thucydides, Aristotle's lost constitutional survey)?

Thank you very much for your podcast. I spend huge numbers of hours in my studio working on projects and your podcast has helped me get through at least one of them.

I would like to recommend your podcast on my Facebook page and later on my blog. I really look forward to what you will say about Renaissance neoplatonists and even Descartes, who I do not even like.

https://www.facebook.com/KurtWenner

kurtwenner.com

Landing on a free podcast that traces the western philosophical tradition as thoroughly as HOP is like happening upon a pristine glacial lake after a long hike in the Rockies. It is simply sublime.
But beyond its content and depth, Peter Adamson brings humor and warmth to each episode that goes beyond the standard textbook treatment of such wonderful philosophical works.
It is not the prerogative of a student to direct his professor in the lecture topics. Furthermore, if you don't like to learn about western philosophy then don't download the podcast. No matter what it is called, the important issue is whether you find value in the podcast.
Personally, I don't care to hear more about Eastern philosophy every time I learn about things, philosophical. I have read a lot of the Eastern tradition and have listened to many lectures and podcasts on the major realms of Eastern thought. In HOP, I find such a thorough analysis of the Western school tremendously interesting and intellectually engaging. There are numerous podcasts, open courseware offerings and audio books on all aspects of philosophy. Frankly, I think HOP is superior to most of these. HOP is excellent as it is. I am a scientist so I am being educated when I listen to HOP. I continue to read extensively outside of my discipline and have consumed many volumes of original philosophical texts and the secondary literature. A hobby of mine. I am grateful for Peter Adamson's excellent effort and look forward to his steady progression through this amazing corpus of philosophy. Bravo to HOP just as it is and wherever Peter Adamson decides to take us in the future.

Almost forgot to ask my original question: are the answers to Quiz 1/the 100th Episode Quiz available? Somehow I completely missed that: I'm on the RSS feed (no iTunes for me, I'm on linux), so I usually access the website only to right-click the MP3 link.

Dear Professor Adamson

By all respect, and not to be sounding hostile or rude, I find it extremely peculiar and somewhat irritating when you are still issisting calling your podcast "Philosophy Without Gap", whether or not Chinese or Indian philosophy are going to be included.

As I have already said ,if you claims to be doing "History of Philosophy With No Gaps" while excluding Chinese and Indian philosophy, logically it is same as suggesting these philosophies (who happen to not follow the tradition of the "Greek") are not philosophy.

This is quite a "multicultural" point of view I must admit, and if that is really what this website genuinely believe, then I can only wish you can be more explicit about it. Of course my stance remains the same, either find some Chinese and Indian philosophy specialist to do the podcast for the website, (hello, SOAS is right next door to the Senate House Library?), or just remove the "With No Gaps" from the title.

Of course as I said I am not trying to stir up any issues, or I am particularly offended (anymore then what an English might feel if he/she find the entry "English" missing from Wikipedia's "List of human language"). I am simply demonstrating the meaning and attitude that one can logically deduce regarding this podcast, by reading its title and a set of post by yours. What I am not assuring is you genuinely have this attitude. Yet I believe it is always better for this podcast's sake to at least give a impression of it being "open-minded", especially if this is the attitude that philosophy is "supposed" to have. Otherwise this podcast will only be seen as one of many example of academic hypocrisy.

Dr Adamson,
I want to congratulate you on this excellent series. It is the most comprehensive philosophy podcast I have heard and you do it with great clarity, sophistication and appropriately laced humor.
I really enjoyed the pre-Socratics (my favourite so far!) and the Plato/Aristotle sections were amazing.The Neo-Platonists are some of my all time most sought after thinkers and you did a great service to them as well. The Church Fathers and now your extensive Arabic/Muslim world material is also outstanding!
My only concern is that you will burn out or lose interest/funding for what I expect to be years of intellectual reward. For example, I cant wait until you reach Kant... Seriously, I.K. is such an enormous intellect and unfortunately, even with some great online podcasts and University-based courses involving his work; he is still in such dis-favour among so many people I talk to. I'm a scientist (biochemist) so that may tell you something about the dirth of the "love of wisdom" in my field. I occasionally try to remind my colleagues that we all have a PhD and after all, we should be equally schooled in philosophy and as "doctors" in our chosen disciplines. The best I get from them is eye rolling. Really quite disturbing if it weren't also ironically amusing. Anyway, please keep going...Kant, and later Schopenhauer and Kierkegaard and Brentano and Jaspers and Heidegger and ...well you get the picture.
Bravo History of Philosophy W/O any Gaps!
DJG

Dear Peter
I have been following your pod cast for few months now and it has been a pure delight. Philosophy has always been a passion of mine but never had the time to study it properly living a very demanding profession. Your pod cast is fuelling that passion again and on top of that you have just reached my favourite topic in philosophy i-e the ghazali/ ibn Rushd debate! I hope you do spend more time on that and give us more insight on who is right and why. I also wish that you extend the same debate to include st thomas Aquinas.
thanks for all your hard work. It is very much appreciated by many like me.
imran

Peter, I've been a keen and appreciative listener from the beginning but I've finally been obliged to start using Apple's dedicated podcast app following an operating system update. There's a problem with the metadata of your podcasts, I think, that's causing an issue for me and perhaps for anyone else using an iPod Touch or iPhone.

Your podcast episodes, while numbered ok, all recently have a date of the 1st Jan 2001 associated with them. That's preventing the Apple app from downloading the most recent, or sorting downloaded episodes in the correct order.

It'll be a simple thing for whoever produces the files to check and change in the future (ID3 tags are the problem I believe) and it'll make life much easier for me. And everyone else of course.

Thanks.

Prof. Adamson, thank you for your podcasts. They are absolutely amazing. I've been listening to them for quite some time now, some of the podcasts more than once. Can I also ask you if you could provide me with some notes (or at least outlines?) that you have already made? Often, I'd like to take notes while listening to the mp3s and it takes me then more time as I sometimes have to pause or rewind the lecture. It would really help me in terms of time, and also I guess occasionally in terms of accuracy of names, terms, dates, etc. Any help? Please, keep up the great work!

Hello. I am a huge fan! Congratulations on such a sound work in the quite modern medium of podcasting.
Do I gather rightly that you have purposefully avoided making forward comparisons of historical philosophers with modern thinkers and notions, something others in your shoes might try, if only to make their insights more relevant to a modern, let alone postmodern, audience? If so, does that itself indicate something about your own philosophy on how we should understand either or both, history and philosophy? Would you comment on your reasoning about this careful separation of concerns, as I make it, between your modern diction and medium, your methodological explanations (how do we know this is what they said?), your explanation of their influences and work, without often indicating their modern impact, potential or real, beyond your choice of what to cover? Well, that question got over-blown quickly. I'll try again: Is there a philosophy of history behind your history of philosophy?

Hi Peter, I've been following this series since over a year but still in the 50s episodes because of my time constraint. I want to thank you for the wonderfully informative content and not to forget some very witty vignettes in each episode.

Perhaps a suggestion would be to pause a little during the podcast so that we have the time to let the ideas sink in. And also some of the episodes (at least the earlier ones) with guest speakers have poor audio quality - maybe these are recorded differently? That's it, thank you once again, keep going!

Hi Peter,

I'm on podcast 61 and looking forward each day to continue on. This has been so very helpful and I can not thank you enough for your work!!

Very Best and Thank you so much,
Dave

Hey you should look into making torrent files of the zip archives of the podcasts it would be a great means of distributing the podcast while lessening the load on your servers.

Thank you so much for providing this superb educational experience.

Josh
Little Rock, AR, USA

Dear Peter,

It seems that Avicenna and Aquinas are one in identifying God with His existence and in holding that the essences of contingent things are neutral as to existence. Avicenna puts this in a way that Aquinas as well as Averroes would not, and the latter apparently criticized Avicenna on this point, as did Banez in the 16th century. That aside, what Avicenna means by saying that existence is accidental to these essences, so it seems to me, is only that existence is external to essence in contingent things and with this Aquinas would certainly agree. Yet it remains to ask whether Aquinas and Avicenna meant the same thing by existence and identifying God with His existence. Can you say anything about this?

Hi Peter,

I'm trying to track down where some of these passages are in Avicenna, and whether they are translated. One question is where does his phoenix example come up?

Thanks!

Hello,

Do you have a single page that gives the further reading sources for ALL your episodes?

Thanks,
Sajjad

Hello, I really liked your episode that deals with Augustine's epistemology. In it, you mention that knowledge is characterized by intention. I'm familiar with his "Against Scepticism" but not sure he discusses that there. Is there any chance you could please point out where he discusses this?

This is in the effort to consider how knowledge defined as justified true belief might include intentionality, or not, and possibly bring some closure to it.

Thank you!

I think one of the best parts about your show is not only the historical element but also the fact that even touching on the surface of each of these philosophers' contributions provides a great deal of logical and deductive enlightenment to individuals who are philosophical novices (such as myself). Out of all th philosophers you have talked about so far (I'm up to Augustine which I'm excited about relearning), I find Diogenes the cynic to be truly inspiring and interesting. Do you have any literature or papers to recommend for further research into his legacy...or lack thereof haha. Also, is it worth reading Galin other than just for pure amusement?

I was just curious to know the source of the picture on "The Presocratics" page, and what it does represent (if you do know)

Thank you for the podcast it is really interesting to discover philosophy following it.

Charline

Could a zipped (or tared and gziped) file be provided of every period? The Presocratics and Socrates and Plato for example would be each a file. Much easier to download the series. I was keeping up and then lost my archive.

Peter,
You might be in the running for an Irish animal welfare award....I have downloaded all your podcasts on my iPod. Twice a day I bring my beagle (Pippin) for a 45-minute walk so that I can take in two episodes each walk.

I did four years' single honors philosophy at Trinity Dublin but you really expand on that and I am looking forward to the neoPlatonists and the early Christian adaption of Greek thought.
Kings College should be very proud of your contribution to global education and critical thinking.
I hope you and your family enjoy a well-deserved holiday (vacation).
Thanks again,
Gerry FLYNN --Dublin ireland

Good Afternoon Peter,

I just wanted to say that I love listening to your podcast. You are very eloquent and the subject matter discussed is very intriguing. Thank you for rekindling my interest in philosophy after ten years of dormancy when I took intro to philosophy my freshman year of college. I'm only up to episode 25 but I hope to see you continue releasing new episodes!

-Brandon

So I'm thinking about diving back in to Aristotle's Metaphysics, a book I haven't looked seriously at in a few years. That said, I'm far from an expert on the subject, and as everyone knows it's a pretty daunting text. Can anybody recommend a good translation and commentary or something along those lines? (Other than Aquinas', which is a little lengthy for my purposes.)

Awesome podcast dude! Other books I've read treat the ideas in isolation, which makes it difficult to understand the historical context. Your podcast OTOH pieces ideas into a smooth(ish) ramp. The cheesy jokes and puns are a nice touch too. Anyway during the last 2 months I've been listening almost non-stop, beginning with the first episode. It's been fun. Now I'm with the current episode. Look forward to following things at a more sedate pace! Thanks!

This site is unbelievably good. I'm doing an undergraduate subject right now about Plato, Descartes, Hume and Kant and this has been amazing so far. Its great to get a general idea about some of the ideas that were floating around in the field. You're amazing, wowzers.

Please go greatly in-depth on the floating man argument of Ibn Sina. I know a lot of people who aren't convinced by this, which troubles me!

Peter,

I have just recently found out about your podcast, and I'm really interessted in watching them and slowly catching up (even though it could take a couple of years) But I do have one question before I start the journey.
I've noticed the website states that you are a Professor of Ancient and Medieval Philosophy at King's College; and presently your are on the Islamic Timelime around the year 1111.
When I saw that you are a professor of Ancient and Medieval philosophy I wondered: will you continue chronologically into Modern and Post-Modern philosophy also? Will you be concluding the historical journey in the present? Or will you cover only Ancient and Medieval?

Peter,

Great show! Looking forward very much to the next one as I’m very intrigued about these various essence vs. existence debates, esp. as it has to with (any) Absolute Realities . . . .

Question: In referencing the squared circle whose essence precludes its existence owing to its complete impossibility, what is then the actual status of this “essence” here? To posit an “essence” whose very nature precludes absolutely its non-existence, sounds, at least in how we have to make use of language, like how we would describe unrealized contingent existences, like your aforementioned sister, if but taken more absolutely: There’s an essence out there which not only it so happens not to exist, it cannot in anyway exist.

The term was used frequently, but my guess, Avicenna and other Medievals are using the term “essence” here more as a purely “logical” or “semantic” modality since, unlike Anselm’s God, it remains just a conceptual thought without the literal corresponding, also aforementioned, “out there” counterpart.

But is there anything else I’m might be missing in this understanding?—can it be something more than just a mental concept even though lacking actual or substantive existence?

I seem to having a Parmenidean moment—and in fact, I was researching Parmenides and the Platonic dialogue named for him just yesterday in understanding how this might inform various kinds of negative theologizing (and talk about the paradoxical Parmenidean language use here) such as Plotinus or Dionysius’s path of negation vs. Aquinas’ path of eminence.

And, if it be—essentially—your want (forgive me), if you want to recommend any good texts on the Greek, Arabic and Christian history of the intersection of essence, existence and apophatic (and even kataphatic) theology, that would be great. I assume these concerns, will, at some point, in essence, be actualized in further episodes.

Thanks!

Rhys
OKC, OK

I just wanted to say how much I am enjoying the podcasts. I always thought that philosophy would be "too hard" - but now I know it's all about giraffes and film stars.
Cheers.

I enjoyed pushing back the boundaries of my ignorance with the Ancients, and warmed to the Christian Fathers of whom I knew something from theological studies. But I've struggled with the Arabic period. Partly I guess it is to do with the strange names which just don't stick. Some of the thinking does, but what goes with whom I find hard to resolve or retain. There is only really any clarity with Saadia Gaon. I wonder if that's to do with his being Jewish and my acquaintance with Jewish thought. Or is his name Hebrew and does it therefore sound less strange to me than Arabic? I don't know.

Much the most difficult podcast to engage with was 136. Maybe that had something to do with Farhad Daftary's speaking voice - I guess English is not his first language. Maybe it was to do with the content. There seem to have been almost innumerable splits among the Ismailis, all of them political, i.e. to do with matters of succession. I didn't get any sense of different ideas, and while the political history is important, it's the ideas I am most interested in. For example most of the Christian splits have a political element in their motivation, but there are distinct theological differences too. I didn't get that from Dr Daftary. I'm still not clear how, if at all, Ismaili belief differs from other Shia. Perhaps the ideas are less important in Islam than loyalty to a particular line of succession.

One thing that has come across with great clarity is how inadequate the coverage of Islam was in the Comparative Religion course I took in the 1970s. I guess the time limit had something to do with it.

I have been looking forward to Avicenna - the first name on the list that already meant something to me. I'm glad there are going to be more podcasts on his thought. The first podcast whetted my appetite but left me feeling he was not a very nice man. But so what? I don't think Socrates would have been my best friend either.

When is the projected date for the release of Volume 1 of the book series? I apologize if you have already answered this question more than once; I've listened to every episode but have failed to follow the blog :(

Hi Peter,

Am a big fan of your podcast and Philosophy. I appreciate the effort you have put to prepare all this. I live in Ethiopia. I feel very blessed to get resourceful site such as yours. Actually I have commented on your article "Woman in Philosophy" unfortunately I couldn't get your response so I switched over here. I have planned to prepare a book about a woman philosophers using our local language but am in shortage of reference material. If you ever know any site to refer or if you have done further about that article will you please suggest me.

Serkalem

So browsing the site, I saw references to a possible book version of Hopwag. I went to Amazon and searched "Peter Adamson." No luck. But I saw a sponsored ad: Philosophy at Sephora®
Hmmm... I must be on the right trail!
Alas... http://www.sephora.com/philosophy

But I'm still enjoying the podcast. Cheers for all your work.

Steve

Hi Peter,

Just wanted to thank you for the brilliant podcasts (particularly like the style of questioning!) . They've been a priceless discovery. I had an interest in philosophy for many years but didn't read or learn enough on the subject. These podcasts have reignited my interest and will be supplementing my future reading!

Finally all credit to the Leverhulme trust and King's college for spreading knowledge in this way.

Thanks again for a great resource.

Dear Peter, thanks for the great podcasts. I am a newcomer and have only managed to get up to Aristotle so far. I was also pleased to hear you talking on Heraclitus on an old episode of 'In our time'. One thing I felt was missing from that programme was a discussion of the similarities between Heraclitus's Logos and the Dao of Lao-Tzu. I was wondering if you had any thoughts on this, and if you have considered doing any tangential one-off podcasts that explore similarities between east and west? I appreciate that this is somewhat outside of the scope of this podcast, and that you must be busy enough already, but it could be interesting. Thanks again for the podcasts!

I've started listening two days ago and got hooked. I would love to see if there was a general timeline for when you plan on getting to different topics and people in the future.

I cannot remember which philosopher (pre-Socratic?) said that bread and cheese contain flesh and bone since they are used to produce the materials of our bodies. Can you tell me who said this?

Also, which first or second century AD philosopher said that instead of asking God for a woman/wife, ask God to remove your desire for a woman/wife?

Thank you.

Really enjoying the podcasts, and I was a computer science, mathematical student in university, and I really wish I had learned more about philosophy or had time to take such courses. Now, these podcasts give me the opportunity.

I was listening to how Parmenides (?) explained the world through Forms, and properties, and seeing if properties can have properties etc.

This is remarkably similar to what we do with computers. I happen to work on various database models and construct structures for simulations etc. We work with earth models, and use these concepts. Except we use "models" which I think is what was meant by "forms". Each model then has its properties.

Once our models are logically complete, they are simple definitions, but when we implement them, they are instantiations. Each instance then has its properties. Not sure about properties about properties, since a property has a "measure" associated with it. so if it is a length or age, then it is value or a measure, i am not sure about properties having properties.

The same way Greeks were thinking of "forms" to understand the world, we construct models to represent our world. Then we implement them, and constantly fine tune them. This is especially true when we deal with earth models, or mathematical models that deal with uncertainties.

Love the podcasts. They help us think and get a grip on the work we are doing today.

Science and art intersect far more often than most people realize, and can really help each other.

I discovered the podcast in December 2012 and have now nearly caught up with you. I'm very excited at the prospect of embarking on a year of Islamic-period philosophers, about whom I know nothing at all.

I studied philosophy as my minor at University College London in the 1980s but the course - to my surprise - was almost entirely devoted to 20th century texts so I emerged with no knowledge of the history of philosophy at all. I believe this is quite common even for students doing philosophy full-time.

I'm very glad to have found the podcast when it was still feasible to catch up with you as I think that people who follow the whole series will have a much richer experience than those who just dip in here and there, but when it gets to several hundred episodes this may seem too daunting!

I look forward to many years of instruction and pleasure in your company!

Peter:

I would like to add my voice to the chorus of thank yous. I found your podcasts about 3 months ago; now I'm just 4 episodes away from catching up with your production schedule and having to confront my HOP jones.

Quick question; can you tell me which episode contained the reference to Danny Ray? I want to share it with a JB fan, but couldn't find it.

Thanks, and thanks again for the great work!

This podcast is both enlightening and educational, and I must give some time to say my thanks. I have learned a lot, and hopefully this podcast continues for a long time.

dude this podcast is badass

Hi Peter,

I was wondering when/if you were going to talk about the development of the scientific method in the Islamic world. I was listening to JD Trout on the Such That podcast (http://suchthatcast.com/trout/) and he mentioned that Avicenna and al-Kindi both provide descriptions of the method of concominant variation, well in advance of European thinkers we associate with this idea, like Bacon or Mill.

Hi Peter,
Thanks for your podcasts on the philosophy of the Islamic World, which is new to me and probably for many others. Considering how the art is quite striking and unique within the Islamic world, are you planning to do a podcast on Islamic aesthetics?
Glenn

There's a music premiere at the Berlin Philharmonic coming up on April 25th. Composer Brett Dean has written a piece for baritone, choir and orchestra based on the Apology and the Phaedo. There's going to be an online broadcast of the Saturday performance!

I would post a URL but I was blocked earlier; just search for last days socrates brett dean.

Hi Peter,

First of all, congratulations for your great podcasts. I'm an avid follower of your wonderful on-going series.

I just wonder, now you're dealing with the philosophy in the Islamic World if, at some point, you're planning to talk about the Toledo School of Translators (maybe in the Latin section of the medieval period). I was born in Toledo, Spain. In our school, I remember they placed great importance on its significance and legacy. Maybe they were just biased and overstating it. I'd like to know your opinion about its true role in the medieval period.

Thank you and kind regards,
Benjamín

What's next on the menu, Peter - Indian philosophy?