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



Alan D Bent on 19 February 2022


I am hoping that you will spend some time on Spinoza soon.

In reply to by Alan D Bent

Peter Adamson on 19 February 2022


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?

Roy G Albin on 16 March 2022

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 by Roy G Albin

Peter Adamson on 16 March 2022

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 by Roy G Albin

Jordan Magill on 14 April 2023

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.  

John Briggs on 17 March 2022

Missing Episodes or Misnumbered Episode?

What happened to Episodes 392 to 395?

In reply to by John Briggs

Peter Adamson on 17 March 2022


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.

Simeon on 20 March 2022

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 by Simeon

Peter Adamson on 20 March 2022

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.

Jon on 11 May 2022

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 by Jon

Peter Adamson on 11 May 2022


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.

Andrew Maclaren on 11 June 2022

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 by Andrew Maclaren

Peter Adamson on 11 June 2022


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 by Peter Adamson

Andrew Maclaren on 11 June 2022

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!

Andrew Maclaren on 18 June 2022

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 ( 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 by Andrew Maclaren

Peter Adamson on 19 June 2022


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.

Dave of Sarasota on 25 June 2022

A Gap


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 by Dave of Sarasota

Peter Adamson on 25 June 2022

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.

Fr. John Rickert on 28 June 2022

Searchable website


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 by Fr. John Rickert

Peter Adamson on 29 June 2022


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?

Alexander Johnson on 16 July 2022

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 by Alexander Johnson

Peter Adamson on 16 July 2022

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.

xaratustrah on 16 July 2022

Franz Xaver

Hi Peter, just wondering, is Franz Xaver missing from the timeline?

In reply to by xaratustrah

Peter Adamson on 17 July 2022


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.

Warren Wagner on 14 September 2022


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. 

Kai Gerbi on 28 November 2022

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!



In reply to by Kai Gerbi

Peter Adamson on 28 November 2022


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 by Peter Adamson

Alexander Johnson on 6 December 2022

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 by Alexander Johnson

Peter Adamson on 6 December 2022

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!

Andrew Maclaren on 28 November 2022

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 by Andrew Maclaren

Peter Adamson on 28 November 2022


Oh that's new to me, too. I'll look into it, thanks!

In reply to by Peter Adamson

Andrew Maclaren on 29 November 2022


Ooh this is exciting! Hope you cover them!

Kevin Street on 16 December 2022

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 by Kevin Street

Peter Adamson on 16 December 2022

Up your street

Great, glad you are enjoying it! You have a long way to go before you catch up with me...

Lowell on 18 December 2022

Islamic Jurisprudence


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 by Lowell

Peter Adamson on 18 December 2022


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.

Dave Ewanchuk on 21 December 2022

Popular culture and Descartes

Thought you might enjoy this, from Mad Magazine, late 60’s

Stuck with me all these years..


Karl Young on 6 January 2023

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 by Karl Young

Peter Adamson on 6 January 2023


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...

Jan Reinecke on 25 February 2023


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 by Jan Reinecke

Peter Adamson on 25 February 2023


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!

Brad R on 4 March 2023

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. 

Andrew on 20 March 2023

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 by Andrew

Peter Adamson on 21 March 2023


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.

Jordan Magill on 14 April 2023

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 by Jordan Magill

Peter Adamson on 16 April 2023


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.

Andrew on 15 April 2023

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 by Andrew

Peter Adamson on 16 April 2023


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 by Peter Adamson

Andrew on 16 April 2023

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 by Andrew

Peter Adamson on 16 April 2023


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 by Peter Adamson

Andrew on 18 April 2023


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 by Andrew

Peter Adamson on 18 April 2023


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...

Andrew on 25 April 2023

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 by Andrew

Peter Adamson on 26 April 2023


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 by Peter Adamson

Andrew on 26 April 2023


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 by Andrew

Peter Adamson on 26 April 2023

20th century

Hm, that is a pretty convincing case for just stopping at 1900, isn't it?

In reply to by Peter Adamson

Andrew on 26 April 2023

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 by Peter Adamson

Andrew on 27 April 2023

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 by Andrew

Peter Adamson on 28 April 2023

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 by Peter Adamson

Andrew on 28 April 2023

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 by Andrew

Peter Adamson on 28 April 2023

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!  

Brian on 3 May 2023


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 by Brian

Peter Adamson on 3 May 2023

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! 

Andrew on 6 May 2023

Byzantine Music

The link for the music you used for the Byzantine series is broken

In reply to by Andrew

Peter Adamson on 7 May 2023


Oh thanks, that can happen easily of course - I will see if I can fix it.

In reply to by Peter Adamson

Andrew on 7 May 2023


No problem. And speaking of music, which of tracks in the album Spendors of Topkapi is the one you used for the Islamic eastern traditions? I remember looking a while ago but couldn't find which one.

Karl Young on 9 May 2023

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 by Karl Young

Peter Adamson on 9 May 2023

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 by Peter Adamson

Karl Young on 10 May 2023

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…).

Andrew on 18 May 2023


When hovering over the timelines button at the top of the website, it lists Renaissance twice

In reply to by Andrew

Peter Adamson on 18 May 2023


True! Thanks for catching that. Better twice than not at all but we'll fix it.

In reply to by Peter Adamson

Andrew on 18 May 2023

A Renaissance of the Renaissance

Just like Greek and Roman philosophy, better twice (original then renaissance) than not at all!

Brad R on 4 June 2023

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 by Brad R

Peter Adamson on 4 June 2023

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 by Brad R

Andrew on 4 June 2023

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 by Andrew

Peter Adamson on 4 June 2023

Two cents well spent

Yes, well said! I agree with all that.

dukeofethereal on 7 June 2023

Tentative episodes for Chinese Philosophy

When will you be listing the the tentative list of episodes for Chinese Philosophy? you've announced this series nearly 5 years ago. How many scripted episodes are left for Africana and how many recorded interviews are left for Africana?

In reply to by dukeofethereal

Peter Adamson on 7 June 2023

Episode list

Yes for sure! I think you can expect a "What To Expect When You're Expecting Chinese Philosophy" blog post in November or December of this year; I expect the transition between those series to be right around the turn of 2023/24. So not so far off now especially considering that we as always will take August off.

In reply to by Peter Adamson

dukeofethereal on 8 June 2023

What will the cutting off point for Classical China??

You ended Classical India after covering Dignaga (6th century C.E). What is the cut off point for Classical China ? Arrival of Buddhism in China (so perhaps the late Han Dynasty stage)? 

In reply to by dukeofethereal

Peter Adamson on 8 June 2023

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.

In reply to by Peter Adamson

dukeofethereal on 12 June 2023

Neo-Daosim timeline included > ?

By any chance will you and Karyn Lai discuss Neo-Daoism (Xuanxue)  ? So culminating with the JIn Dynasty (266-420 C.E) - I recommend checking Dao Companion to Xuanxue by Springer.

In reply to by dukeofethereal

Peter Adamson on 12 June 2023


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!

Andrew on 7 June 2023


When/if you ever do get to Marx, I wonder/worry how you will handle him. Worry, because of the SEP page on Marxism. The SEP page on Marxism, for quite some significant parts says that it relies on G.A. Cohen's understanding of Marxism, which means that it relies on "analytical Marxism" for understanding Marx. While it does give reasons for why they did use Cohen, and I am not going to argue whether they are good reasons or not or if his interpretation of Marx/Marxism is correct or not, it is a way of understanding Marx that is A) very recent historically, B) explicitly goes against how a lot of philosophers (and on the ground Marxists) have understood Marx/Marxism. Why is what the SEP did in the Marx article relevant to why I am concerned for how the podcast will cover Marx? Well, if the SEP went with such an angle for understanding Marx, part of me wonders if this podcast will do the same when the time comes. A and B might not be too important for an SEP article, but for a podcast doing the history of philosophy they are. If analytical Marxism has enough sway to have the SEP prioritise their understanding, it might effect how the podcast will cover it, 

In reply to by Andrew

Peter Adamson on 7 June 2023


Well that is definitely something to worry about for later, but in general I don't (as you will have noticed) have the ambition to cover all scholarly approaches to every thinker, not even the major ones. I sort of reserve the right to choose who to follow, though of course in the case of Marx there would be a lot to say about his reception anyway so the picture of a diverse Marxism would come through I hope. 

In reply to by Karl Young

Peter Adamson on 16 June 2023

World Giraffe Day

Oh thanks for the reminder! Though I must ask, why isn't every day World Giraffe Day?

In reply to by Peter Adamson

Karl Young on 19 June 2023

World Giraffe Day

Well, assuming that Girrafe’s know that they themselves exist, maybe every day is at least World Floating Girrafe Day !

dukeofethereal on 24 June 2023

Missing hyperlinks of Philosophers in your timeline

I was having a look at your timeline and noticed that your previous series such as Italian Renaissance, India and Byzantine has a lot of thinkers without hyperlinks and I can't remember which episode you mentioned them or scrapped?  

I use the timeline to hop back to certain episodes and some of those thinkers don't have a hyperlink episode attached to them


For example for the Italian Renaissance section;


1. Vittorino da Feltre

2. Gentile de' Becchi

3. Marcello Adriani

4. Agostino Steuco

5. Giulio Vanini 

6. Cesare Cremonini

7. Archangela Tarabotti

I'm guessing you will mention Tarabotti for 1600-1800 series instead? 


Byzantine series;


1. Symeon the New Theologian

2. Eustathios

3. Joseph Rhakendytes


4. Theodore Prodromos




Indian Series;




1. Moggalaputra Tissa (was he scrapped?)


2. Āryadeva

3. Cīttalai Cāttaṉār

4. Tiruvaḷḷuvar (is he in for the Later Indian series?)





In reply to by dukeofethereal

Peter Adamson on 25 June 2023


Yes, true! I think I'm probably a little behind on hyperlinking more recently mentioned thinkers too, thanks for the reminder.

But in most of these cases they are names included on the timelines just to have them there, but who were not mentioned in the podcast; especially the India series has a very comprehensive timeline Jonardon had prepared separately, and it goes chronologically far past what we did on the podcast.

In reply to by Peter Adamson

dukeofethereal on 3 July 2023

Excluding the Indian Series, which Philosophers were not mention

Excluding the Indian series, which philosophers from Italian Renaissaince and Byzantium sections that were not mentioned in your scripts but still had their names attached, off these names that were not hyperlinked?


1. Vittorino da Feltre

2. Gentile de' Becchi

3. Marcello Adriani

4. Agostino Steuco

5. Giulio Vanini 

6. Cesare Cremonini

7. Archangela Tarabotti



Byzantine series;


1. Symeon the New Theologian

2. Eustathios

3. Joseph Rhakendytes


4. Theodore Prodromos


Will Tarabotti be mentioned when you cover her in 1600-1800? 


Also since you are covering France/Low countries together, why don't you include Iberian/Italian thinkers from 1600-1800 alongside it (due to shared Catholic history and the Low countries being independent from the Spanish habsburg which led to the creation of Spanish Netherlands and Dutch Republic? so thematically it fits,)


 That will leave Central Europe/Eastern Europe alongside Germany and Britain/Ireland/Early USA as 2 separate blocs.





In reply to by dukeofethereal

Peter Adamson on 3 July 2023

Linked but not mentioned

Yes that was the plan on Tarabotti. And I have indeed been thinking the same thing about southern Europe, so for instance I was wondering where Vico would go and don't see where else I could put him. So that is going to be a pretty big series, but I think it could still fit into one book.

In reply to by Peter Adamson

dukeofethereal on 4 July 2023

Yes France/Low Counties/Southern Europe will be huge

I can see it being your biggest bloc if you were to cover Southern European thinkers (Italian/Portuguese and Spanish) with France/Low Countries when tackling 1600-1800 timeline. Unless you would prefer to make 4 mini series instead of 3.  Which is to cover Iberian/Italy separately. 


Especially when you think of the likes of Spinoza/Descartes/Rousseau will have many dedicated scripted episodes tailored to them. Surely Descartes will be getting at-least more than 10 scripted episodes like how you gave Plato/Aristotle that many or in recent times, Ockham/Aquinas


Even if your book does become big, sure you could label it France/Low Countries/Southern Europe Part I and a 2nd book 'Part II'.?  Something to think about. 


Also last question, will you be covering the two Italian Philosophers Giles of Viterbo and Giovanni Botero in the Counter-Reformation/Southern Europe section next year, like how initially you didn't plan to give Richard Hooker a dedicated episode, I believe these two aforementioned thinkers ought to have a dedicated episode. Especially when Botero was influenced by the School of Salamance, figures such as Francisco De Vitoria and Domingo de Soto and his work 'Reason of State' was very influential during his time period. 

In reply to by dukeofethereal

Peter Adamson on 4 July 2023

Southern Europe

Thanks, that's a good tip - I already had a note to deal with Giles of Viterbo but I have also added Botero to my notes. I did want to have an episode on "Thomism" (Cajetan etc) but that is sort of a placeholder for Catholic scholasticism in Italy more generally. 

So, let's do some brainstorming here: apart from Vico and Tarabotti, who needs to be covered from southern Europe (Iberia and Italy) for the 17-18th c? Just to get a sense of how big an addition that would be to France/Low Countries.

In reply to by Peter Adamson

dukeofethereal on 5 July 2023

I will list some Italian thinkers from 1600-1800

I recommend to read 'From Kant to Croce: Modern Philosophy in Italy, 1800–1950' which might be after the timeline but it was a good read.


Italian thinkers:


Pre-Enlightenment Italian Thinkers:


Margherita Costa (Baroque poet)

Fortunio Liceti

Mario Bettinus (Jesuit)

Valerianus Magnus (Catholic philosopher)

Francesco Pona (Doctor and Poet)

Bartholomew Mastrius (Scotist)

Giovanni Alfonso Borelli (Scientist)

Elena Cornaro Piscopia (Female philosopher)

Giovanni Battista Tolomei (Jesuit)

Domenico Gagliardi (Physician) 

Francesco Bianchini (Astronomer) 


These figures are from the Italian Enlightenment and 'Counter Enlightenment' era:


Cesare Beccaria ('on crimes and Punishment' heavyweight philosopher alongside Vico

Melchiorre Gioia (Political economist) 

Paolo Mattia Doria (Revived the idea of Plato Republicianism) 

Gian Domenico Romagnosi (Scientist and Economist)

Alessandro Volta (Scientist) 

Gian Vincenzo Gravina (Jurist/Historian)

Luigi Galvani (Scientist) 

Pietro Giannone (Jurist, strong opponent against Church abuse of power, led to his excommunication and imprisonment) 

Eleonora Fonseca Pimentel (Italian revolutionary poet)

Francesco Scipione, marchese di Maffei - 'On Public happiness' 

Pasquale Galluppi (Moral Philosopher)

Pietro Verri (Lombard reformist Enlightenment) 

Joseph de Maistre (Counter-Enlightenment) 

Vitangelo Bisceglia ( Botanist) 

Melchiorre Delfico (Economist)

Giovanni Cristofano Amaduzzi (Philologist

Nicola Spedalieri ( Catholic Theologian/Philosopher)

Ludovico Antonio Muratori ( Catholic Historian, try to reconcile politics with morality and religion) 

Gian Rinaldo Carli (Economist) 

Antonio Genovesi (Politicial economist) 

Jacopo Stellini (Aristotelian philosopher)

Ferdinando Galiani (Leading Italian Economist Philosopher of his time)

Giovanni Salvemini (Mathematician/Astroner)

Giammaria Ortes (Economist) 

Saverio Bettinelli (Jesuit, poet and literary critic ) 

Paolo Frisi (Mathematician and astronomer) 

Roger Joseph Boscovich (Scientist) 

Lazzaro Spallanzani (Biologist)

Giuseppe Parini (Italian satrist and poet) 

Francesco Mario Pagano (Very important political thinker/jurist/historian) 

Giuseppe Palmieri (Economist/Politician)

Alberto Radicati (author of 'A Philosophical Dissertation upon Death,' which was cited and referenced by Berkeley) 

Alessandro Verri (Historian, Playwright )


Just found these names whilst searching. Have fun researching them professor when you get to it in the future. Test your Italian reading skills and dig deep into Italian secondary philosophy literature since most of these works are probably not in English. 


I will research thinkers from Spain/Portugal in the future, however as you aware some of the thinkers moved to South America during the Colonial/Slavery  era so I don't know if you want to save them for a future podcast of 'philosophy in the America's and dedicate a mini series on Colonial American Philosophy like you covered Africana during European colonial/slavery days (this will include the likes of Antonio Vieira, Juana Inés de la Cruz, etc..)









Georgios on 2 July 2023

Modern European, and East Asian Philosophy

Hi, is there a section with FAQ, if not, is there a timeline and order of the historical periods and regions the podcast plans to cover? 

Great series! 

In reply to by Georgios

Peter Adamson on 3 July 2023


Yes the FAQ is at the bottom of the page! You're looking for question 2, more or less, though that is more about the book series. As far as podcasts go, you can expect the Reformation and Counterreformation (up to 1600) to take us through 2024 or so, then it's on to 17th c France and the Netherlands; and in parallel, classical Chinese philosophy will begin in about February 2024 once Africana is done.

Andrew on 7 July 2023

The twitter embed no longer…

The twitter embed no longer works

In reply to by Andrew

Peter Adamson on 7 July 2023


Probably Elon Musk's fault. (I would actually leave Twitter if I didn't have so many followers.) Thanks, we'll look into it!

In reply to by Peter Adamson

Andrew on 7 July 2023

Definitely Musk's fault. I…

Definitely Musk's fault. I don't have an account, so I can't even see any tweets anyone is making or have made anymore.

May I suggest looking into Mastodon as either an alternative or as a compliment to the current social media you are using?

In reply to by Andrew

Peter Adamson on 7 July 2023


Indeed, it turns out to be a general problem - the embedding function simply stopped working.

I would definitely change platform if I could take my followers with me! I guess that this is probably the only reason anyone is on Twitter anymore. I guess it will be dead (murdered) within a year anyway the rate they are going... Actually you make a good point, perhaps I should get a head start on building up a presence on another platform, but my heart kind of sinks at the prospect. Besides what if Musk buys that one too?!

In reply to by Peter Adamson

Andrew on 10 July 2023


Well Mastodon is designed to be decentralised and run on individual instances. It is FOSS (Free and open source software so not proprietary and therefore no Musk can really buy it all up like with Twitter. No one really owns it (well the closest would be whoever owns the server an instance is running on owns that instance). It is a little complicated, but you wouldn't need to worry about anyone musking up the place. Here is an article that explains how it works - 

In reply to by Andrew

Peter Adamson on 10 July 2023


Thanks, that's helpful! I guess the real question is, what platform will everyone be using in, like, five years? Because the thing would be to get on it now and start transitioning from Twitter. But is Mastadon really a good bet, for all its virtues? I am just too ignorant about social media even to guess.

In reply to by Peter Adamson

Andrew on 11 July 2023

Well, you would need to…

Well, you would need to speak to the Delphic oracle to get an answer to that. All I can say in its favour is that every site recommending alternatives has it on their list. Also it was the first big name I heard to use as an alternative when Musk first got twitter if I remember correctly.

Andrew on 11 July 2023

The separation between Science and Philosophy

Just some idle wondering - how are you going to handle when science and philosophy become more autonomous from each other? So far, due to your expansive net of what falls under philosophy, everything science related has been followed so far I believe. And while that will remain true for a while still, at some point, unless we have a trivial understanding of what philosophy is, the nitty gritty of the ideas won't be too relevant to a philosophy podcast anymore, right? To give an example, I can imagine Alan Turing and his famous paper Computing Machinery and Intelligence being talked about because of its relation to the philosophy of mind, and maybe a sketch of what a Turing Machine due to its relation to computability (which I think is probably philosophically important, see pancomputationalism, but also because I can't imagine the negative result given to the Entscheidungsproblem being philosophically unimportant) but I don't imagine, other than the Turing Machine, the different models of computation being important, like Lambda Calculus. Or to give another example, despite being considered the most important problem in pure mathematics today, I can't imagine that the Riemann hypothesis has a place on a philosophy podcast.

As a side thing, this question came to mind when I was looking a bit into Graph Theory. The wikipedia page for the Seven Bridges of Königsberg Problem has this interesting section about the significance it had for philosophy, being that it was an example of a mathematical problem that wasn't about "measurements and calculations", which calls into question the Aristotelian view that maths is the "science of quantity" since the problem was more about structure, or something along those lines. Not exactly the most clear or defined question, but what is your view on that?

In reply to by Andrew

Peter Adamson on 11 July 2023

Science/math and philosophy

That is a great question and I've pondered it myself. My hunch is that a good rule of thumb would be to keep including science (or math, etc) topics with about the same frequency I do now, so like maybe 10% of the episodes. This would allow me to keep track of where science continues to intersect with philosophy while not getting lost in the vast terrain of history of modern science, which clearly would need to be its own podcast. I think a consequence of this would be that my coverage of science will get increasingly patchy as science expands from the 17th c onward - just no way to cover it without having it swamp the project. By contrast my coverage of ancient and medieval science was, while certainly not complete, enough to survey quite a bit of what happened in those periods. 

Your examples are historically quite recent so I don't even know that I'll get that far, but I could imagine getting into stuff like that (philosophy of mathematics) and definitely into the Turing Test and how that relates to Turing Machines. 

In reply to by Peter Adamson

Andrew on 11 July 2023

Recent stuff

Well, that was just examples that came to my mind, as recent examples bring out the problem most obviously, whereas even during Newton's time the two are still very much intertwined, in the sense that a lot of it will still be relevant to the podcast even if this is around the time its relevance is starting to untangle itself.

Also, I don't remember if I did list the philosophical implications of the modern sciences a while back when I did that huge list of 20th century philosophy if you remember that, but if not that is another thing to add to the pile haha.

Jack on 13 July 2023

Some Questions

Hey Peter,


I recently started Classical Indian Philosophy and I am loving it! Can't wait for more India! As per usual, I have some questions regarding future episodes and installments of the series. (For the good of the other listeners, I probably should have asked my previous questions here rather than on the episode pages. Sorry guys!)


Regarding India... 

1. How many series do you plan on completing for India and what would be the general timeframes for each installment? 

2. Will Sikhism and other religions (besides those already covered and Islam) have any episodes devoted to them?


Regarding Africana...

Will other African political leaders be discussed? I really enjoyed the episodes on Nkrumah and Nyerere.


Regarding China...

Was Legalism influential after the fall of the Qin Dynasty? How much coverage will it need?


And in general...

How do you go about selecting cover art for the books? Which one is your favorite?

In reply to by Jack

Peter Adamson on 13 July 2023


I'll have to pass on the China question but I think I can handle the others: I would expect to do one more series/book on later India, if I manage to get to it. Would definitely do Sikhism! In Africana, there is not that far to go and I think there are no political leaders on the list though we will do Ngugi wa Thiongo'o soon. And cover art... well, I usually try to pick pictures with multiple people to convey the sense that there are lots of figures covered. But a lot of it is just a combination of looks good, we can get the rights, and has the right width to height ratio!  

The Idiot on 31 July 2023

philosophical gaze on marginalised religious, "pagan" systems

Thank you very much for this very interesting series! I started the series "Classical Indian Philosophy" and I am very much inspired.
The episode "Brian Black on the Upanisads" ( and the Preface to the book "Classical Indian Philosophy, A history of philosophy without any gaps, volume 5" led me to some reflections.
I interpret Brian Black as saying that we might miss important insights of a text because of our own hermeneutical classifications of the text:
1. Missing philosophical insight by classifying texts as religious: For example, when we classify the Upanishads as religious and as belonging to Hinduism, we might miss the material that is philosophically relevant in the text.
2. Missing religious aspects by classifying texts as philosophical: When we classify Plato as a philosopher, we might miss his religious views.

And as is written in the Preface to "Classical Indian Philosophy, A history of philosophy without any gaps, volume 5", page xi:

"To include, say, African oral traditions or Native American belief systems in a history of philosophy means being open to the idea that unusual bodies of evidence may be of interest to the historian of philosophy, for instance reports of traditional sayings or tales rather than discursive, argumentative treatises."

These thoughts have led me to the following reflections - the first two are the most relevant ones, I guess:

1. It would indeed be fascinating if one would take a philosophical perspective on such traditions like the Native American tradition(s). I checked if it already exists in the "A history of philosophy without any gaps"-series but it seems as if this is not the case.
2. It would also be very interesting if one could take such a perspective on ancient traditions in the West and in the Middle East themselves that, I reckon, have often been excluded and belittled either by the predominant religions Judaism, Christianity and Islam or by philosophy itself.
    1. So why not make a spin-off about Celtic, Persian, Germanic etc. belief systems in a history of philosophy?
    2. Why not unearth suppressed religious movements and analyze their philosophical relevance?
3. One could even take a philosophical perspective on these predominant religions themselves: reading the Quran, the Torah, the Bible and the linked literature and tradition (including the Kabbala) from a philosophical perspective. But I guess that this has in some ways already been covered by the series about the history of Western philosophy without any gaps.
4. Now, one could even apply this to fiction like Lord of the Rings, if one wants, I reckon: the possible world of Eä (the universe of the Lord of the Rings) as philosophically relevant?While it is common in Western philosophical texts to take inspirations from literature (Sci-Fi, ethical conundrums etc.), I don't immediately know how one could relate this to a spin-off for "The history of philosophy without any gaps"-Podcast . I may be just looking for a justification for reading "The Silmarillion" :)

In any case this series and this interview have inspired me to be even more open-minded when it comes to such texts and not to classify them as "ancient, pagan etc." or "religious" etc. at the exclusion of being philosophically relevant but as being expressions of human experience and thought, aiming to solve our deeply rooted metaphysical questions.

In reply to by The Idiot

Peter Adamson on 31 July 2023

Indigenous traditions

I actually had the same thought a while ago, that I could do a series on "indigenous philosophy" around the world. But I am now leaning instead toward doing a series on Philosophy in the Americas which would include looking at Native American philosophy along with Incan, Aztec, and Mayan thought before moving on to do Latin American philosophy. That would still leave out many indigenous traditions (Australian, Norse, etc.) but between that and the extensive coverage we already have in Africana philosophy, it would at least make the point at a methodological level.

Bogdan Radu on 26 August 2023

The podcast

I apologise for this idiotic question: who is the other sponsor, beyond King's  College London? I was not able to understand it. Thank you and congratulations for the podcast! 


Bogdan Radu

In reply to by Bogdan Radu

Peter Adamson on 27 August 2023

Other sponsor

For a long time it has been "the LMU in Munich", which is where I work (LMU stands for Ludwig Maximilians University). It used to be the Leverhulme Trust back when I started though.

Andrew on 4 September 2023

I have thought of another…

I have thought of another idea for topics you could cover in your episode 500 gap filling. It has been more than a decade since you have started this podcast, and obviously the academic study of the history of philosophy isn't just standing still while you are going through the long history of philosophy. So how about covering some gaps that weren't possible to cover but now we would be past the point of returning to. The main thing that comes to mind is the commentaries in the later eastern islamic tradition (actually this general idea came to me while re listening through some of the islamic world series). No other example comes to mind as of right now, other than just that there is probably some more material that has been discovered for ancient india (specifically for the origins series) and pre colonial africa. What do you think Peter?

In reply to by Andrew

Peter Adamson on 4 September 2023

New gaps

Yes that's a nice idea; actually I have been involved in the work on later Eastern Islamic stuff so I could definitely say something about that. I still think the focus will be on figures or topics I overlooked completely, but it might be an occasion to touch on this sort of thing too. Thanks!

Andrew on 18 September 2023

Socrates and Genesis

I've recently been reading about and looking into the Bible. As you might already know Peter, in Genesis it talks about Adam and Eve eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and there was (still is I guess) lots of debate on what exactly is going on in these verses. But it seems clear at least that, well, they gain knowledge of good and evil from eating from the tree (and immediately realise their nakedness after and feel shame etc).

I made a really interesting connection after reading that to Socrates. In a way, the biblical view seems to directly contrast the view argued for by Socrates in the platonic dialogues, that people only do evil out of ignorance, from not realising that this thing they think is good is bad and vice versa. That virtue is knowledge. But yet, people still after eating the fruit still sin in the Hebrew bible. In fact, one interpretation says that god intended Adam and Eve to disobey him so that their choice to love and obey him becomes actually meaningful. But that still suggests that, it is only with the knowledge that the choice becomes meaningful. Even if we were to disagree with such an interpretation, it is still true that after gaining the knowledge that people continued to sin. This not only contrasts with the Socratic idea, but also with a lot of what Medievals thought about the relationship between knowledge and freedom (well the intellectualism side of the debate anyway, voluntarism seems more compatible).

What philosophers do you know grappled with this contrast? Between the Socratic view on virtue and the seemingly contradictory account that Genesis depicts? I'm especially wondering what Jewish philosophers thought of it, since it seems for Christians the easy response would come from the original sin doctrine, basically denying the Socratic idea. I'm specifically thinking of here philosophers directly grappling between the two, since this general issue about free will and knowledge has been debated a lot, but I don't think you have talked about any who directly contrast Genesis itself and Socrates

In reply to by Andrew

Peter Adamson on 18 September 2023

Genesis and Socrates

Actually what one sees more commonly is the claim that Socrates is in agreement with the Bible, though more the New Testament (it's even claimed sometimes that Socrates was influenced by Christ... their grasp of chronology was shaky, sometimes). I don't know of a text that discusses Socratic intellectualism relative to Genesis. But I guess it depends what we are meant to infer from "eating from the tree of knowledge"; presumably one doesn't have to take that to mean that knowledge leads to sin. You might look at Philo Judaeus who has extensive commentary on Genesis among other books of the Hebrew Bible. 

In reply to by Peter Adamson

Andrew on 18 September 2023

It is specifically the tree…

It is specifically the tree of "the knowledge of good and evil", not just the tree of knowledge. Which is the important part, since I didn't mean to say that the bible condemns knowledge, or that knowledge leads to sin, but that even despite knowing of good and evil, sin happens anyway. That runs counter to the Socratic idea that virtue is knowledge, since according to Socrates goodness is intrinsically valuable and that if we don't choose what is good, that just because we made a mistake about what is good and bad. Hopefully that makes more sense.


Thanks for the suggestion. I'll look into Philo Judaeus

Cristián Valenzuela on 19 September 2023

modern era

Hi Peter,

I thank you for this tremendous work you have done. It is a real pleasure to have ready to hand such valuable source of philosophical knowledge. You have provided very enjoyable hours in my life.

I have a question that perhaps you have answered someplace which I have not yet reached, and it is this: is part of your plan to have a section that covers the modern and contemporary western philosophy thinkers (the classical cannon without any gaps)? if it is the case by when we may have the good fortune of it?

Thank you.


In reply to by Cristián Valenzuela

Peter Adamson on 19 September 2023

Modern philosophy

Indeed! I have talked about this here on the site but basically the plan is that once I finish the Counterreformation sometime in 2025, we will move on to 17-18th century philosophy, and do it in three big chunks based around France/Holland, Britain, and Germany (with forays to other European places). That will take years to cover so I haven't really made concrete plans for what to do after that but in theory, on to the 19th century somehow, health and energy permitting...

Jan Matthys on 24 September 2023


Hmmm.... So Buster Keaton was actually a giraf.. 

Michael David on 5 October 2023

Love the podcast

Binged all the episodes in the past 4 months. Love the podcast. Decided to go back and get my philosophy undergrad in my 40's, and your podcast helped give me a great historical background on the development of philosophy. Thanks for doing what you do.

In reply to by Michael David

Peter Adamson on 5 October 2023

Going back

That's great! Really glad to hear the podcast has been helpful and I hope that your degree is going (or has already gone) well.

Andrew on 8 October 2023

Random idea + potential ep. 500 gap to cover

There is this podcast called the "History of Africa" podcast. While listening, I was reminded that you had an interview with Kit Patrick from the History of India podcast as a capstone to the series on classical Indian philosophy. He only covers pre colonial african history, but if it is not too late (or if he is not too obscure or any other things that would make his case dissimilar enough in relevant ways to Kit Patrick for whatever reason to not have him on), I think it would be cool to do something similar at the end of the series of Africana to reflect on the pre-colonial history of Africa at the end.

As a side thing, found another gap potentially for you to cover for episode 500, although I am very uncertain about the level of scholarship done on it or if there would be any worth/uniqueness to covering it - the same podcast mentioned in one of his episodes on his current series about the Kingdom of Merina in Madagascar, that before the educational reforms of Radama, Imerina did not have a formalised school system (see Season 4 Episode 16, at roughly 22:50 onwards). The interesting thing he mentioned was that the richest of the rich hired private tutors to teach their children, among other things he lists, philosophy. I can't really guess what the content of this must have been, just based on his podcast alone. Is he using it in a colloquial sense? Could be. Or could this have been european philosophy around that time? Could be also, since the island was in contact with the British and French. Or could it have been some islamic philosophy? Unlikely, since as far as I could tell, the island wasn't islamic at all, but they were in trade with Arab traders, and one of the other items he listed was Arabic Abjad, and at the very least it was a minority religion there I believe. Or it could be something else. I can't really tell. Google returns nothing either. This is roughly the 19th century, so my guess is he is referring to European philosophy. If so, that may not fit as a gap to cover in Africana philosophy, but still something to potentially look into.

In reply to by Andrew

Peter Adamson on 8 October 2023


Thanks! That is very intriguing indeed. I actually discovered that podcast a while back but didn't manage to get into it yet, I should do that. But I guess we'll stick with what we have done so far for the finish and have a recorded chat with Chike.

Emily on 12 October 2023


Hi, Peter. I enjoy your series and I realize I may be seeking answers in the wrong discipline, but is there some philosophical text or theory that can help me understand human cruelty? The situation in the Middle East is so horrific - and I get the historical context and the battle for territory - but can you offer me any kind of philosophically-based explanation as to why human beings are so cruel? I'm struggling to make meaning of it all. Thank you.

In reply to by Emily

Peter Adamson on 12 October 2023


Well that is not a small question! And I definitely sympathize with it. I guess that the main area of philosophy that comes to grips with this is the problem of evil, but also relevant is the debate over free will. If you look under "themes" below you will find links to lists of episodes on these topics. But to be honest, having done philosophy my whole adult life, I am still unable to understand the sort of thing we're seeing in the news at the moment. 

Andrew on 12 November 2023

Stoics and theatre

Random thought that crossed me today, but what did the stoics think of theatre/acting? The more I think about it, the more acting seems antithetical to stoic philosophy, especially if you method act, where you deliberately try to get in to the head of the person you are acting. Or if you are a theatre watcher, get immersed into a fake world. In either case, you are taking on emotions from something that is all pretend, so under the stoic emotion theory you are making what you know to be false judgements, and intentionally and especially so if you are an actor trying to get into the role. And if this play was a tragedy? I can't imagine how they wouldn't hate it. You are experiencing intentionally the suffering of something not real (or intentionally pretending you are someone you are not if you are an actor) that feels very real and intense!

This would all seem so irrational from the stoic view of emotion, intentionally taking on emotions (and so under the stoic view making judgements that are false) and even feeling the suffering from a tragedy! But also it seems like the stoic view is a terrible theory to understand what is going on in theatre, whether you are a watcher or an actor, since everyone would deny that what is going on is real, and it seems like an absurd implication from stoic psychology that, say, when Oedipus realises he killed his father and you know with his mother, that when the audience feels sorrow at the events unfolding, that they actually subconsciously making the judgement that Oedipus is real, has a mother and father, and did those stuff to them etc.

In reply to by Andrew

Peter Adamson on 12 November 2023

Stoics and theater

Interesting question. I can think of some passages where Stoics talk about Homer but nothing leaps to mind for references to tragedies. One does find though the idea, which is more positive I guess, that we are each "playing out a part" assigned to us like an actor - I think this is probably in Marcus Aurelius and I know it is in Plotinus, who is reflecting a Stoic theme. But would be worth exploring further, these things are just off the top of my head and I may be forgetting something obvious.

In reply to by Peter Adamson

Andrew on 12 November 2023

Apparently Seneca wrote some…

Apparently Seneca wrote some plays, and according to one paper some radical thinkers who have been influenced by stoicism have been drawn on in theatre and film studies, "Stoicism and Performance: A Joyful Materialism". But couldn't find much else, other than apparently Stoicism had influence Shakespeare.

I can't find much, on an admitting very quick google search, if the stoics themselves ever dedicated much thought about the nature of theatre though. What would you say they would have thought of it? Is my analysis in the previous comment correct, or does it misunderstand stoic theory? How would they respond to it?

In reply to by Andrew

Peter Adamson on 12 November 2023

Stoics and theater

Well since you're inviting me to speculate, I would say that the Stoics could actually approve of theater much in the way Aristotle did, as a potential means of encouraging moral improvement. Remember that they think pretty much everyone is not a sage but is progressing toward virtue, and one can imagine ways that theater could help with that. Also it's worth remembering that the Stoics were not opposed to all emotional feeling, for instance they believed that the sage would feel "joy" in virtue.

In reply to by Peter Adamson

Andrew on 12 November 2023

But wouldn't this sort of be…

But wouldn't this sort of be a slight of hand toward moral improvement in a way, according to their theory? Encouraging you to align your judgements about reality to avoid suffering and not be at the mercy of our emotions by... getting people immersed in a fictional world that can stir intense emotion in people? You see what I mean by slight of hand right? Given how I have described the situation anyway, I don't think a hypothetical sage would want to watch Oedipus or any other ancient greek tragedy, or even be an actor. I get that the stoics aren't opposed to emotion, but they do seem opposed to intense emotion, and encourage the emotion that comes from correct judgement of things. Theatre can in one sense be viewed as all about "cultivating emotion" in a way, particularly intense emotion, about things that aren't even real!

Or maybe I am just tired, it is getting late. I might just be repeating the same point over again but in different words. Happens sometimes when I am tired.

In reply to by Andrew

Peter Adamson on 13 November 2023

Stoics and theater

Ok yes, I see what you mean - certainly if we assume that theater unleashes uncontrolled emotion, they'd be against that. Actually have you read the 10th book of Plato's Republic? Because there we have a critique of poetry that is very much along the lines you're imagining.

In reply to by Peter Adamson

Andrew on 14 November 2023

Yes, part of the idea is…

Yes, part of the idea is that theatre would produce emotion, even intense emotion, but the other part is about judgement. Lets say someone was watching Oedipus and they watch the scene where Oedipus realises he has fulfilled the prophesy, killing his father and sleeping with his mother. The tragedy has reached its crescendo, the shock and horror of the inevitable has happened, and there was no out running his fate, and in a cruel twist of fate it was the very attempt to out run it that laid the foundation for the tragedy to ensure. The dramatic irony! That person watching is now feeling despair over the horrific fate Oedipus, his father and mother have now gone through. Maybe even crying. But hang on, what is going on according to the stoic theory? That audience member must be making a judgement that "Oedipus has killed his father and slept with his mother", from which the despair derives. Like, I mean, I know we sometimes remind people who get so emotionally rapped up in stories that they aren't real, but it still seems ridiculous to say that audience member actually believes that there is someone called Oedipus who had killed his father and slept with his mother. I've chosen a dramatic scene to illustrate the point, but this would still work for any emotion derived from a play, no?  Plays show that something is wrong with stoic theory since they have to say that your emotion derives from falsely believing that what is happening is real, when people will tell you that they know it isn't real but that it is an emotional ride anyway.

No I haven't read book 10 of the Republic. Not any of the books of the Republic yet actually, that is on my to do list one day.

In reply to by Andrew

Peter Adamson on 14 November 2023


Right that makes sense. Well definitely read Republic 10 and you'll be amazed at how well it fits with what you're thinking; you might also want to check out our episode in the India series on Rasa theory and aesthetics which has some of the same themes.

As it happens I was only just reading a text today (Plutarch On Common Conceptions ch 14) which ascribes to the Stoics the thought that vulgar lines in comedy are objectionable in themselves but add to the overall quality of a comedy, and likewise vicious actions may contribute to the cosmos. That isn't quite what you are thinking about but shows them at least in one context adopting a favorable attitude towards Greek theater.

Spencer on 15 November 2023

Comments becoming stale

For many years I have enjoyed reading the comments on this podcast website. The comments reflect a wide variety of thoughts and perspectives from people with varying degrees of familiarity with the topic. I have also enjoyed reading Peter's follow-up responses and, at times, have marveled at his patience. The guy does, after all, have a day job!

Recently, I have found the comments to be rather stale. The majority of the recent comments are from a small number of  people who endlessly wonder what is next and/or type out detailed plans that they would like Peter to follow. I've not seen anything along these lines with other history podcasts. If these individuals want to learn about X or Y, certainly they can pursue those topics. Although an occasional recommendation is certainly fine (and even interesting from my perspective), I do not understand this non-stop kibitzing.

Peter actually provides more long-term ("What to expect when expecting..." posts) and short-term (the topic of the next episode at the conclusion of many episodes) information than most podcasts...and that is certainly good enough for me. If one cannot wait for Peter to get to some topic...there are many other sources (books) and other podcasts.  



In reply to by Spencer

Peter Adamson on 15 November 2023

Stale comments

Thanks for your input! I see what you mean, but on the other hand I would always rather that people be overly enthuastic about the project and what is to come than not really interested. Actually I have also gotten a lot of useful advice on what to cover by the "kibitzers" over the years. Still I would definitely encourage you and anyone else to comment on the substance of existing episodes, that is really what I see as the primary purpose of the commenting function, to start up a conversation. Actually sometimes I wonder whether I should be slower or more selective in responding to comments, in hopes that other people will jump in, it is not meant to be just a way of asking me questions but a forum for open discussion. But when someone says something interesting or asks a question it's hard to resist the temptation to respond as soon as I see it.

Abdul Bari Lateef on 17 December 2023

Ohilosphers of Muslim world

Why Shaykh Saadi in not included in the list of Muslim philosophers.

In reply to by Abdul Bari Lateef

Peter Adamson on 17 December 2023


Well, that list only includes figures I covered in the podcast. Maybe I should have had an episode on Islamic poetry and its relation to philosophy, actually, in which case I could have included him.

Nicola Ferrari on 17 December 2023

Book version

Dear Prof. Peter Adamson, i'm Nicola Ferrari, from Rovigo, Italy. I apologize for my bad English. Congratulations on your initiative of a history of philosophy without any gaps. Can I ask you for some information on the book version of your podcasts? What will be the next scheduled release? 

In reply to by Nicola Ferrari

Peter Adamson on 17 December 2023

Book version

Thanks for your interest! The list of volumes, including the forthcoming ones, is under "frequently asked questions" (Question 2) at the bottom of the page or just at this link:

Andrey on 25 December 2023

Russian philosophy


Are there any plans to cover Russian philosophy? Frederick Copleston devoted to it a special volume of his History of Philosophy.

Thank you

In reply to by Andrey

Peter Adamson on 26 December 2023

Russian philosophy

Yes definitely, though I haven't figured out yet where it would fit. Probably there will be something on eastern Europe and Russia in the early modern "Germany" series (on the 17-18th c), and then more when I get to the 19th century. But I really have no idea yet how to carve up the 19th century into manageable chunks yet.

Andrew on 2 February 2024


Are you still doing the transcriptions? I've noticed a few interviews for quite a while now haven't gotten one. So I decided to gather the ones currently still missing one. If there are interviews without the interview tag I will have missed it, and maybe I missed one or two tagged as well, but this should be 99% of the remaining ones.

95, 215, 299, 300b, 318, 321, 360, 387, 400, 431, 437.

41, 50

39, 140

In reply to by Andrew

Peter Adamson on 2 February 2024

Missing transcriptions

Wow, thanks for chasing these down! I knew about some of them but I thought the number of missing ones was much smaller than that. I'll try to get them done - they are probably held up at different stages of the process which makes it harder to keep track.

In reply to by Peter Adamson

Andrew on 2 February 2024

Glad I could help!  Speaking…

Glad I could help! 

Speaking of transcripts, I had a thought. You didn't want to do transcripts for the podcast because you were worried about the book series right? But then decided that having transcripts for the interviews was ok since they weren't in the series. Aren't there other episodes where that reasoning could apply? I am thinking, for example, your Q and A episode 250 and the bonus episodes (that is all that comes to mind currently though, maybe there are more candidates that I am not thinking of though). This could also apply to your gap filling series for episode 500.