Comments Page

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

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

ADD NEW COMMENT

 

Alexander Johnson on 19 November 2024

Fallibilism vs Skepticism

I hear some claims knowledge is impossible, but some beliefs are closer to truth than others.  I hear others say knowledge is possible, but all knowledge is fallible.  To me, these sound like just 2 different framings of the same position, but whenever I point this out, even well informed people are adamant that i am wrong and don't understand, but I've never gotten an answer to what the difference between these are that doesn't just boil down to "one says knowledge is impossible, the other doesn't" (without elaborating on the univocal usage of knowledge both agree on).  

There are a lot of people here that are well informed.  Perhaps someone on here can enlighten me on the difference?   

AP on 16 November 2024

The reasoning behind the ideas

I was wondering if there are books or resources that emphasize the reasoning behind philosophical ideas over bios or historical context. For instance, in the case of the pre-Socratics, one picked water as the fundamental substance,  another air and a third the aperion. Ok but why go with one option over the other? Or why not earth or gold? What would have the philosophers themselves said in a debate? Is this information available only in the primary sources, when they still exist? Thanks


Great series by the way, a truly monumental effort.

In reply to by AP

Peter Adamson on 17 November 2024

Reasoning

Thanks!

I would suggest Jonathan Barnes' book on the Pre-Socratics, I think it is even in the Routledge series called "Arguments of the Philosophers" and it is basically an attempt to use the tools of analytic philosophy to do exactly what you're describing. 

In reply to by Peter Adamson

AP on 20 November 2024

Reasoning

Thank you, it is a very interesting read and does address some of my questions, telling from the first few chapters. It's part of  a thirty book series, mostly monographs about individual philosophers. The series is a bit more than I can chew but I will take a few bites. Now we need a "history of philosophy with all the arguments". Studying philosophy without the arguments is a bit like studying math without the proofs. It seems to me like missing the point, but most people indeed study math without the proofs, unless they are math majors or close, so it's completely normal.  I have found a proof of the existence of God, but it's too big to fit the margin ;-)

Tim Philabaum on 8 November 2024

The Podcast

Greetings, Peter. I am a Lutheran Pastor in the USA, and I love your podcast - even though I've only made it through the first 100+. Your history, your clear explanation, and your humor are great. Before Seminary I was more into Psychology and am learning more about how the early Church explored God. Also, I am now reading the Enneads - fascinating.

Now that you are branching into the Holy Trinity, do you know of this YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw

Thanks much!

Tim

 

Art on 6 November 2024

US Election

Yesterday I went back to that episode you did for years ago last time Trump was elected--it made me feel a little better about things to come. Given all that's happened in the interim, I kind of expect things to be much worse this go round, and so I am hoping you will once again offer a few "words of wisdom" which I assure you are still welcomed by some of us over here. 

I live in a fairly Texas-like part of Southern California and philosophically feel very alone. I've listened to just about ALL episodes at least once. Thank you. I still feel as ignorant as Socrates, but it's a much more informed ignorance. 

In reply to by Art

Peter Adamson on 6 November 2024

Words of wisdom

Thanks, glad you appreciated that bonus episode and the podcast more generally! I will think about it, and this has only just happened so who knows, but I'm doubt I have anything useful to add this time. Last time around I guess I thought I might have a message that could be aimed partially at people who actually supported Trump, to try to win them back around to something resembling a grip on factual and moral reality. To be honest I no longer believe that there is any way for someone like me to reach them. Also I'd be surprised if many Trump voters listened to my podcast anyway (if so, they are not listening very closely!) so they would not read/hear anything I did try to write about it or put out as another bonus episode.

More depressingly, I also don't have much in the way of encouragement or philosophical perspective to offer opponents of Trump. I mean, obviously "don't give up," but that's not very insightful. Since I live in Europe, I have the luxury of not dealing with this every day, so I can only have sympathy for people like you who are surrounded by grown adults who would consider voting for Trump, never mind actually doing it.

Another thing is that from a philosophical point of view, Trump is not interesting, at least to me. He's a bad man who has exploited and enthused people who are apparently very unhappy and angry, and who have systematically false beliefs. What else is there to say? 

In reply to by Peter Adamson

Andrew on 8 November 2024

The election

Not that it is really philosophically relevant, but I think this election speaks more about the Democrats rather than the Republicans or specifically Trump anyway. Look at the voting data - last election Trump got 74,223,975 votes, while this election (at least as I am currently checking wikipedia - there are still some votes being counted, but that doesn't change my point) he got 73,407,934, which is roughly the same really. By contrast the Democrats lost a lot of votes - 81,283,501 in 2020 vs (with the same caveat above) 69,076,028 in 2024. So Trump won because the Democrats performed badly. There are many reasons one could come up for this. But I think it shows that making this about Trump and the Republicans is a bit of a distraction from what is going on, whatever philosophical relevance we take from this.

In reply to by Andrew

Peter Adamson on 8 November 2024

Election

I agree, that is pretty encouraging. Also since the current version of the Republican Party is a personality cult based around one person, it is not clear what they will or can be once Trump is gone, which he definitely will be sooner rather than later just for actuarial reasons. (If he were 60 years old I’d slightly worry about him finding a way around term limits or simply declaring himself dictator and calling out the troops in 2028, but given his age and apparent fitness he’ll be lucky even to serve out this second term.) One can imagine that level of consistent support collapsing once the figurehead is gone, which would make things easier for the Democrats. (Note that the Republicans did badly in the last mid-term, when voting for Trump wasn’t an option.) Also it’s just a feature of American politics that it tends to swing back and forth, so simply for that reason the Dems will probably do better in the mid-terms and next big election even if they don’t come up with anything too exciting.

So, reasons for hope. But to be frank one can only be so optimistic about a country where that many people were prepared to vote for him.

Michael Karliner on 2 November 2024

Medieval Women: In Their Own Words

The British Library has opened the exhibition Medieval Women: In Their Own Words. https://www.bl.uk/whats-on/medieval-women/ I visited yesterday and it's a fantastic show, and has artifacts belonging to many women mentioned in HoPWAG. Julian of Norwich Margery Kempe Marguerite Porete Christine de Pizan and of course Hildegard of Bingen and many other I can't remember.

Amazing to see real artifacts from these times associated with women I've heard about on the podcase.

 

 

Pete on 31 October 2024

Thank you

Dear Professor Adamson,

I've been a long time listener, long enough that I considered sending you a "welcome to Munich" email when you moved there, since I was living there at the time. I never did, but all these years later I'm still enjoying the podcast. Somehow I only recently learned that we received degrees from The University of Notre Dame in the same year, although my degree was a mere Bachelor's.

I apologize there isn't more substance to this message, but I just finally wanted to send a thank you for the years of effort you have put into this podcast. It is much appreciated.

Greetings from Illinois,

Pete

In reply to by Pete

Peter Adamson on 1 November 2024

Peters unite

So your name is Pete(r), you have lived in Munich, you got a degree from Notre Dame, and you love philosophy? Sounds like I might have two identical twins, not just the one I knew about! Thanks so much for your long-term listening!

Carson Haddow on 25 October 2024

Parmenides

Professor Adamson,

Thank you very much for putting together the Podcast - it is really an incredible project and achievement.  I wondered if you could provide any thoughts on the second half of Plato's Parmenides.  A friend and I really enjoyed the Parmenides episode in particular, and so we went on to read the dialogue.  In your view, does the gymnastic that Parmenides walks us through tell us something about the forms, or is it more of a non sequitor to the discussion leading up to it?  It seemed to us that it must in some way bear on the metaphysical/epistemological issues raised in Parmenides's critique of the theory of forms, and we had some ideas of our own, but we would love to hear yours if the dialogue is fresh enough in your mind.

Thanks,

Carson

In reply to by Carson Haddow

Peter Adamson on 26 October 2024

Parmenides 2

Yes, I chickened out of saying anything about this in the podcast. To be honest, I am really mystified by this dialogue. I vividly remember reading it for the first time (in a German library in 1997), putting it down and thinking "gosh I have no idea what that was all about." I have learned about a lot of readings since then, especially the Neoplatonic ones, but can't say I really find any of them convincing. I do think though that it is more than a logical or "gymnastic" exercise and that it is somehow supposed to help us understand how Forms relate to particulars; otherwise it is hard to see why it would be put together with Parmenides 1. Maybe a set of options for understanding how unity relates to other things? 

Filipe Albuquerque on 24 October 2024

Luís Camões’ Lusíadas

Thank you for the podcast. It’s wonderful on all fronts. 

I understand you are about to cover Cervantes. I was wondering whether you also intend to cover Camões and his epic of the history of the Portuguese people from antiquity to the discovery of the maritime route to India. 

I don’t know that anyone has ever looked at it in with philosophical lens, but it is the a lot of interesting things at once: an epic poem, a periplus, the defining piece of Portuguese literature, filled with saudade, profoundly Christian and yet also filled with pagan imagery and divine characters nudging the navigators right and left. Given how important the discovery of maritime routes to the far east, Africa and the America was to the renaissance, I thought this text might be an interesting milestone.

It would be fascinating to hear your perspective on it. 

In reply to by Filipe Albuquerque

Peter Adamson on 25 October 2024

Camões

Wow, what an interesting person! To be honest this is new to me, I didn't have him on my radar at all. I guess I won't get him into the podcast (I'm already finishing off the series, working on scripts on Bellarmine and Galileo) but perhaps I can get him into the book version.

Brian on 24 October 2024

New book

I see the first Africana volume is on OUP’s site as forthcoming. Great news! Is there any news on other upcoming volumes?

In reply to by Brian

Peter Adamson on 24 October 2024

News

Thanks for asking. Yes there is some tentative news: I’m working toward submitting the Reformation book (based on everything since Italian Renaissance ended) in the next month or so. Actually I’ll be submitting the manuscript for that before the relevant podcasts even air, since they will still be coming out until early 2025. But I have been revising the scripts for the book version over the summer and am almost done, just need to write the last two scripts/episodes. Hence that book could come out sometime in 2025. And as you say Africana 1 is close to appearing, we are expecting the page proofs soon. Africana 2 will be submitted to OUP in spring.

Of course that means three books appearing in quick succession followed by no more volumes for a couple of years, I guess the next one to be finished would be classical China.

S Peter Davis on 21 October 2024

An educational series strongly influenced by your work

Hi Dr Adamson,

I just wanted to reach out to commend you for your invaluable work in education and for the influence that it has had on me personally. I don't get much chance to follow the podcast but I own all of the Without Any Gaps books, and they are an important reference for me in an educational animation series that I produce called Three Minute Philosophy. It's made for a very beginner audience and meant to be entertaining so it's simplified but at the very least I endeavour not to be wrong.

Sorry if this comes off as self promotion but your work has been an important guide so I wanted to let you know about one project you've inspired. And if you are at all interested, I'd gladly grant you a complimentary subscription. https://threeminutephilosophy.substack.com/

dukeofethereal on 14 October 2024

Interview Episodes missing themes other than 'Interview'

Professor, thanks for your work in adding themes to the scripted episodes, I've noticed that these interviewed episodes are missing themes related to the interview, the only theme attached is 'interview' unlike 'Ethics' or 'Logic', etc..

 

I'll be posting the links to the episodes with the missing theme below. 

 

1. https://historyofphilosophy.net/mccabe-on-heraclitus

 

2. https://historyofphilosophy.net/malcolm-schofield-on-the-presocratics

 

3. https://historyofphilosophy.net/woolf-socrates

 

4. https://historyofphilosophy.net/aristotle-plato

 

5. https://historyofphilosophy.net/warren-epicurus

 

6. https://historyofphilosophy.net/stoics-sedley

 

7. https://historyofphilosophy.net/platonism-opsomer

 

8. https://historyofphilosophy.net/trapp-humfress

 

9. https://historyofphilosophy.net/ismailis-daftary

 

10 . https://historyofphilosophy.net/avicenna-gutas

 

11. https://historyofphilosophy.net/averroes-taylor

 

12. https://historyofphilosophy.net/jewish-neoplatonism-pessin

 

13. https://historyofphilosophy.net/maimonides-stroumsa

 

14. https://historyofphilosophy.net/gersonides-crescas-rudavsky

 

15.  https://historyofphilosophy.net/medieval-marenbon-kraye

 

16 -  https://historyofphilosophy.net/anselm-sweeney

 

17 - https://historyofphilosophy.net/emery-institutions

 

18 - https://historyofphilosophy.net/upanisads-black

 

19 - https://historyofphilosophy.net/aquinas-macdonald

 

Thankfully we have the Transcript feature so if you want to refresh your memory professor one could read the interview and attach the relevant themes, for movements of philosophy historical context may be needed for example the interview episodes on Stoicism that covered both Greco-Roman, and you might need to attach several and several themes on 1 episode.

 

Sorry for the hard work professor!

T.H on 25 September 2024

On Horizons

This may be one of many gratitude comments, but it is mine nonetheless.

Discovering the podcast has been a real blessing! Even if at times some topics seemed a bit obscure or harder to follow, it gives me more reasons to listen to the relevant episodes again! The show has greatly helped me demystify medieval thought and understand Neoplatonism and granted me a greater appreciation of Abelard and Avicenna. Plus, the "without any gaps" approach, showcasing how different people across different cultures and epochs understand and approach certain issues really satisfies my "background in history" itch!

At the same time, it's been a great stepping stone in my journey to enhance my horizons and in understanding myself:

I'm finding (or rediscovering) that reflecting upon topics, be they wider societal issues, some episode topics or my own person, has a daunting (due to the sheer vastness that can lead one to feel like they don't know where to start, or that the abyss "gazes back") yet charming character; one that I, at times, consider turning into more substantive texts beyond mere diary entries. The Africana series also further punctuated that even seemingly simple insights can have surprising implications, and reinforced that barriers to reflection can be illusory. Now, if only I could properly get started!

Reflecting more in this manner has also helped me become more resilient, even if the work is not yet done, if such an endeavor can ever be "complete". 

It is also helping me fulfill the commandment of "know thyself" by inspiring me to commit to such reflections and continue asking myself questions; "Is this what I stand for? What do I stand for? What do I value?...", questions I realize I haven't asked myself enough in the past.

To conclude, thanks for the podcast, thanks for giving me more topics to sate my intellectual curiosity and keep company in the long nights of the cold season and the balmy evenings of the warm one!

In reply to by T.H

Peter Adamson on 27 September 2024

Horizons

Thanks, that's great to hear! Glad you are finding the project so helpful.

Latürnich on 19 September 2024

Debate vs Dialectic

It didn't let me post this on the episode for some reason but in episode 34 - Mr. Know It All: Aristotle's Life And Works, you off-handedly disparage modern political debating styles here implying that they are inferior to Aristotle's model of dialectic argument. I would just like to point out that, as it seems to me, these two things serve completely different contexts and functions, different objectives and thus different strategies for approaching them.

The purpose of a dialectic is to find common group between two opposing positions. The advantage of this approach is that it's less confrontational and at the end both participants hopefully have a better understanding of the topic. The downside is it's slow and doesn't scale very well. You have to walk people through your arguments one at a time, at their own pace, addressing their objections as you go. I might describe this as a trade-off of precision over efficiency.

A debate by contrast is a competition to persuade a third party, often a large audience to make a decision. As such compromise in this situation is not necessarily desirable. Only one of you can win the election or court case or whatever it is. Admitting your opponent might have a valid argument does you no good at all and might even do your audience a disservice if they make a bad decision because you sold yourself short. Furthmore, you need to convince lots of people quickly. There's no time to patiently walk every single audience member through your reasoning. Therefore this situation demands efficiency, which means being a persuasive speaker is more important than having a logically unassailable argument. Honestly, for a leadership position, being persuasive is more important anyway. To dump a bit on Plato's analogy of the ship, having perfect navigation skill does you no good if you can't convince anyone to follow you in the first place. And even if the captain only has a general idea of where he's going, as long as he can figure out how to get there eventually that's gonna be good enough most of the time.

Therefore I think both strategies have a time and a place and the important thing is to recognize which situation your dealing with and apply the correct strategy to the situation. As you observed, if you apply the logic of a debate to a one-on-one discussion you'll just end up talking past each other (which I've absolutely seen people do and it is always obnoxious). But a presidential debate is not a casual fireside chat. Think what would happen if two candidates just had a dialectic argument on stage, which is what your comment, and the comments of plently of other people I've heard, imply that you think they should do. The vast majority of the audience is going to get completely lost because you're barely engaging them and they can't all have signed on to the endoxa you set in the first place. And if at the end both participants decide they've now reached a consensus on which policy they support, the whole thing will have been completely useless for trying to figure out which one of them you should vote for.

Sorry to jump down your throat over a offhand remark like this but you're far from the first person I've seem make this mistake and it's a bit of a pet peeve of mine. This seemed like a good place to air my grievances. Just found your show the other week and am loving it so far. Looking forward to bingeing my way through it :)

In reply to by Latürnich

Peter Adamson on 19 September 2024

Debate and dialectic

Interesting point. I guess I partially agree with you, in that a political debate is comparable to what Aristotle calls "rhetoric" and he makes many of the points about rhetoric that you make here: limited time, the goal being simply to convince an audience, etc. Where I disagree is with your characterization of dialectic. I mean, you can use the word also in the way you are using it, of course, but in Aristotle "dialectic" is a competitive enterprise in which two "players" are trying to defeat one another according to set rules; Topics 8 is particularly clear on this, and even suggests some rather underhanded ways of getting one over on the other player. Dialectical techniques may also have a role in the kind of truth-seeking project you have in mind, but that is not primarily how he thinks about it. His version of dialectic is probably based on a kind of reasoning game that was played in the Academy. So we could perhaps think of something like a Presidential debate as a fusion of dialectic (competition between two rivals who are trying to undermine each other's arguments) and rhetoric (appeal to the audience, etc.). Aristotle, watching a modern US political debate, would probably detect bad practice both in terms of his recommendations about dialectic and his recommendations about rhetoric. 

Kaushik Surishetty on 10 September 2024

Sincere thanks to this website.

I'm so glad I found this website at the perfect time. I can't thank you enough, as all I thought was to obtain all the philosophy material in one accessible and free place with all sources for my research. I'm beginning my career as a journalist after completed my masters in the UK.  Wish me luck and cheers!

In reply to by Kaushik Surishetty

Peter Adamson on 10 September 2024

All in one place

Thanks, glad you find it useful! And absolutely good luck with your new career.

Elizabeth Morton on 23 August 2024

To say thanks

I just want to thank you for this brilliant website!  It's really useful.  I graduated with a BA in philosophy way back in 1978 and have maintained an interest ever since, but sometimes it's difficult to find good sources.  On material I am already familiar with, I use Stanford's Encyclopedia a lot, but that stuff is pretty dense and challenging in areas I'm not that familiar with.  This is indeed a good gap-filler.  I especially value the entries on Islamic and African philosophy, which are very much overlooked in standard syllabi.  So - thank you very much!

Elizabeth Morton, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

 

Peter on 16 August 2024

This is a blessing. I…

This is a blessing. I graduated as a philosophy major about 15 years ago and found this almost a year ago in hopes that I could get a refresh. This is perfect and I hope you are very proud of this. You should be ; )

In reply to by Peter

Peter Adamson on 16 August 2024

Refresh

Thanks, that's great to hear! Very kind of you to say.

Michael Stanle… on 21 July 2024

Buster Keaton : the expression of a thought

Dear Peter, 

As a long-time listener to your podcast, I have become accustomed to your many references to Buster Keaton, the 20th century comedian, or should I say 'Buster Keaton', the name of that same comedian, whom you frequently use to illustrate philosophical points. 

I was delighted to discover you are not alone in this pedagogical employment of the late great comic's name. 

Edward Kanterian, in "Frege: A Guide for the Perplexed" (Continuum, London and New Your, 2012) argues in a discussion of 'The function-theoretic account of Sense' (pp. 184-197) "against all evidence and reason, that there are certain concepts which yield thoughts for objects." He then plugs in "a name ('Buster Keaton'), thus obtaining the experession of a thought, a declarative sentence, ('Buster Keaton is a comedian')."

To go to the punchline, Kanterian concludes "It is difficult to say what thought exactly we obtain by this method for our examples 'Fifi is sitting' or 'Buster Keaton is a comedian.'"

All of which harkens back to an earlier discussion of "different modes of determining ('Bestimmungesweisen') on pp. 111 ff.  

We can only hope that by the end of the passage, Buster is not sitting on Fifi.

Yours truly,

 

Michael Stanley-Jones

Circular Research Foundation (Parabita, Italy)

 

In reply to by Michael Stanle…

Peter Adamson on 21 July 2024

Frege and Keaton

Goodness, that’s remarkable! My podcast started in 2010, I wonder if Kanterian was a listener and that’s why he chose this example? I think I was already mentioning Keaton early on.

RG on 12 July 2024

Any new insight to what is oldest known philosophy?

I'm curious to know from the History Of Philosophy Without Any Gaps' research into the history of philosophy if any new insight has been gained as to which of the known ancient systems of philosophy may be the oldest.

In reply to by RG

Peter Adamson on 12 July 2024

Oldest

Well, given the Africana episode on Prehistoric philosophy I guess I'd lean towards saying that it is not a meaningful question, because there is philosophy in all places and times where humans exist and you can use any artifacts of human culture (e.g. cave paintings) to try to reconstruct it. If you mean actual texts though, then the answer is ancient Egypt.

In reply to by Peter Adamson

RG on 12 July 2024

Re: Oldest

I had originally intended to ask about what may be the oldest known philosophical texts but then I thought to just ask what may be the oldest system of philosophy that we know of because whatever ancient systems of philosophy that we know about we obviously have texts / records of, so my question was a double-fold one and I think it adequate that I asked in the way because both of my questions were answered by you.

In reply to by Peter Adamson

Alexander Johnson on 30 July 2024

Sumerian

Even if we are taking an expansive view of Egyptian philosophy and a less expansive view of Sumerian, I would have thought Instructions of Shuruppak would at least contend for the oldest surviving philosophical text?  Am I mistaken on its age?

In reply to by Alexander Johnson

Peter Adamson on 30 July 2024

Oldest philosophy

Ah good point, that might be right. I think the oldest writing is Egyptian but maybe that is older than any of our Egyptian philosophical texts?

Philip on 3 July 2024

Freedom in the Ancent World

It seems to me that at different ages of our lives we value different sorts of freedom. When we are 14 a libertarian sort of freedom seems appealing. A 14 year old usually has distinct and identifiable authority figures and freedom for the 14 year old frequently consists in rebelling against those authority figures (or at least in always keeping alive the possibility of rebelling against those authority figures). At 30 years old, by contrast, many people want the sort of freedom they can only achieve by being in harmony with authority  (they might want to start a small business or be a Prof for example). To be free to start a small business (at least one with a physical store) one needs and wants a stable society and one wants to be integrated into that society in the relevant ways. It seems to me that philosophers of the ancient world thought a lot (more than we do today) about the different stages of life. My question is: Are there ancient authors who thought specifically about what sorts of freedom we should value at the different stages of our lives?  Thanks!

In reply to by Philip

Peter Adamson on 3 July 2024

Freedom and age

That is a great question! As it happens I am thinking about that a lot recently, not just freedom in particular but what philosophers in antiquity had to say about aging. A good place to look would be the letters by Cicero and Seneca on aging, they definitely do suggest that our priorities shift over time. Also check out Plato's Republic book 1, the part with the discussion between Socrates and Cephalus. 

Brian on 21 June 2024

books

My favorite podcast series but I just found out they're also available in book form! I'm a better reader than listener.  Just bought the whole set on Amazon, and looking forward to China.

In reply to by Brian

Peter Adamson on 22 June 2024

Books

Awesome! Hope you will enjoy them. Actually I think China may be the fourth book to come along in the next few years since there will be two Africana volumes and the Reformation volume before then.

Ken on 15 May 2024

Chinese phonology

I hadn’t thought about this until I started listening to the second episode—has anyone gone over some of the basic Chinese pronunciations with you? I know you’re obviously reading pinyin, but the pronunciations are nothing like what we use in English. The big example is that the word Zhou is pronounced more like “Joe”. It took me a minute to know what dynasty you were talking about. 

I may have to skip out on these episodes as I know the pronunciations are only going to get more difficult if you haven’t heard the names pronounced before. (And I am just talking about Mandarin.)

In reply to by Ken

Peter Adamson on 15 May 2024

Chinese

What we're doing is that Karyn is recording the words for me and I am doing my best to imitate what she does; I actually stop as I go along recording and listen to her version. Obviously this is a bit of a challenge but I am doing my best with it! (For example I mostly have been saying Zhou "Joe" but I may have screwed one up.) Just bear with me, it'll probably get at least a little better as I go along and get more practice.

Or when you say "what we usually say in English" do you mean, I should just say everything the way it's written as if it were English words? I am not sure that would be a good idea because it would be very far from the real pronunciation and there are different transliteration systems anyway so it is sort of random, to my mind. 

Irina Posternak on 13 May 2024

No Judaism as a group?

Wonderful podcasts, but why there is no Judaism-related podcasts? Everything else you seem to be covering...

In reply to by Irina Posternak

Peter Adamson on 14 May 2024

Judaism

Actually there are many Judaism related podcasts already! Most of them are in the section on the Islamic world and in the Andalusia section; also there is the episode on Philo in the Late Antiquity part and it comes up in the Renaissance series too, like in the episode on theories of love. With more to come in the early modern series. The reason there is no single heading for Jewish philosophy is that as you probably know, Jewish thinkers turn up in various chronological and geographical spaces, which is how the podcast as a whole is divided. 

In reply to by Peter Adamson

Irina Posternak on 17 May 2024

Thank you. I wish there were…

Thank you. I wish there were tags to follow, that would make things a bit easier to navigate, as the number of the posts is growing. Btw, I wanted to say Hi from Boston and that I am enjoying your lectures this semester at the University of Lucerne! One of my favorites I must say.

In reply to by Irina Posternak

Peter Adamson on 19 May 2024

Tags

Actually there are tags, but we call them “Themes” - if you look at the bottom of the page you’ll see the link to them. I don’t have one for Judaism because I think of these as tags for philosophical topics but maybe I should add one for that.

Glad you are enjoying the Lucerne course!

Philip Hyland on 2 May 2024

Freedom and the stages of life

Hello Peter

 I am a loyal listener to the podcast HoPWaG.  I am interested in how the Freedoms we value may change over the course of our lives.  For example a 14 year old may be content merely to rebel against authority, a 30 year old may value the ability to work in harmony with existing authorities (to start a small business for example) and a 50 year old might want to BE the authority. For me personally a 14 year old libertarian seems to be living in harmony with their stage of life whereas a 50 year old libertarian is not. (Obviously this is a contentious claim. This is merely an opinion on my part and I am sure things are more complicated than that!) Please recommend books that might give me insight into how the Ancient Philosophers thought about how our personal age might affect how we think about freedom and about which sorts of freedoms and conception of freedom we should value. I would be interested in both primary and secondary source books and especially interested in any philosophers who have written works in the last 8 years or so that relate our current changing conceptions of which freedoms we should value to writers from the ancient world. I am primarily interested in European, Japanese and Indian ancient thinkers, but would also be interested in other traditions. Thanks...and thanks for your sheer endurance as you create HoPwaG!
Philip

In reply to by Philip Hyland

Peter Adamson on 2 May 2024

Freedom


That is an interesting question! One thing I'd point out is that there are really two philosophical debates that fall under "freedom," one that is more metaphysical, about free action and choice, and another that is about political freedom. I think you are more interested in the latter than the former but the former is better researched. I would recommend though looking at "A Free Will" by the late great Michael Frede, on the emergence of the concept of will, and this would be a good overview on the metaphysical side of things:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-ancient/

And there is also a page on ancient political thought that might be helpful: 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ancient-political/

There's also a book called "The Discovery of Freedom in Ancient Greece" which I haven't read but there is a review by Zita Hitz, which you can download here:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://philarchive.org/archive/HITTDO&ved=2ahUKEwjby_T8vO-FAxUw_7sIHYnsDWQQFnoECEYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2DB-vLiZU4VTYjmu-i6JRs

 

In reply to by Peter Adamson

Peter Adamson on 3 May 2024

More on Freedom

Oh and I'd also suggest listening to the recent series of episodes on freedom on the "Past, Present, Future" podcast by David Runciman, in which he and Lea Ypi discuss freedom in a variety of philosophical periods and traditions including antiquity.

Xaratustrah on 23 April 2024

Albert the Great citing Avicenna

Hi Peter,

In his "De mirabilibus mundi", Albert the Great has cited a quote from Avicenna about some features of human soul, as Albert puts in his citation, apparently in Avicenna's "sixth book of Naturalia". More than this I don't know.

Maybe you have a hint where to look for, in order to find exactly the text in the original Arabic?

Thanks!
 

In reply to by Xaratustrah

Peter Adamson on 23 April 2024

Sixth book

Sure, that should be the "Nafs" (i.e. Soul) section of the Natural Philosophy of the Shifa'. There is the Rahman edition, but you might be able to find it quicker if you look at Tommaso Alpina's recent book on this part of the Shifa' (which is fantastic anyway, so well worth your time even if you don't find the quotation). There is also an old French translation of the whole Nafs by Bakos.

In reply to by Peter Adamson

Xaratustrah on 4 May 2024

thanks!

took me some time, but I will soon start an interlibrary loan, so hopefully I will have all three (Alpina, Bakos and Rahman). I guess I have to re-listen to your Avicenna episodes for a warm up first... it has been so long ago... wow when I think of it, all these years I have been listening to your podcast, truly great work...

In reply to by Xaratustrah

Peter Adamson on 4 May 2024

Avicenna

Ok good luck with the Avicenna! And thanks, that's very kind of you.

Rory Gaines on 28 March 2024

Who is the oldest known philosopher or group of philosophers?

     Hi, Peter.

I would like to ask you what is the earliest philosophy, whether of an individual philosopher or a group of philosophers, that there are still records of, be it of primary source or of secondary source.

In reply to by Rory Gaines

Peter Adamson on 28 March 2024

Oldest philosophers

Well it depends what you'd be willing to count as a philosopher or philosophical text, of course, but I'd go with either the Rig Veda or some of the "Instructions" we covered in the Africana series, the podcasts on ancient Egypt. 

The Presocratics aren't even close! 

dukeofethereal on 27 March 2024

A blogpost on suggested figures/themes/to cover 1600-1800

Hiya Professor, years ago you made a blog post on what topics/philosophers to cover for the Renaissaince and many listeners chimed in on this site and mention various topics/philosophers/themes to cover

 

https://www.historyofphilosophy.net/renaissance-suggestions

 

Are you going to do a new blogpost for the same for 1600-1800 European Philosophy, as it listeners might chime in figures that should be covered that may not have been in your radar in the first place, for example Richard Hooker for British reformation (who you eventually did devote an episode to).

 

Since we're starting this series next year, it should give you plenty time to prepare for such material, since we're starting on France-Low countries next. I say this because a particular French Catholic philosopher caught my eye, his name is Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet and his work 'Discours sur l'histoire universelle' which is similar to Augustine 'city of god'.

 

 

Ross on 21 March 2024

Cancel Culture academy style

There must be a very good reason that while Israel does not appear in the roster of countries to choose from for my profile Palestine does and I would like to hear it. Please fix this. You may be of the ilk that thinks that cancelling Israel and simultaneously creating an alternate state IS part of the fix, in which case I think deserves an episode of its own. Tell the world.

In reply to by Ross

Peter Adamson on 21 March 2024

Palestine

Actually I didn't even know that there was a dropdown menu for users to indicate their country, never mind that Israel isn't on it. But I guess that is some automatic thing we don't have control over. Actually are you sure about this? Sounds very unlikely. (At first I thought you must mean that Palestine isn't on it, which sounds more possible, but then I re-read your message.)

Davide Doardi on 12 March 2024

Plato and Aristotle on knowledge

Among the chief achievements of Plato's epistemology we have the difference between episteme and doxa, the account of episteme as true and justified belief, the dependence of episteme on ontology and the importance of truth for political and ethical life. 

What does Aristotle add to these achievements? Can we regard the systematization of deductive reasoning as a continuation of Plato's program?  As to metaphysics: does this play the same role as the dimension of imperishable and unchanging forms in Plato? 

I am perplexed. It seems that in spite of his historiographic method that made him famous in the Physics and Metaphysics, Aristotle does not do the same in epistemology and, for example, simply neglects Theaetetus and Republic

Comments and criticism are welcomed 

Davide

In reply to by Davide Doardi

Peter Adamson on 12 March 2024

Aristotle's epistemology

I can sort of see why you would say that because the more famous and frequently read treatises by Aristotle are not centrally about epistemology. However, there is the Posterior Analytics. It engages intensely with the question of how to distinguish episteme from doxa and sets out a theory of scientific demonstration as constitutive of episteme. What we perhaps get less from Aristotle is a weaving together of themes in epistemology with politics, metaphysics, etc though even there he has plenty to say, for instance the inclusion of the sections on the intellectual virtues in the Ethics. And by the way all of his works engage extensively with Plato: critique of Forms in the Metaphysics, of the Form of the Good in Ethics bk 1, of the Timaeus in the Physics and elsewhere, extensive critique of the Republic in the Politics, and those are just the most obvious explicit references, in fact he is thinking about Plato all the time even when he doesn't say so. 

I do have an episode on Aristotle's epistemology by the way so you could check that out, it explains the theory of the Posterior Analytics.

Clay Kallam on 23 February 2024

Where can I get podcast?

Hi ...

So I started on Google Podcasts but it's closing. I don't have an Apple phone. Where can I get your podcasts?

 

Clay Kallam

In reply to by Clay Kallam

Peter Adamson on 24 February 2024

Podcast

Well, here on the site, or on Spotify or directly on Podbean which hosts both series. 

In reply to by Clay Kallam

Peter Adamson on 24 February 2024

Podcast

Well, here on the site, or on Spotify or directly on Podbean which hosts both series. 

Andrew on 13 February 2024

Chinese philosophy and disability/neurodiversity

Do you or Karyn Lai know of any work that deals with the relation between Chinese philosophy and disability/neurodiversity? I'm listening to the lecture series that Lai gave a few months ago on Chinese philosophy for Leverhulme and there has been a few times where Disability/Neurodiversity would pose some interesting questions to the ideas and/or puts them into a different and interesting light/angle. Two examples come to mind:

First, with Confucius. Specifically I have in mind between Ritual and Autistic people masking. Masking is when an Autistic person covers up their Autistic traits in order to fit in the neurotypical world. I can't say I really understand the role that ritual plays into Confucius' thought yet, but I know at least that it is related somehow to cultivation. It seems like though that a lot of daily rituals would not help cultivate an Autistic person, when they have to repress their Autistic traits for the sake of ritual. It is a common experience that later on in life for some Autistic people that have had to mask their whole lives to experience burnout and can no longer do a lot of stuff they could do before (very low on energy, no longer able to mask for a while etc). So much for cultivation, the rituals haven't helped them flourished at all but instead acted against their flourishing or their ability to participate in society. Would this be a correct understanding of what ritual is and the purpose it is supposed to serve, and if so how could a Confucian respond to this negative outcome?

The second example is the swimming parable in the Zhuangzi. The swimmer, by not having a dao of their own, is able to follow the dao of the water, which confuses Confucius since he has his own dao and therefore is unable to understand what the swimmer is doing or how. I think bringing in disability can help put two Daoist themes, spontaneity and relativity, in an interesting angle. On the one hand, if the swimmer had broken legs, how the swimmer would follow the water's dao would be different (I can imagine there would be more focus on how they use their arms and/or how they would control/throw their body weight around in order to navigate and move around the water), precisely showing the relativity of the water's dao. On the other hand, if your body is prone to stiffing up in cold water, then it seems that there is no way to go with the flow of the water. The dao of the water would be hostile to you, in which case you can't naturally and spontaneously follow the water's dao. In which case, if we still want to swim, they would have to develop their own dao somehow that goes against the water's dao, since they certainly can't follow it.

Both of those examples may or may not be born from misunderstandings, I don't know enough yet. But at the very least, if Karyn Lai is right in the lecture series that early Chinese Philosophy has an attentiveness to orientation and self-cultivation, then disability and neurodiversity surely seem very relevant to those concerns. So I have to imagine there has been some work on this, especially since it isn't necessarily a modern concern (what I mean is, while in my first example Autism might be a modern concern, I know that there is a recurring theme in the Zhuangzi of the use of uselessness) so I can't imagine there not being lots of literature on this.

In reply to by Andrew

Peter Adamson on 13 February 2024

Chinese philosophy and disability

It's funny you ask, because I was reading the Analects today (as one does... actually, because I am working on the episode to introduce this work) and was struck, having had this exchange with you on the site here, by the fact that there are several references to blindness. In particular there is a striking passage where a blind "music master" visits Confucius and he puts the man at ease while also telling him who is there, where they are sitting, etc - must be one of the earliest examples of a philosophical text about ethical treatment of the disabled? 

Unfortunately though I don't know whether there is secondary literature on your question, but I will keep it in mind and let you know if I come across anything.

In reply to by Peter Adamson

Andrew on 13 February 2024

I am sure Karyn Lai must…

I am sure Karyn Lai must know. In that very same lecture series I was talking about, literally the last episode is about disability and a good life in Zhuangzi's philosophy. Didn't even realise that until I made the comment haha.

Speaking of the lecture series, I meant to link it in my last comment so you could see what I was talking about but I forgot to. Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLvW1evjftfvm9LSZgsu24ppri9JC8Q9ot

Andrew on 9 February 2024

Thomas Sankara

What happened with Sankara? I was wondering about him recently, and just learned that my question asking about him is nearly a year old by now. Was it too late, didn't fit with the current plan, nothing philosophically interesting about him?

In reply to by Andrew

Peter Adamson on 10 February 2024

Sankara

Oh right, thanks for the reminder. I guess he would (if anywhere) go in the book version as a figure comparable to the other African political leaders with philosophical interests. I'll check this with Chike.

Cor Zwart on 5 February 2024

playback

Hi Peter,

First, thanks for this great project and the effort you are putting in! I keep revisiting and listening to the old episodes while trying to keep up also on the new ones, getting bettter insight every time.

I was wondering if something recently changed in the recordings, as the recent episodes (starting from the Renaissance and Reformation in Britain) are harder to follow for me. It feels like the playback speed is faster or pauses are cut out. I am not a native speaker of English, so maybe it is me, but just wanted to ask.

Regards, Cor

In reply to by Cor Zwart

Peter Adamson on 5 February 2024

Playback

No, that shouldn’t be different; possibly there are episodes where I am talking too fast? But I would be surprised if there is a systematic problem just for the more recent episodes, and no one else has mentioned anything. Maybe check the settings on your device?

Brandon Freude… on 3 February 2024

Appreciation, and Episodes Disappearing on Apple Podcasts

Hi Peter -

I’ve been working my way through the series from the start since last year, and it really is astounding the care you have put into this podcast and website. Thank you so much for providing the world with this resource. 

I had an amateur interest in modern philosophy before your series and I read some Hume and analytic philosophy I liked.  With a scientific background I assumed I didn’t have much to learn from, especially, ancient and medieval metaphysics. Happy to say how wrong that impression was… even issues that in the moment I think feel too removed from my natural empiricist mindset, including very theological issues, I find myself considering in my free time now.  When I catch up in the podcast I’m sure I’ll loop back to reading my favorite thinkers.  Although I just finished Abelard and I do admit the “medieval modernism” I found refreshing nonetheless!

Anyway - the original inspiration for my message, I was about to start the Indian Philosophy series and noticed they seem to be disappearing from Apple Podcasts. The first 3 episodes are currently missing. I have no problem listening on your website but wanted to be sure you didn’t lose any potential new listeners due to this, if it isn’t just some weird error on my end. 

In reply to by Brandon Freude…

Peter Adamson on 3 February 2024

Bite taken out of Apple

Thanks, it’s great to hear that you are getting so much out of the podcast!

On the Apple problem: in browsing mode they only show the most recent 200 episodes of any feed, I think it is; you can still get at the earliest episodes but you have to “subscribe”. If you look at the original HoPWaG feed it starts well after the beginning for the same reason. Unfortunately this is a general policy so nothing we can do to fix it. 

Andrew on 2 February 2024

Transcriptions

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.

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

India:
41, 50

Africana:
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.

In reply to by Andrew

Peter Adamson on 3 February 2024

Other episodes

Oh good point, thanks for that as well! 250 would be easy since that even exists as a text file already (and the same will be true for 500). I’ll do that.

In reply to by Peter Adamson

Andrew on 3 February 2024

Last thing, I decided to…

Last thing, I decided to check if there was any interview not tagged as such and there is at least one! Poor Brittney Cooper from episode 63 in Africana isn't even tagged as an interview!

Side thing, don't know if this is just me somehow, but the page for 79 on Africana, the interview with Leonard Harris, the proportions are all messed up. Like the picture and episode list are so far off to the side that it isn't even under the header and I have to scroll right on the page to see it

In reply to by Andrew

Peter Adamson on 3 February 2024

Fixing up the site

Great, thanks - I fixed Cooper but am unable to deal with the problem on the Harris page, I asked webmaster Julian to have a look.

In reply to by Peter Adamson

Andrew on 3 February 2024

Glad I could help

Glad I could help

In reply to by Andrew

Peter Adamson on 18 February 2024

Transcripts

Just an update on this: 

For a few I seem to have no raw file as yet so we'll have to get the Computer Overlords to churn those out.

But for a lot of them I had simply failed to link to the transcript from the podcast episode page. This was easy to fix so you can now see transcripts for: 300b, 321, 360, 387, and 431, plus 41 and 50 in the India series. 

And then a couple still are being edited (318 Primavesi, 39 Garraway). 

I put a transcript of 250 (the Q&A episode) directly on the episode page; for 215 and 400, the interviews with several other podcasters, I think I'm inclined not to do transcripts since those are a bit incidental to the overall project and it would be a lot of work to edit them for someone since they are each over an hour long.

Thanks again for tracking down the missing episodes!

In reply to by Peter Adamson

Andrew on 18 February 2024

Well, how about you just…

Well, how about you just have the ai transcript for 215 and 400 and if anyone is willing to do them then they can, but at least the ai version of the transcript will exist for those who want one. Just would need to make special notice of that fact. Or another idea: If I remember correctly, you interviewed the podcasters in both episodes in sequential order right? Maybe instead of treating it as one transcript, you could split it up into three that then different people can work on at different times, if that makes sense. If done that way, that would cut the workload down quite a bit for an individual transcript anyway.

I'm assuming, due to similar reasoning that you gave to 215 and 400, that you aren't inclined to make transcripts of the bonus episodes as well? If so, outside of my first suggestion, at the very least a transcript for the first chapter of your book would be very easy right? (would it even be a "transcript" for it? haha).

Glad to have helped make the podcast more accessible! Just two last things quickly unrelated to the transcripts.

1. In the catholic reformation series, in both the general overview page and each episode, the part that lists how long the series is ("Episodes x - y: name of series") doesn't have either the name of the series (and the link to the overview page) or the html/css styling the website usually gives it. If you don't know what I mean, just look between the series list and the picture in a single episode and you will see what I mean.

2. This technically applies to ancient and medieval philosophy, but I feel that especially with modern philosophy there is lots of contemporary material that engages with it critically and offer multiple different angles and understandings of it. I have specifically in mind as a prime example Liberalism, and the criticism that Marxism, some strands of feminist theory, post/decolonial theory etc. You have already come across a lot of this in the Africana series. Cartesian dualism also comes to mind as another big example, of the huge contemporary desire to go beyond cartesian dualism, in this or that way. I'm wondering exactly how you are going to go about this issue, of choosing which contemporary voice/view to include and which to exclude in your coverage. One the one hand, they all offer (in my view anyway) interesting insights and critical reevaluations to our understanding of modern philosophers. On the other hand, the stream of voices seem endless.

In reply to by Andrew

Peter Adamson on 18 February 2024

Two points

Thanks for all that - I'll bring the point about the new episodes to Julian's attention.

The last point is tricky, but I think for the most part I will stick to telling the story as "immanently" as possible, so, trying to contextualize Cartesianism or whatever topic within its historical frame, and talking more about how contemporaries reacted to it rather than (say) 20th c objections. I might occasionally mention something along those lines but more to keep the listener's attention; it isn't really the point of the project and as you say there is no end to it. Also just pragmatically I think I'm going to have my hands full reading through the more historically oriented scholarship on this stuff! Which is also pretty much endless...

In reply to by Peter Adamson

Andrew on 18 February 2024

Some of the critiques are…

Some of the critiques are historically grounded and also very relevant to how we understand their philosophy though. Like, I know you will want to bring up how John Locke was invested in the Royal Africa company or John Stuart Mill with the East India company and how that should relate to how we understand their works. If we are willing to do that, then why not also bring in some modern historical critiques like a Marxist class critique of Liberalism? That would be the most historically grounded critique that comes to mind.

Andrey on 25 December 2023

Russian philosophy

Hello!

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.

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: https://www.historyofphilosophy.net/faq

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

List

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.

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.

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

Theater

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.

Emily on 12 October 2023

Why?

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

Cruelty

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 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

Podcast/Merina

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.

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.

Jan Matthys on 24 September 2023

insight

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

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.

Cristián

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...

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

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!

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! 

Yours,

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.

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" (https://historyofphilosophy.net/upanisads-black) 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.

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

Answers

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!  

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.

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

Twitter

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

Twitter

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

Mastodon

Well Mastodon is designed to be decentralised and run on individual instances. It is FOSS (Free and open source software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 - https://techcrunch.com/2022/11/08/what-is-mastodon/ 

In reply to by Andrew

Peter Adamson on 10 July 2023

Mastodon

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.

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

FAQ

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.

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; 

 

https://historyofphilosophy.net/timeline-renaissance

 

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;

 

https://historyofphilosophy.net/timeline-byzantium

 

1. Symeon the New Theologian


2. Eustathios


3. Joseph Rhakendytes

 

4. Theodore Prodromos

 

 

 


Indian Series;

 

https://historyofphilosophy.net/timeline-india

 

 

 

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

Timelines

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?

 

 

https://historyofphilosophy.net/timeline-renaissance

 

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;

 

https://historyofphilosophy.net/timeline-byzantium

 

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..)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 !

Andrew on 7 June 2023

Marx

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

Marx

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.