In Our Time: Neoplatonism

Hi Hugh,

I am guessing if you put this program on to make you sleep you must not have any interest in what it has to say and if Peter kept you up you must have wanted to know what he had to say on this subject. Philosophy is asking questions and the program has to assume the people listening to it do not have an indepth knowledge of the subject. I myself did enjoy the program and have listened to it two or three times. My advice to you is to start at the beginning of this podcast series (but not while driving) to actually see what knowledge and understanding of this subject Peter has and conveys in an interesting and enjoyable manner.

Regards

David

Philosophy fan

I also found the rising inflection to be a tad off putting. As an American, I obviously had no problem with the professor's American accent; and indeed, he is clearly brilliant and otherwise extremely articulate and eloquent; and, it must be stressed, he is performing an incredibly valuable service to the world with his scholarship, online efforts, etc.

You suggested it was like silently being asked whether you are aware of such and such tidbit of knowledge. To me, I find that the rising inflection makes me wonder whether or not the Inflector is somewhat unsure of what he or she is saying. (I sometimes find this habit in some first-year law students I teach, who, while "stating the case", are waiting for me to bark at them if they say something incorrect -- thus, they append a "question mark" at the end as if to immunize themselves ). Lack of confidence is presumably not the case with the professor; but to me, at least, that distraction rains on an otherwise magnificent parade of profound knowledge and learning.

This misses the point. It is not at all a question of "whose spoken version of English is this that or the other?" I was drawing attention to a habit, a personal habit, which many N American students have (nothing to do with accents or capacity to speak). It may not distract you, but I find myself listening to the rising tone and not to the content of the speech....you are "waiting for it". So, you become diverted by "form" from the "content".

An analogy would be anyone on TV who has some sort of tic or unusual form of clothing or whatever. Mountains of research exist to show that we are a highly visual species, and that we absorb most of our information via the eye. This may be regrettable in many ways, but there you are.
And on radio, a verbal tic can achieve the same level of distraction.

@Ollie Killingback: "I find [Peter's speaking voice and style] clear and easy to listen to."

Agreed, but one must assert that the gold standard for vocal styling in this space is Nigel Warburton. If Adamson could deliver his colloquial content with that plummy Pommy thing, he'd be the Olympic Ass-Kicking Team ... wrt philosophy podcasting, anyway :-)