In reply to On the question of philosophy in Ancient Egypt by Chike Jeffers
Comments Page
Please leave any general comments here, or if your comment relates to a particular podcast, please post it on the relevant podcast page. You can also leave comments on Peter's blog.
For any technical issues concerning the website please use this form or email history.philosophy.gaps.podcast@gmail.com.
In reply to Before the Greeks by Peter Adamson
Chike Jeffers
on 2 May 2014
Yeah
I believe your "mirror for princes" reference is likely a reference to the genre of instructions, discussed in my BJHP article. My hope is that the article will help encourage present day philosophers, especially those interested in moral and political philosophy, to take a look at ancient Egyptian literature. For me, it comes naturally as part of my general interest in African thought, but one need not have that particular investment to find ancient Egyptian literature fascinating.
In reply to On the question of philosophy in Ancient Egypt by Chike Jeffers
Tom Roche
on 2 May 2014
àpropos philosophy in Ancient Egypt
Folks interested in this topic might want to listen to this week's "In Our Time" on the Tale of Sinuhe
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b041ybj3
The discussants allude to philosophical issues, but are mostly historically focused.
Cody Sitton
on 2 February 2014
Your experience with languages
Prof. Adamson, I'm an engineer student, but have a dirty pleasure; I read philosophy whenever I'm not doing homework (or sometimes when I need to be doing homework) for my college courses. My comment today is about your experiences with reading philosophy texts in their original language: I have this deep desire to be able to read text in their original language one day.
I'm currently learning French in my spare time and hope to add German, Latin, and Ancient Greek to my arsenal as time allows. Do you have any tips or possibly some advice in taking the proper steps to actually accomplish this goal?
I actually just bought P.J. Proudhon's "What is Porperty?" in its original French print and was going to attempt a loose translation to get my feet wet. Do you see this as a good step in the right direction or should I back up and approach it from another angle?
In reply to Your experience with languages by Cody Sitton
Peter Adamson
on 6 February 2014
Languages
Well, there's no doubt this is one of the biggest challenges facing anyone who wants to get seriously into the history of philosophy. Irritatingly many of the great historical works are not in English! The way I picked up my languages was by and large to do a standard introductory course, 1 or 2 years' worth, and then start reading philosophical texts. Especially with really difficult languages like ancient Greek or Arabic at first you have to work through a translation. One thing I would not necessarily recommend is self-teaching the basics - I did that with several of the languages I know, and I think I would have been better served to have a good teacher for the fundamentals. But the key thing there is to find a course/teacher that will go at the right speed for you, not too fast and not too slow. Switching thereafter to (or adding alongside normal language classes) reading philosophical texts in the original makes sense because it is often a pretty specialized vocabulary. Good luck, I hope you master all those languages in due course!
Tom Roche
on 28 January 2014
perplexed about Spinoza
In episode 160 you say that Maimonides was the greatest Jewish philosopher with the possible exception of Spinoza. This puzzles, since (IIUC) Spinoza was expelled from the Amsterdam shul for having repudiated Judaism, then from Amsterdam for being an atheist. (Some quibble with the latter charge, but, let's face it, if God is everything then God is nothing. And if God is a ham sandwich, kashrut is toast :-)
Perhaps you were using "Jewish" to denote ethnicity rather than religion? But then does not Portuguese (his mother tongue) have more claim on him? As an atheist of Azorean descent, I say, unhand Spinoza !-)
In reply to perplexed about Spinoza by Tom Roche
Peter Adamson
on 28 January 2014
Spinoza
Yes, I would certainly agree that Spinoza is not a "Jewish philosopher" in the same sense as Maimonides. The caveat was just intended to anticipate that if I said Maimonides is the greatest Jewish philosopher, people would object "hey, what about Spinoza!" I take it you wouldn't have made this objection!
That leaves open the question of whether it makes sense to call Spinoza a "Jewish philosopher" at all; I am not much of a Spinoza expert (yet!) but my inclination is to think that it isn't really our place as historians to say that figure X did or did not count as a representative of a certain religion. Usually it's better to avoid locutions like this entirely, which is why I hardly ever use the phrase "Islamic philosopher/philosophy," but it seemed safe to call Maimonides a Jewish philosopher - if anyone is one, it's him - and unavoidable to talk about "Jewish philosophy" in this current series of episodes.
In reply to Spinoza by Peter Adamson
Tom Roche
on 29 January 2014
figuring X
Peter Adamson on Tue, 01/28/2014 - 21:37: "it isn't really our place as historians to say that figure X did or did not count as a representative of a certain religion[,] but it seemed safe to call Maimonides a Jewish philosopher."
With apologies to al-Ghazali, that would be "The Incoherence of a Philosopher" ?-)
In reply to figuring X by Tom Roche
Peter Adamson
on 29 January 2014
hypocrisy
Uh, right. Usually I don't say two contradictory things quite that closely together. What I meant is that in cases, as with Spinoza, where some people want to say that they are not really Jewish (Christian/Muslim/theist) at all even though they would have self-identified as such, I am reluctant to pass such a judgment since it tends to imply we are able to see into their souls, and that we are authorities on who does and doesn't count as Jewish etc. Whereas no one would deny that Maimonides was a deeply pious Jew. Does that make sense?
In reply to hypocrisy by Peter Adamson
The Author Sel…
on 29 January 2014
self-identification and its discontents
Peter Adamson on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 17:45 (rearranged): "Maimonides was a deeply pious Jew." I concur that, as an empirical claim, that seems fairly safe. (With the caveat that "at the end of every neck is a black box," aka Roche's theory of mind :-) By contrast,
"[Spinoza] would have self-identified as [Jewish.]"
seems quite dubious on several levels. I'll grant that I don't know the relevant literature at all well, but my impression are that (1) Spinoza *did not* self-identify as Jewish, esp after the cherem. In fact, my impression is that (2) many Spinozists believe the cherem was so ferocious precisely because of the unfriendliness of his prior criticism of Judaism. Am I missing something? Note also that I continue to back-pocket claim (3) that, whatever his self-identification, one needs an exceptionally expansive definition of Judaism to accomodate Spinoza's stated views.
JKE
on 24 January 2014
Republic VII
Hi, I know there's a ton of good secondary literature on Plato's Republic, but can anyone recommend a book length study on Republic book VII?
clueless
on 16 January 2014
matter and form?
Hi, I am so confused whenever you talk about matter and form, or genus and species. Where are the first episodes where you explain what these terms mean in philosophy and explain the arguments for the distinction between matter and form?
In reply to matter and form? by clueless
clueless
on 17 January 2014
matter and form?
(or will I have to wait until Aquinas to understand?)
In reply to matter and form? by clueless
Peter Adamson
on 17 January 2014
Matter and form
Hi there,
It comes up for the first time in Aristotle, in episodes 38 and 39 especially. But let me know if those don't clarify it for you. (The basic idea is that you can analyze any physical object into the stuff it is made of -- like flesh and bone for an animal -- and form,which is the principle of determination that makes the stuff the way it is. This could be simply a shape, like a circular form in a circle made of metal, or something more complicated like the form of an animal which is actually its soul.)
Peter
In reply to Matter and form by Peter Adamson
clueless
on 20 January 2014
Ok I'll listen to those. Is
Ok I'll listen to those. Is that where you talk about what genus and species mean in Aristotelianism (I have no idea what Aquinas means when he's talking about that)?
In reply to Ok I'll listen to those. Is by clueless
Tom Roche
on 20 January 2014
sense and non-
@clueless:"I have no idea what Aquinas means"
The history of theology is mostly populated by writers who failed to anticipate Wittgenstein's p7 (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractatus_Logico-Philosophicus#Propositio… ) So when perplexed by a given text, consider the option that *it* just does not make sense :-) That's not always correct, but it's always possible, and is unfortunately not false often enough to be non-negligible.
Fortunately the case of Aristotle on genus and species is rather more straightforward, and the analogy to Linnaean classification helps. A genus is a definable set of things, a species is a subset of the genus, and a differentia is what (you guessed) differentiates species among the genus. The canonical example is that humans (species) are an animal (genus) that can reason (differentia).
In reply to sense and non- by Tom Roche
clueless
on 20 January 2014
Your example makes things a
Your example makes things a bit more clear. Can you give some more?
In reply to Your example makes things a by clueless
JKE
on 24 January 2014
Consider also the genus
Consider also the genus [polygon], with the differentia [three-sidedness] which gives us the species [triangle].
In reply to Consider also the genus by JKE
clueless
on 24 January 2014
So, for example, a boy
So, for example, a boy (species) is an offspring (genus) that is male (differentia). And a banquet (species) is a meal (genus) that is very large (differentia). Conversely, a snack (species) is a meal (genus) that is very small (differentia).
Tom Roche
on 12 January 2014
"modern turn" in Islamic-world philosophy of science?
Those of us more steeped in the European tradition believe (hopefully with justification :-) there was an early modern turn in philosophy of science. IIUC the standard story (which I may not--I study environmental modeling, not philosophy), the "first stage" is a long, slow (largely pre-modern) increase in emphasis on empirical/inductive knowledge, extending from Aristotle (and Philoponus' criticism thereof) and Galen, continuing with people like al-Haytham, ibn-Sina/Avicenna, Roger Bacon. Then--in Europe--there's a faster "second stage" (roughly 1450-1650) featuring an increasing recognition of the pragmatic power of mathematicization (e.g., Galileo), and of the newly-available instruments (Galileo again), and of the relative sterility of existence/essence discourse, deduction, etc. Eventually you get folks like Francis Bacon synthesizing and selling the lot, uptake by learned societies, and the (western) Europeans are "off to the races." (Stage 3 being scientific revolution, Industrial Revolution, world domination, etc.)
You've definitely covered some Islamic-world contributions to the first stage. I'm wondering, is there anything like an endogenous second stage in the Islamic world? or do they only "get there" in reaction to the third stage? (As seen in, e.g., Meiji Japan: "we're getting our butts kicked! time to suss out this science stuff.") If the former, is this something you'll get to? Or is this line of questioning fundamentally wrong-headed, and I'm missing something prior/major?
In reply to "modern turn" in Islamic-world philosophy of science? by Tom Roche
Peter Adamson
on 12 January 2014
Later developments in the Islamic world
Hi there,
Well, I'm devoting a whole series of podcasts (like the ones on Andalusia) to developments in the later Eastern tradition. I am still reading up on it, and writing the first few episodes. So, to some extent my answer is "watch this space." My impression however is that there are major shifts and developments but nothing quite like the stages you describe happening in Europe. Basically you don't get a shift towards empiricism, that seems to me to be the biggest difference in terms of philosophy's relevance to science or vice-versa. You do, interestingly, get a shift towards skepticism; also there is plenty of science, e.g. the activities at the Maragha astronomical observatory which I'll be mentioning a few times. And there is something that is reminiscent of the Renaissance around the time of the Persian Safavid empire, where they go back to the Greeks (or rather the old Arabic translations). But no Baconian revolution, so to speak.
Peter
Berel Dov Lerner
on 12 January 2014
proper names
Hello Peter - I would just like to make a technical suggestion. When you introduce a new thinker (or geographical location)please try to mention their name frequently. I don't think I'm the only listener who finds it easier to remembers the flow of ideas described in the podcasts than the associated proper names.
In reply to proper names by Berel Dov Lerner
Peter Adamson
on 12 January 2014
Names
Hi there,
Actually I already try to do that, at least more than I would in normal writing - instead of saying "he" I try to use the name more. Of course for a lot of episodes the name of the philosopher is in the title anyway. But I'll make an effort to do it more in the episodes covering a range of figures. (I know that in the Islamic world things can be confusing, for instance with the Jewish thinkers we're covering at the moment it seems like they all have Moses, Solomon, or Ezra in their names!)
Thanks for the feedback,
Peter
Rafael Calsaverini
on 9 January 2014
Music used so far on the podcast
Hi Peter,
first of all, thanks for sharing this knowledge with the community at large. It's amazing to have access to a specialist perspective over this matters outside of academia.
I'd like to ask you if you could share what is the music used as intro for the episodes on andalusian philosophy. (If you could tell also what are the other songs used in previous episodes it would be nice too).
Thanks a lot for all the effort you put on this project. I imagine it's not an easy task, but I bet there's a lot of people very thankful for it.
In reply to Music used so far on the podcast by Rafael Calsaverini
Peter Adamson
on 12 January 2014
Music
For the current music look at the first comment I left on the first Andalusia episode, and likewise for the first "Formative Period" episode. The ancient music clips were from Stefan Hagel's ancient music website, that is him performing on reconstructions of ancient instruments!
Zach Raph
on 8 January 2014
How did you get into History of Philosophy?
Dear Professor Adamson,
I am a second year undergrad student at Carleton College in Minnesota. I am fascinated by the questions, problems and topics of the history of philosophy, and I was curious how you personally became part of the field? Did you study a great deal of history throughout your undergrad years and grad years or was your focus primarily in philosophy? Did you spend a lot of time studying languages, you seem to be fluent to some degree in at least Arabic, Latin, Greek and possibly German? Any thoughts or experiences you want to share would be greatly appreciated.
-Zach
In reply to How did you get into History of Philosophy? by Zach Raph
Peter Adamson
on 9 January 2014
Getting into philosophy
Hi Zach,
Believe it or not I once came to give a paper at Carleton! A friend of mine was teaching there when I was a grad student so I made a visit. Nice school.
Anyway the short answer is that I went to Williams College whose philosophy dept. was pretty historically oriented, and got interested in medieval philosophy partially via interest in ancient, partially via interest in medieval literature (especially Dante, my first intellectual love). I already started on Latin when I was an undergraduate and picked up Greek and Arabic during my doctoral studies at Notre Dame. I can also read some other languages but I would claim to be fluent only in (American!) English and German.
I do have a general observation here for people wanting to get into the field which is that, if you want to work on history of philosophy (unless it is Locke and Hume, etc) you really need to master languages as early as possible. The younger you are the easier it is. In my field of ancient and Arabic philosophy it's always a challenge to find people who have a solid training in both the language and the philosophy side - pretty much everyone is stronger in one and trying to catch up on the other. I am unusual in the Arabic philosophy business in that I was trained as a philosopher and learned some Arabic along the way; most scholars in the field are Arabists who learned some philosophy along the way.
Enjoy the Minnesota winter! I hear it's cold there.
Peter
Mario Shammas
on 8 January 2014
Skeptics on Mathematics
Dear Professor,
I love your podcast! A question though, do we have any sources which tell us what the skeptics thought of mathematics and the certainty it provides? After all wasn't that why the Pythagoreans and Plato loved geometry? And also, do we know what the stoics thought of mathematics (or were they always more concerned with what is material)?
Thank you!
In reply to Skeptics on Mathematics by Mario Shammas
Peter Adamson
on 8 January 2014
Skeptics and Stoics on mathematics
Hello there,
Yes, we have Sextus Empiricus' 'Against the Professors' which has sections on mathematical topics. That's volume 4 of the Loeb Greek-English edition of Sextus. I think that would be the main place to look for skeptical ideas about math. He criticizes the proofs of geometers for instance.
As for the Stoics, I don't think they talk a lot about this but they need to take a view on the metaphysical status of mathematical objects, like geometrical figures. Long and Sedley (p.264) point out that the Stoics don't really distinguish between pure and empirical science. They mention, I think rightly, that among the Stoics it was really only Posidonius who had any particular knowledge of mathematics.
Peter
Tim
on 7 January 2014
A Few Questions
Dear Professor Adamson,
First, I'd like to say that I'm very glad to hear of your plans to cover Chinese and Indian philosophy, and I wish you good luck in your research thereof. Second, I would like to ask you some questions regarding both the podcast itself and some of the philosophies you have covered.
I noticed that you've spent considerably less time on each of the later philosophers than on Plato and Aristotle. Is this because you view their importance to the history of philosophy to be that much greater than the other philosophers you've covered, or is it simply that a strong base in Plato and Aristotle allows later philosophers to be covered much more quickly? Some combination? Something else?
I also have a question regarding philosophy in the Islamic world. Have any Islamic philosophers ever employed the concept of God being the source of morality to tackle the issue of the failure of human language to describe him? I feel that this would be a useful way to explain the descriptions of God found in the Koran. If God decided that it would be best to include these inherently inaccurate descriptions of himself in the text, then that would both explain and justify their use. This could possibly be for the reason of making Islam more appealing, to influence the behavior of its adherents, or for some reason inscrutable to us mere humans.
I apologize if these issues have already been covered in the podcast. I have been listening religiously for the past several weeks, so many of the ideas you have covered have become mixed around in my mind.
Sincerely,
Tim Noonan
In reply to A Few Questions by Tim
Peter Adamson
on 8 January 2014
A few answers
Hi there,
The reason for the blanket coverage of Plato and Aristotle is pretty much what you say: a combination of very important and fundamental for everything that comes after (perhaps especially Aristotle). I guess I also was thinking in terms of building an audience back then, and assuming people would be interested in those two and get hooked, then sticking around for the likes of Plotinus and more minor figures. Maybe another reason is just autobiographical: I have taught both of them quite a lot in my day job! I doubt any thinker will get that many episodes in the future though someone like Aquinas or Kant might get up towards 10 including interviews (and already Plotinus had 5, Augustine 7).
Your point about Islam is interesting - so the idea is that God would reveal potentially misleading things about Himself (e.g. suggesting He has a body) to make sure people respond to the message? I think that is effectively what Farabi and especially Averroes think is going on in the Koran, and Maimonides as we'll see shortly has a similar approach to the Hebrew Bible.
Cheerio,
Peter
In reply to A few answers by Peter Adamson
Tim
on 9 January 2014
A Few Sentences
Thank you for your reply,
I definitely look forward to Aquinas and Kant if they are important enough to warrant so many episodes. With regards to Islam, that is precisely what I am getting at, with the specific justification for God doing this being his status as the source for and creator of morality. I'm looking forward to Maimonides, as I'm now up to date with the podcast (it only took my whole winter break!)
Thanks again,
Tim
Nick Trakakis
on 2 January 2014
History of philosophy without gaps?
Dear Peter,
I thoroughly enjoy your podcasts, but I have been meaning to alert you to a major gap in your history, at least as it appears up till now: Byzantine Philosophy. This is a period in philosophy that is often passed over in silence, but hopefully a project such as yours will rectify this lacuna.
Best wishes,
Nick Trakakis
In reply to History of philosophy without gaps? by Nick Trakakis
Peter Adamson
on 3 January 2014
Byzantine philosophy
Hi Nick,
Not to worry, that is very much on the agenda. Actually I explained in the first episode on Islamic philosophy (episode 120) that I need to cover medieval philosophy in the Islamic, Latin Christian and Greek Christian worlds which means dividing the narrative into three to cover the traditions in parallel. I'm doing them in that order so I will not get to Byzantine thought for a while; but I will give it at least 10 episodes or so, I think. In that episode I give some reasons for doing Byzantine last out of the three traditions, but really I could have done them in any order.
Thanks,
Peter
In reply to Byzantine philosophy by Peter Adamson
In reply to Byzantine Philosophy by Nick Trakakis
Peter Adamson
on 3 January 2014
Byzantine philosophy
Hi again,
I should have added: if you (or anyone else) has suggestions on what to cover, in terms of themes or figures, that would be helpful. It's not an area I know well though I do have a rough idea of what I need to discuss.
Thanks,
Peter
In reply to Byzantine philosophy by Peter Adamson
Nick Trakakis
on 6 January 2014
Byzantine Philosophy
A good place to start is the Byzantine Philosophy article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which covers the major figures in section 1.3.
Ken
on 17 December 2013
I HAVE A COMPLAINT!!
I must happily complain, Professor Adamson, that you have caused me to want to know more, which has thrown my planned reading list for philosophy off.
I had decided that the only book on Islamic philosophy I would read would be the Decisive Treatise and the companion book you contributed to. Now I find I will have to track down, Ibn Arabi, Ibn Khaldun, and most expensively, Avicenna's The Metaphysics. I am thankful that you have introduced me from this often neglected part of Western philosophy, but now I will have to re-adjust my reading schedule and save money for those insanely expensive BYU translations.
In reply to I HAVE A COMPLAINT!! by Ken
Peter Adamson
on 17 December 2013
Apologies
I'm sorry that the podcast is turning out to be expensive. If it makes you feel any better I seriously doubt you will wind up spending as much on books covering Islamic philosophy as I have!
But seriously, I'm so glad that you are finding it worthwhile and especially that it is sending you back to the original texts - as I always say that is the ultimate success for the whole project. If you live in striking distance of a university library you could probably find some of these to take out and read for free, by the way.
Thanks for listening!
Peter
Paul
on 7 December 2013
Full History of a Time
When I heard you mention that you were working with other history bloggers on a project I immediately hoped it involved a presentation/discussion type program where historians/experts of various disciplines would each present a cross-section look at a period of time followed by a discussion of how philosophy, science, religion, economics, politics, etc. of a certain period interacted to form the broad concept of history. Our students are so used to walking from a math class to a history class to science when in real life history is formed by the interaction of everything. Do you think this kind of radio or TV show or podcast would work? Even if you used a SKYPE audio conference to produce a demo it would be fun to see what resulted.
Anyway, perhaps you could interest your other history bloggers to try it out. Even if it never happens I would be interested in hearing how you feel philosopher of a given period affected the times in which they lived. Or do philosophers have to die and hope their words are preserved and read centuries in the future? Is there a current day philosopher influencing us and what our history will be.
Tom Roche
on 3 December 2013
India/Islam/China
Toward your declared end of "ungapping" Chinese and Indian philosophy, I thought I'd propose one or two shows you could do
* without a lot of detail, sort of a "10000 meter view of history of philosophy"
* to sketch your intentions regarding these domains
* to illuminate one (or maybe two) historical question(s), ...
... Namely, what influences, if any, are exchanged between Islamic philosophy (on the one hand) and Chinese and Indian philosophy (on the other hands)? And if there's not much, why not? Why I ask:
I remembered your line about "my father was a man of Balkh" when listening to
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio3/essay/essay_20131128-2300a.m…
which briefly discusses the Battle of Talas. Spatially, Talas is not all that far from Balkh (OK, it's ~1000 km, but we're talking *Central Asia*) and temporally the battle is not that far from Ibn Sīnā's birth (OK, over 2 centuries, but this is pre-modern time). Plus we know (unless I'm missing something) that
* the Silk Road was happening for millenia before, and at least a half millenium after, these events
* the spatiotemporal reach of Ibn Sīnā's writing was waaay greater than the distances above--like, to Renaissance Europe
* contemporary Chinese and Indian societies were also learned, philosophical, and technological
* Indian philosophy has a major influence on China (via Buddhism, via Central Asia), so obviously distance is not an insurmountable factor
Yet my impression is
* Islamic philosophy influences India only much later, via the Mughals
* Indian technology (notably, arithmetic) has some influence on the Muslim world, but not so much Indian philosophy
* Chinese technology (notably, paper) has a major influence on Islamic philosophy, but not so much Chinese philosophy
* Islamic philosophy has almost no effect on Chinese philosophy
Am I missing something? If not, why is there so much Islam/Europe philosophical exchange, but so little Islam/China and Islam/India philosophical exchange? Given there's so much happening in philosophically in Central Asia, and the Muslim philosophers are "known good" at absorbing useful work from pagans?
So that's kind of a big topic or two :-) but, like I said, think of this as something you could do an interview show or two on relatively soon, and use to as an intent marker (aka, teaser :-) until you're ready to, ummm, "do China and India."
In reply to India/Islam/China by Tom Roche
Peter Adamson
on 3 December 2013
Philosophy in Asia
That's an excellent question about Chinese and Indian philosophy and their interaction with Islamic philosophy. I know there is actually Sufism in China eventually, plus as you say there is Indian scientific influence on the Islamic world (astronomy and astrology as well as mathematics). I think it's worth noting that when al-Biruni, who is a contemporary of Avicenna, writes his "India" he is clearly thinking that India is a totally foreign culture to which he has gained unusual access. That suggests to me that there just wasn't enough cultural interchange in the decisive formative centuries of Islamic culture for Indian (or Chinese) thought to have extensive impact, even if there are references here and there. The obvious explanation would be language barriers: the Muslim conquests simply didn't get into India, and so Arabic was not spread there. However this is probably too simple and there is definitely some cultural interchange; check out for instance this project on Islam and Tibet that was done in London.
By the way I plan to devote an episode to Islamic philosophy in the Mughal period in any case.
As for the question of how to cover it I would be reluctant to do a minimal version, like you suggest - it would be a lot easier but almost counterproductive or dismissive (European philosophy gets hundreds of episodes, Indian gets 2). So to me that is a backup plan to be pursued only if doing it properly doesn't work out.
Kurt Wenner
on 1 December 2013
Tagore Sadhana
I was reading through some of the comments and was amazed to hear that you had the eventual plan to cover Eastern thought. You are really ambitious! After I ran through your podcasts, I looked for new material on Plotinas and found a site called "The Ideal in the West". I prefer your presentation and appreciate the depth and richness of your scholarship, but the other site was interesting for its attempt to connect Platonic philosophy with a wider transcendentalist western tradition. This, (as well as the fact that I had some philisophical indigestion after listening to Saint Augustine's " "City of God"), made me homesick for Eastern philosophy.
I found that Peter Yearsley has recorded the whole of Tagore's "Sadhana" on Librivox, (Previously every chapter had its own reader, which was disappointing). I was wondering if you think there is any single work in all of the Western European philosophical tradition outside of the "Phaedro" that has the eloquence, depth and beauty of Tagore's "Sadhana"?
For your convenience I have uploaded a link to the files here:
https://www.hightail.com/download/OGhlRGwrK3hFc0o3czhUQw
The files are in the public domain and can be downloaded directly from Librivox as well, but this might be a bit faster. Just a last question- I would consider this a work of philosophy, it has only a few premises taken from the Bahagavad Gita and draws its conclusions in a reasoned manner, treating many of the ethical and perceptual issues discussed by ancient philosophers in a manner that is refined and logical. Would you agree with this?
Thanks for your efforts,
Kurt Wenner
In reply to Tagore Sadhana by Kurt Wenner
Peter Adamson
on 2 December 2013
Indian philosophy
I have to admit I don't know the Tagore text but in general there is no doubt that there are plenty of Indian texts that are "philosophical," on pretty much any definition of that term. So, with arguments, distinctions, technical terminology - all the hallmarks of philosophical literature, and on familiar topics like skepticism, atomism, monism etc etc. That's why I want to learn more about this tradition and give it the coverage it deserves, if I can.
Just one side comment: although I share your admiration for the Phaedo I was surprised to see you exalt it above all other philosophical texts in the European tradition like that - one doesn't even need to go outside the works of Plato's middle career to find a contender for an equally great, if not greater, work namely the Republic.
In reply to Indian philosophy by Peter Adamson
kurt wenner
on 2 December 2013
Tagore
Hi Peter,
Thanks for your response, but it only makes me more certain that you will love Tagore's "Sadhana". Plato's "Repubic" is a hugely problematic work for me. As a work of art I find it significantly inferior to many other dialogues. This is because the dialectic is preserved only as decoration, the listener is reduced to a "yes man". Certainly this shortens the process and allows Plato to expound a huge variety of ideas that would perhaps be painful to listen to in a true dialectic; but this is not my major complaint. Plato's criticism of the arts is what puzzles me most.
To me the greatest puzzle of antiquity is how little use the philosophers made of the arts. Plato uses the word "mimesis" to describe the works of Phidias. It would seem impossible that in such a "small town" as Athens there would be no discussion between philosphers and artists. Yet, the idealization of the human form and its use in architecture in ancient Greece exactly parallels the "ideal forms" of Plato's philosophy. Plato attributes these coincidences to "inspiration" and writes off any artistic claim to knowledge. I cannot accept this.
But Plato's real "faux pas" in "The Republic" was to banish the poets. This has to have raised the hair on the necks of two thousand years of intellectuals. Aside from the general creepiness of the concept, there is a huge significance which has not been explored to the best of my knowledge. Compare Tagore's use of the "Bhagavad Gita" in his discourse on beauty to Plato's description of Homer. Tagore has made good use of the Gita to create a crystal-clear analogy of divine love. Plato only sees horror in myth. To me, the remarkable legacy of Greek myth was orphaned by the fact that ancient philosophers were unable to utilize their rich cultural legacy and confused themselves with a literal interpretation of the material. Maybe they needed an antique version of Robert Graves or Joseph Campbell.
More seriously, I think that the disconnect between the arts and sciences has its seed right here. It gives Aristotle his foothold toward considering the particular as causal rather than the whole. The rest of western philosophy becomes a "commentary on Plato" in part because this disconnect is never again bridged.
I hope you take advantage of the download link- it is only good for a week or two. I love your podcasts, and would be thrilled to hear your response to Tagore. In any case it is ear-candy compared to the other texts you need to study to do your serious work.
Thanks,
Kurt Wenner
In reply to Tagore by kurt wenner
Peter Adamson
on 3 December 2013
Plato on the poets
Thanks, I did download the file! I will take a look when I get a chance.
Re. Plato have you listened to episode 33 on Plato and myth? Because there I suggest that his dismissal of poetry etc is a lot more complicated than it seems. I tend to think that Plato was not so much arguing against the use of literature or the aesthetic in philosophy, but to the contrary setting himself up as a rival and critic of previous literary figures. In other words, he wanted to offer everything that is good about poetry but in a way that is informed by understanding, rather than by a faulty understanding of the world, of the gods, etc.
In reply to Plato on the poets by Peter Adamson
kurt wenner
on 3 December 2013
Tagore- Plato
I agree with you about Plato's intentions, but it seems to me that in contrast with Tagore he does not actually make much use of the Greek mythological heritage, only warns the audience about misusing it. Socrates seems as often to weave a new fable as quote the existing ones, perhaps that was one cause for his legal troubles- it does appear in the complaint.
Of course I love Plato, and the approach to philosophy is in tune with the Tagore work as well. What stands out is the difference in their relationship to their cultural history.
Enjoy the audio!
Kurt
In reply to Tagore- Plato by kurt wenner
Peter Adamson
on 3 December 2013
Plato's use of the poets
Actually Plato is doing a lot more with the poets than you might think; a whole book was recently published on (often implicit) allusions to Hesiod in his dialogues. Remember that Homer and Hesiod for the Greeks were like the Bible in medieval Europe - it was nearly impossible to write without calling them to mind.
Still, I take the point that engaging positively with the literary past can be more attractive and I have read enough about Indian philosophy to know that this is a real feature of that tradition.
Thanks for the comments and the text!
Peter
Tom Roche
on 29 November 2013
Islamic political philosophy
I was listening to Robert Gleave on Ali (as in, caliph 4)
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio3/essay/essay_20131126-2300a.m…
thinking "dude *really* needed a copy of 'The Prince'!" Which made me wonder if anyone in the "early Islamic world" was doing that kind of practical/descriptive hands-on (pun intended :-) political philosophy before, say, ibn Khaldūn. As in, *not* "al-Fārābī on Religion and Politics," which, unless I'm misremembering, seemed about as useful as The Republic. Anybody doing (somewhat) less normative, (substantially) more positive work, like the earlier Chinese ("cast of thousands" including Confucius, Legalists, Mencius, Mozi, Daoists), Indians (e.g., Chanakya), or Greeks (e.g., Thucydides, Aristotle's lost constitutional survey)?
In reply to Islamic political philosophy by Tom Roche
Peter Adamson
on 29 November 2013
Mirrors for princes
I would say yes, but only sort of. The most relevant texts are works in the "mirrors for princes" tradition, already written in Persian, which not unlike Machiavelli give advice, some of which is quite practical, to rulers. There is a similar sub-genre on advice on being a courtier (boon companion, secretary, vizier etc). The reason I say "sort of" is that these texts are typically not quite considered part of the philosophical canon, because unlike Machiavelli they aren't thought to imply a more general attitude towards, say, political legitimacy or the place of moral concerns in political action. To be honest I couldn't say for sure how fair that rather dismissive attutude is, it's not something I've worked on a lot. Though this tradition does have an influence on the ethical works I discussed in episode 134.
Kurt Wenner
on 29 November 2013
My Compliments!
Thank you very much for your podcast. I spend huge numbers of hours in my studio working on projects and your podcast has helped me get through at least one of them.
I would like to recommend your podcast on my Facebook page and later on my blog. I really look forward to what you will say about Renaissance neoplatonists and even Descartes, who I do not even like.
https://www.facebook.com/KurtWenner
kurtwenner.com
In reply to My Compliments! by Kurt Wenner
Peter Adamson
on 29 November 2013
Descartes
Thanks very much! So now I have a new challenge, which is to make you like Descartes. Fortunately I have a while until I get to him so I can hone my skills in the meantime.
Dr. Dan Guerra
on 25 November 2013
non sequitor
Landing on a free podcast that traces the western philosophical tradition as thoroughly as HOP is like happening upon a pristine glacial lake after a long hike in the Rockies. It is simply sublime.
But beyond its content and depth, Peter Adamson brings humor and warmth to each episode that goes beyond the standard textbook treatment of such wonderful philosophical works.
It is not the prerogative of a student to direct his professor in the lecture topics. Furthermore, if you don't like to learn about western philosophy then don't download the podcast. No matter what it is called, the important issue is whether you find value in the podcast.
Personally, I don't care to hear more about Eastern philosophy every time I learn about things, philosophical. I have read a lot of the Eastern tradition and have listened to many lectures and podcasts on the major realms of Eastern thought. In HOP, I find such a thorough analysis of the Western school tremendously interesting and intellectually engaging. There are numerous podcasts, open courseware offerings and audio books on all aspects of philosophy. Frankly, I think HOP is superior to most of these. HOP is excellent as it is. I am a scientist so I am being educated when I listen to HOP. I continue to read extensively outside of my discipline and have consumed many volumes of original philosophical texts and the secondary literature. A hobby of mine. I am grateful for Peter Adamson's excellent effort and look forward to his steady progression through this amazing corpus of philosophy. Bravo to HOP just as it is and wherever Peter Adamson decides to take us in the future.
Tom Roche
on 25 November 2013
Quiz 1/the 100th Episode Quiz
Almost forgot to ask my original question: are the answers to Quiz 1/the 100th Episode Quiz available? Somehow I completely missed that: I'm on the RSS feed (no iTunes for me, I'm on linux), so I usually access the website only to right-click the MP3 link.
In reply to Quiz 1/the 100th Episode Quiz by Tom Roche
Peter Adamson
on 25 November 2013
Quiz answers
Hi there,
The answers were posted here on the website and are still available, at:
http://www.historyofphilosophy.net/100th-episode-quiz-answers
Cheerio,
Peter
Gordon Tsang
on 22 November 2013
Regarding the current absurd title of this podcast
Dear Professor Adamson
By all respect, and not to be sounding hostile or rude, I find it extremely peculiar and somewhat irritating when you are still issisting calling your podcast "Philosophy Without Gap", whether or not Chinese or Indian philosophy are going to be included.
As I have already said ,if you claims to be doing "History of Philosophy With No Gaps" while excluding Chinese and Indian philosophy, logically it is same as suggesting these philosophies (who happen to not follow the tradition of the "Greek") are not philosophy.
This is quite a "multicultural" point of view I must admit, and if that is really what this website genuinely believe, then I can only wish you can be more explicit about it. Of course my stance remains the same, either find some Chinese and Indian philosophy specialist to do the podcast for the website, (hello, SOAS is right next door to the Senate House Library?), or just remove the "With No Gaps" from the title.
Of course as I said I am not trying to stir up any issues, or I am particularly offended (anymore then what an English might feel if he/she find the entry "English" missing from Wikipedia's "List of human language"). I am simply demonstrating the meaning and attitude that one can logically deduce regarding this podcast, by reading its title and a set of post by yours. What I am not assuring is you genuinely have this attitude. Yet I believe it is always better for this podcast's sake to at least give a impression of it being "open-minded", especially if this is the attitude that philosophy is "supposed" to have. Otherwise this podcast will only be seen as one of many example of academic hypocrisy.
In reply to Regarding the current absurd title of this podcast by Gordon Tsang
Peter Adamson
on 24 November 2013
Indian and Chinese
HI Gordon,
Right, I agree and my plan is to include them - I have some plans on this but don't want to announce anything until I am sure about how it will work. Basically my approach is the one you suggest, namely to get help from some qualified expert(s). Albeit that SOAS is not "next door" to me, because I'm in Munich now.
Incidentally the point of "without any gaps" would not be lost even if I didn't cover Indian and Chinese; the idea of that slogan is not "let's look at all philosophy that has ever existed anywhere at any time" but "let's look at the philosophy I am covering without jumping from major figure to major figure." In other words the slogan refers to the goal of telling a continuous story, not the goal of telling a comprehensive story (as I explained in the first episode). The problem to my mind would be more the title "History of Philosophy" than the gaps slogan, since that title does suggest comprehensiveness. You're right that if in the end I didn't cover Indian and Chinese it would be better to call it "History of Western Philosophy," though as I've said before I don't like that expression.
Anyway this is all rather beside the point since my plan is indeed to include these other traditions. Incidentally one might also think of doing African philosophy, and maybe there are some other traditions that need to be considered too before one has really done the _whole_ history of philosophy.
Peter
In reply to Indian and Chinese by Peter Adamson
Tom Roche
on 25 November 2013
audio SEP
Thanks to Gordon Tsang for asking a question I've been meaning to ask for awhile. When I first started listening, I thought "without any gaps" was a reference to "god in the gaps," but obviously there has been much theology on the show since then.
Peter Adamson on Sun, 11/24/2013 - 11:34: "my plan is indeed to include these other traditions."
Unless you expect to hop on Kurzweil's singularity, I recommend you open this project to collaborators who specialize in those other traditions. (And, for that matter, to folks working in your own domains--which, I might add, are astonishingly broad--if only to avoid "truck factor of one," as the coders say.) Become more like an audio SEP: continue to generate content in your areas of expertise, and edit/curate content outside.
In reply to audio SEP by Tom Roche
Josh Lee
on 25 November 2013
I think we should all be
I think we should all be extremely grateful and impressed if Professor Adamson manages a history of Western philosophy without any gaps. I strongly disagree that Professor Adamson needs to start working more as an editor than an author. Part of what is fun about this podcast is the particular style that Professor Adamson brings to it. I guarantee you that the average philosophy professor isn't going to spend the time necessary to bring the hooks and entertainment value that Professor Adamson does. When I want the SEP, rather than a fun listen, I can read the SEP.
In reply to I think we should all be by Josh Lee
Josh Lee
on 25 November 2013
No Audio SEP
Sorry but I think saying this is an audio SEP seriously undervalues the particular voice that Professor Adamson brings to this. If you want an audio SEP, I highly recommend this app, which I do use to listen to the SEP when I'm in a heavy-work mood: http://www.voicedream.com
In reply to No Audio SEP by Josh Lee
Gordon Tsang
on 25 November 2013
History of philosophy
First of all I must applause such friendly and helpful response from Professor Adamson. Looking back I do find my original comment a bit too hostile hence I will like to apologise.
At the same time I welcome the plans of introducing philosophies from different area. I strongly disagree Jose Lee's notion that turning this podcast into a audio-SEP will means it will be "boring", nor I believe by finding more guest speakers to do other culture's philosophy will infer having a more SEP approach
First of all, this podcast has many guest speakers dealing with different issues in Greek and Arabian philosophies, I do not see how that will differ from guest speakers doing oother philsophies. At the same time having a philsophically and historically trained "editor" engaging in a discussion with other philosophers in fields that he does not specialized in, can provide many alternative view point on a old subject. (for example, just look at Robert Wardy's analysis on 17th century effort in translating Aristotlelian logic into Chinese....)
In reply to History of philosophy by Gordon Tsang
Peter Adamson
on 25 November 2013
Collaboration
Thanks for the input everyone! The problem about lacking expertise is actually not unique to these other traditions though they are especially daunting. The limits of my present expertise will be reached when I get to the end of Latin medieval. However I agree that the project, if it is to keep going, needs to keep a unified authorship and voice - rather than just switching to nothing but interviews for instance. So basically I am planning to learn a lot. (I may also need to slow down though, like by having new episodes appear once every other week.) Having said that, the model I'm considering for Indian philosophy is indeed to get a collaborator to help me with the relevant parts, who would then be the co-author of the book version. If that works out well I would try to cover Chinese philosophy in the same way later on. But as I say I will announce the plan officially once I am more sure how and when it will launch.
In reply to Collaboration by Peter Adamson
Tom Roche
on 25 November 2013
Peter Adamson on Mon,
Peter Adamson on Mon, 11/25/2013 - 08:46: "basically I am planning to learn a lot."
好運與您的中國學研究 !-)
In reply to I think we should all be by Josh Lee
Tom Roche
on 25 November 2013
audio SEP
Josh Lee on Mon, 11/25/2013 - 00:42: "I guarantee you that the average philosophy professor isn't going to spend the time necessary to bring the hooks and entertainment value that Professor Adamson does."
... and I'll bet you $20 right now Professor Adamson presently lacks the chops to do China *and* India *and* Africa *and* [your currently-neglected philosophical homeland here] to the standard to which he's done (and no doubt will continue to do) the Western tradition.
And *another* Jackson says that, barring some serious singularity-style augmentation, Adamson ain't gonna get those chops in the lifespan he can reasonably currently expect. This is one reason why reasonable people collaborate (in addition to the truck-factor consideration): reasonable people understand that collaboration can allow the group to create works greater than the sum of the separate individuals. And (contra Allen) reasonable people hope to become immortal only through their work. (And their students, though I dunno who Adamson is supervising.)
Josh Lee on Mon, 11/25/2013 - 00:42: "When I want the SEP, rather than a fun listen, I can read the SEP."
Hopefully with more care than that you lavished on the comment to which you just responded :-)
In reply to audio SEP by Tom Roche
Josh Lee
on 27 November 2013
We don't disagree about the
We don't disagree about the facts, we disagree about the value/meaning to assign to those facts. I think losing unified authorship would be worse than focusing on Western philosophy. You think leaving out other philosophical traditions would be worse than losing unified authorship. I think of this as Peter Adamson's podcast. You think of it as an audio encyclopedia. We just disagree about these things.
In reply to We don't disagree about the by Josh Lee
Tom Roche
on 29 November 2013
facts
Josh Lee on Wed, 11/27/2013 - 17:08: "We don't disagree about the facts"
Actually, we *do*, since you claim that
"You think of it as an audio encyclopedia."
... which is not only false, but is easily shown to be false:
Tom Roche on Mon, 11/25/2013 - 00:17: "Unless you [i.e., Dr Adamson] expect to hop on Kurzweil's singularity, I recommend you open this project to collaborators who specialize in those other traditions. (And, for that matter, to folks working in your own domains--which, I might add, are astonishingly broad--if only to avoid "truck factor of one," as the coders say.) Become more like an audio SEP: continue to generate content in your areas of expertise, and edit/curate content outside."
Clearly, I referred to the SEP only with regard to division of labor ... but finding that requires reading with care.
Fortunately, this is a skill one can develop in a good intro-to-philosophy class. The downside of philosophy qua career is that competition for jobs is pretty brutal. The upside for consumers is that one can get instruction from quite competent philosophers at pretty much any post-secondary institution (including what are called "community colleges" in the US) pretty much anywhere.
Dr. Dan Guerra
on 17 November 2013
Your Amazing Project
Dr Adamson,
I want to congratulate you on this excellent series. It is the most comprehensive philosophy podcast I have heard and you do it with great clarity, sophistication and appropriately laced humor.
I really enjoyed the pre-Socratics (my favourite so far!) and the Plato/Aristotle sections were amazing.The Neo-Platonists are some of my all time most sought after thinkers and you did a great service to them as well. The Church Fathers and now your extensive Arabic/Muslim world material is also outstanding!
My only concern is that you will burn out or lose interest/funding for what I expect to be years of intellectual reward. For example, I cant wait until you reach Kant... Seriously, I.K. is such an enormous intellect and unfortunately, even with some great online podcasts and University-based courses involving his work; he is still in such dis-favour among so many people I talk to. I'm a scientist (biochemist) so that may tell you something about the dirth of the "love of wisdom" in my field. I occasionally try to remind my colleagues that we all have a PhD and after all, we should be equally schooled in philosophy and as "doctors" in our chosen disciplines. The best I get from them is eye rolling. Really quite disturbing if it weren't also ironically amusing. Anyway, please keep going...Kant, and later Schopenhauer and Kierkegaard and Brentano and Jaspers and Heidegger and ...well you get the picture.
Bravo History of Philosophy W/O any Gaps!
DJG
In reply to Your Amazing Project by Dr. Dan Guerra
Peter Adamson
on 17 November 2013
Keeping goin
Dear Dr Guerra,
Thanks very much! Running out of funding won't be an issue because to be honest podcasting is pretty cheap. So it's more the time investment that is a long-term challenge but I certainly don't have any plans to stop. Kant will definitely be a big figure to tackle when I get that far (and by the way you may be encouraged to know that among philosophers he's rated in the top handful, so not in disfavor at all).
Cheerio,
Peter
imran abbas
on 12 November 2013
pure delight
Dear Peter
I have been following your pod cast for few months now and it has been a pure delight. Philosophy has always been a passion of mine but never had the time to study it properly living a very demanding profession. Your pod cast is fuelling that passion again and on top of that you have just reached my favourite topic in philosophy i-e the ghazali/ ibn Rushd debate! I hope you do spend more time on that and give us more insight on who is right and why. I also wish that you extend the same debate to include st thomas Aquinas.
thanks for all your hard work. It is very much appreciated by many like me.
imran
In reply to pure delight by imran abbas
Peter Adamson
on 12 November 2013
The Tahafut debate
Hi Imran,
Thanks, glad you are enjoying the podcasts! I will actually mention Aquinas' criticisms of Averroes' views on intellect in episode 151 but mostly you'll have to wait until I get to him, which will take more than a year still I'm afraid. Lots of philosophy from the Islamic world and earlier Latin medieval philosophy to get through first...
Thanks for listening,
Peter
David Jones
on 6 November 2013
Problem with podcast metadata in IOS7
Peter, I've been a keen and appreciative listener from the beginning but I've finally been obliged to start using Apple's dedicated podcast app following an operating system update. There's a problem with the metadata of your podcasts, I think, that's causing an issue for me and perhaps for anyone else using an iPod Touch or iPhone.
Your podcast episodes, while numbered ok, all recently have a date of the 1st Jan 2001 associated with them. That's preventing the Apple app from downloading the most recent, or sorting downloaded episodes in the correct order.
It'll be a simple thing for whoever produces the files to check and change in the future (ID3 tags are the problem I believe) and it'll make life much easier for me. And everyone else of course.
Thanks.
In reply to Problem with podcast metadata in IOS7 by David Jones
Peter Adamson
on 7 November 2013
Metadata
Hi there,
Yes, I'm aware of this problem and have actually just been in touch with Apple about it. It seems to be a problem specific to the platforms you mention - even normal iTunes recognizes the date assigned to each file on the RSS feed and orders them correctly. The point about the ID3 tags is interesting, I will look into that and see if there is something I can change about the file that is set automatically to Jan 1, 2001. (By the way Apple's advice was not useful -- they just said to fix the date in the RSS feed, which of course is not correct. I guess they don't know how their own apps work. So if anyone else has a tip that would be great.)
Peter
In reply to Metadata by Peter Adamson
Pete Bataleck
on 12 November 2013
ID3 tags
Peter,
Your podcasts have ID3 tags version 2.2 which has these tags (quoting from the spec):
TYE - The 'Year' frame is a numeric string with a year of the recording.
This frames is always four characters long (until the year 10000).
TDA - The 'Date' frame is a numeric string in the DDMM format containing
the date for the recording. This field is always four characters long.
TIM - The 'Time' frame is a numeric string in the HHMM format containing
the time for the recording. This field is always four characters long.
TRD - The 'Recording dates' frame is a intended to be used as complement to
the "TYE", "TDA" and "TIM" frames. E.g. "4th-7th June, 12th June" in
combination with the "TYE" frame.
None of these has ever been set in your podcasts.
A date of the 1st Jan 2001 is basically a zero - most systems store dates as seconds from 1st Jan 1970 but Apple uses 2001 as the base in some places. (iTunes first appeared in Jan 2001.)
It may be that setting one or more of these tags works around what looks like a bug in the podcast app - I have no idea but I doubt it.
Incidentally the same problem is reported but not resolved here: https://discussions.apple.com/message/22497902
In reply to ID3 tags by Pete Bataleck
Peter Adamson
on 12 November 2013
ID3 tags
Thanks, that's super-helpful! Can you recommend some software that would allow me to see and modify these tags? I know that iTunes can't do it, and I downloaded something called EasyTag which didn't seem to have the ability to change these on the files. Or is there an easier way?
Thanks,
Peter
In reply to ID3 tags by Peter Adamson
Pete Bataleck
on 12 November 2013
ID3 tags
Peter,
What platform are you using, Linux,Windows or Mac ? If the answer is Linux, then eyeD3 or id3v2 will work; for the other OSes I'll check.
Pete
In reply to ID3 tags by Pete Bataleck
Peter Adamson
on 12 November 2013
ID3
Mac I'm afraid - makes many things easier, but some things harder. Thanks again for the help!
In reply to ID3 by Peter Adamson
Pete Bataleck
on 13 November 2013
editing tags
I did a bit of digging around.
Tagr seems quite popular : http://www.entwicklungsfreu.de/tagr.html - it's Mac only, which may be a good thing, but does mean that I can't run it.
kid3 from http://kid3.sourceforge.net/ runs everywhere. I tried it on Linux and it sets some ID3 tags, but not version 2.2 (it converts to automatically to v2.3).
I can't find anything that will set ID3 v2.2 tags. This may not be a problem. I checked some other podcasts:
History of the Crusades uses ID3 v2.3 and has the year set to 2013
History of Byzantium uses v2.3 and does not have the year set
Revolutions uses v2.2 and has the year set to 2013
Assuming these podcasts work OK with iTunes, this suggests that using v2.3 tags is fine and you can ignore my earlier comments about v2.2 tag fields.
You could try editing a podcast with one of the above apps, set the year and save it. That will convert the tags.
Will this fix the problem? No idea. (One scenario where it would: prior to iOS7, using v2.2 tags without a year would default to current date,with iOS7 no year would be zero i.e. 1st Jan 2001.)
In reply to editing tags by Pete Bataleck
Peter Adamson
on 13 November 2013
Tags
Thanks, very kind of you to help with this! I downloaded both Tagr and Kid3, and in both cases used them to look at the most recent podcast. Both showed that the file was _already_ tagged as year 2013 (I got the same result with EasyTag). I also checked a much older episode and it was also tagged with the right year (2010). But you said you looked at one of the files and saw that the year was not set, didn't you? So that's rather odd.
In reply to Tags by Peter Adamson
Pete Bataleck
on 13 November 2013
tags
Baffling.
I just downloaded (from the website, not iTunes) episode 149 and ran kid3.
It showed tags version 2.2, with the date blank.
I've been assuming that it's the same file on the website and on iTunes; if that's not true then I've been wasting your time :-(
Not sure what to suggest now.
Andrej
on 3 November 2013
Thanks!
Prof. Adamson, thank you for your podcasts. They are absolutely amazing. I've been listening to them for quite some time now, some of the podcasts more than once. Can I also ask you if you could provide me with some notes (or at least outlines?) that you have already made? Often, I'd like to take notes while listening to the mp3s and it takes me then more time as I sometimes have to pause or rewind the lecture. It would really help me in terms of time, and also I guess occasionally in terms of accuracy of names, terms, dates, etc. Any help? Please, keep up the great work!
In reply to Thanks! by Andrej
Peter Adamson
on 3 November 2013
Notes
Well, I only have the scripts which will be appearing as books in due course. So if you wait for those they will be much better than njust an outline or notes. For dates and names you can check out the "timeline" pages here on this website - there are separate ones for classical antiquity, late antiquity, and now Islamic world. This is a complete list of every thinker I mention in the podcasts, with links to the relevant episodes.
In reply to Notes by Peter Adamson
Andrej
on 3 November 2013
Thanks for your quick reply!
Thanks for your quick reply! I'm not sure if I can't wait; I have to listen to your podcasts nevertheless :) I'm glad your going to publish out your stuff. So, do you first write your scripts and then read them? I'm also planning to do some podcasts related to religion so I'm wondering which approach you personally find the best
Karl
on 3 October 2013
History of Philosophy philosophy
Hello. I am a huge fan! Congratulations on such a sound work in the quite modern medium of podcasting.
Do I gather rightly that you have purposefully avoided making forward comparisons of historical philosophers with modern thinkers and notions, something others in your shoes might try, if only to make their insights more relevant to a modern, let alone postmodern, audience? If so, does that itself indicate something about your own philosophy on how we should understand either or both, history and philosophy? Would you comment on your reasoning about this careful separation of concerns, as I make it, between your modern diction and medium, your methodological explanations (how do we know this is what they said?), your explanation of their influences and work, without often indicating their modern impact, potential or real, beyond your choice of what to cover? Well, that question got over-blown quickly. I'll try again: Is there a philosophy of history behind your history of philosophy?
In reply to History of Philosophy philosophy by Karl
Peter Adamson
on 3 October 2013
Modern allusions
Hi there -- yes, that's a very perceptive comment and question. You're right, I tend to be wary of cross-historical and -cultural comparisons. I think one needs to be careful not to impose anachronistic concepts on historical figures and texts. So, in general I do have a tendency to avoid allusions to modern-day philosophy, though I do think it can be valuable if done with great care. (But that would often mean more precision and caveats than I can afford in a podcast script.) I'm reasonably sympathetic to the use of modern contrasts and terminology, like "determinism" or "modality," just because it can make it easier to clarify what is going on in the historical texts, but even here one needs to be careful. Much less interesting, to my mind, is discovering that such and such an idea/argument/theory that is bandied about nowadays already existed in, say, Plato. Isn't it even more exciting and philosophically useful that he gives arguments and has ideas that don't get put forward nowadays?
So I guess if I have a philosophy of history of philosophy it is: start by trying to understand historical texts on their own terms, using as detailed as possible an understanding of the context in which they were written. Only then is it safe to do some comparing with what is going on in philosophy nowadays. (Always without underestimating the difficulty of the first task.)
Glad you are enjoying the series by the way!
Peter
N M
on 28 September 2013
Short pauses during the podcast?
Hi Peter, I've been following this series since over a year but still in the 50s episodes because of my time constraint. I want to thank you for the wonderfully informative content and not to forget some very witty vignettes in each episode.
Perhaps a suggestion would be to pause a little during the podcast so that we have the time to let the ideas sink in. And also some of the episodes (at least the earlier ones) with guest speakers have poor audio quality - maybe these are recorded differently? That's it, thank you once again, keep going!
In reply to Short pauses during the podcast? by N M
Peter Adamson
on 28 September 2013
Pauses and audio quality
Hi there - yes, you're right some early interviews are not so great in terms of the audio quality, usually it was because of background noise. I've been more careful about that subsequently though, so you should notice an improvement as you go along (some later ones were recorded over Skype which is not quite as good quality, but still ok I think).
I think the problem with pausing is that for every person who is grateful for a pause at a given place, some other listener would be annoyed and want me to press on. Plus I am not keen to increase the overall length of episodes. Of course you can just pause it yourself while listening, too, or rewind (if you can "rewind" a podcast?).
Thanks,
Peter
Dave Enright
on 28 September 2013
Thank you!
Hi Peter,
I'm on podcast 61 and looking forward each day to continue on. This has been so very helpful and I can not thank you enough for your work!!
Very Best and Thank you so much,
Dave
In reply to Thank you! by Dave Enright
Peter Adamson
on 28 September 2013
You're welcome
Great, I'm glad you are enjoying it! Please spread the word if you know anyone else who might be interested.
petrus
on 26 September 2013
torrents for distributing archives of the podcast
Hey you should look into making torrent files of the zip archives of the podcasts it would be a great means of distributing the podcast while lessening the load on your servers.
In reply to torrents for distributing archives of the podcast by petrus
Peter Adamson
on 28 September 2013
Torrent
Hi there - coincidentally someone else just suggested this to me, too. I'll look into it and see if I can set one up.
Josh Lee
on 24 September 2013
Appreciation
Thank you so much for providing this superb educational experience.
Josh
Little Rock, AR, USA
Glasses are cool!
on 4 September 2013
Aquinas and Avicenna
Dear Peter,
It seems that Avicenna and Aquinas are one in identifying God with His existence and in holding that the essences of contingent things are neutral as to existence. Avicenna puts this in a way that Aquinas as well as Averroes would not, and the latter apparently criticized Avicenna on this point, as did Banez in the 16th century. That aside, what Avicenna means by saying that existence is accidental to these essences, so it seems to me, is only that existence is external to essence in contingent things and with this Aquinas would certainly agree. Yet it remains to ask whether Aquinas and Avicenna meant the same thing by existence and identifying God with His existence. Can you say anything about this?
In reply to Aquinas and Avicenna by Glasses are cool!
Peter Adamson
on 11 September 2013
God as existence
Hi, thanks for the comment. Can you tell me more about Banez?
A short answer to your question is that I am devoting an episode to the question a bit later, or rather to the various interpretations of the e/e distinction in the later Eastern tradition. That episode will be a while in coming though since I have to do all of Andalusian philosophy first! My feeling is that "accidental to" here should not be taken to imply too strict an analogy with the accident-substance relation as we know and love it from Aristotle. Rather it just means that as such (considered in itself, or however you want to put this) a contingent essence neither has nor lacks existence. So probably you are agreeing with me on this.
The question of God is of course trickier, and though this is controversial I think that Avicenna and Aquinas are not saying the same thing. Avicenna, I believe, simply wants to say that God's essence guarantees His existence. Whereas Aquinas wants to say something stronger which is that God's essence is the same as the essence of (unqualified) being -- He is being itself. So here we have a move that is both Aristotelian -- since this makes God pure actuality -- and Neoplatonic, since it makes God something like a paradigm cause of being for other things. Avicenna comes close to saying such things e.g. he associates unqualified actuality with God (that's how he gets to the idea that God is good, much as Aquinas does). Still I don't think he would go as far as Thomas in this direction. Of course this too is something I'll cover in Aquinas when I get to him.
Cheerio,
Peter
In reply to God as existence by Peter Adamson
Davlat
on 14 September 2013
e/e in God
hi Prof. Adamson,
you wrote: "[...] Avicenna, I believe, simply wants to say that God's essence guarantees His existence. Whereas Aquinas wants to say something stronger which is that God's essence is the same as the essence of (unqualified) being -- He is being itself."
i'd strongly disagree with this. it seems to me to be very close, if not identical, to Fakhr al-Din's (i believe false) stance on Avicenna distinction as it applies to God. But Avicenna i believe would reject it for this reason, namely, it compromises God's simplicity. that is, if the word "guarantee" (in the concept 'guarantees His existence') is supposed to deny a strict identity between God's essence and existence, then it follows that God's essence and existence are distinct, just as they are in contingent beings. presumably, on your view, the only difference between the two cases will then be supposed to be explained - again, in a way that rules an identity - somehow by the term "guarantee". as such, He would be composed.
In reply to e/e in God by Davlat
Peter Adamson
on 15 September 2013
e/e and simplicity
That's a good objection, yes. Obviously Avicenna wouldn't want to say that God essence somehow causes His existence, since the whole point is that God is uncaused. Rather, I think he wants to say that God's essence immediately entails His existence but without causing it. One way to put this might be to say that God's essence "is" His existence, but I still think one must distinguish between God's essence and existence itself. For one thing, existence itself is subdivided into contingent and necessary existence. Clearly God's essence is not "identical to" contingent existence, at most it is identical to necessary existence. So already here we have a distinction from Aquinas (for whom God is indeed Being Itself). Also we have here the reason that Sufis are misreading Avicenna when they appropriate his ideas, but that's another story that I'll get into later in the series.
More plausible then might be to say that God's essence "is" (or "is identical to") necessary existence; I might go along with that, if it just means the claim that "what it is to be God" is "to exist necessarily" (the way that "what it is to be human" is "to be a rational animal"). I just want to resist the idea that this makes God a paradigmatic cause of being/existence, i.e. that other things exist by "participating" in God, as in Aquinas. All that is a Platonist tendency that to me seems absent from Avicenna (though it appears in some later interpreters).
In reply to e/e and simplicity by Peter Adamson
davlat
on 19 September 2013
e/e and simplicity
hi prof. Adamson,
"Rather, I think he wants to say that God's essence immediately entails His existence but without causing it."
what is the precise nature of this entailment relation though? i don't see how 'entailment' is not a kind of causation, especially as applied to extra-mental reality. for example, are you suggesting that God's essence entails His existence is the same way that, say, the essence of a human being (i.e., rationality) entails risibility? or (to take an instance from mental reality) do you mean to say that His essence entails His existence in the way the premises of a syllogism entail the conclusion? I think Avicenna would reject both; on the first account, God's simplicity would be clearly compromised. with regards to the second, insofar as it entails (no pun intended) 'what which entails' and 'that which is entailed' are distinct, it too compromises Divine simplicity. otherwise, it seems to me that they're just identical.
"[...] but I still think one must distinguish between God's essence and existence itself. For one thing, existence itself is subdivided into contingent and necessary existence. Clearly God's essence is not "identical to" contingent existence, at most it is identical to necessary existence."
i agree with out about the Sufi misreadings. i'm not certain, though, that holding that God's essence and existence are identical would commit one to the Platonist thesis which you mentioned. in any case, that aside, it seems to me there are three problems with the above argument, the first of which entails the second and third. i believe that Avicenna would reject all three. the (1) first problem is that it seem to conceptualize existence as some sort of a genus, of which "contingent existence" and "necessary existence" are species; the (2) second is that from it follows that God is an instance of a species of existence, namely, necessary existence. finally, the (3) third problem is it impugns Divine simplicity, i.e., insofar as (2) entails that God is composed of a genus (existence) and some differentia (necessary existence in itself).
In reply to e/e and simplicity by davlat
Peter Adamson
on 19 September 2013
More on the NE
***
"Rather, I think he wants to say that God's essence immediately entails His existence but without causing it."
what is the precise nature of this entailment relation though?
***
I was afraid you might ask that. How about this: it could be like the relationship between a triangle and three-sidedness. Triangles are necessarily three sided (which is why I prefer it to your risibility example) but the triangle is not the same thing as three-sidedness (also, there are other three-sided things that are not necessarily three-sided). I would say that being a triangle entails being three-sided, but not that being a triangle "causes" three-sidedness. Rather it is just a necessary feature of triangles by virtue of their essence. Similarly God has existence as a necessary feature, and that wouldn't need to imply that He "is existence itself" or that existence is a genus to which God belongs. I agree Avicenna would certainly reject that, but I don't see why you think my view commits him to that? Just because there are also contingent existents? If that's the reason I guess the danger is rather that "existent" (as opposed to existence) is a genus, and that God is a member of this genus. But there are the traditional Aristotelian arguments that "existent" (or "being"/"existence" for that matter) is not a genus so that isn't really a threat, I would suppose.
A relevant passage here is in the Ilahiyyat when he talks about God not being a substance. By the way, did you have a passage in mind where he does say something along the lines of "God is existence" or "God's essence is His existence"?
Avicenna
on 1 September 2013
Avicenna and the phoenix
Hi Peter,
I'm trying to track down where some of these passages are in Avicenna, and whether they are translated. One question is where does his phoenix example come up?
Thanks!
In reply to Avicenna and the phoenix by Avicenna
Peter Adamson
on 11 September 2013
Phoenix
He uses it in the "On Interpretation" part of the Shifa' (several times) though interestingly he replaces this with the different example of the heptagonal house in other places; Druart has a paper on this which I have electronically if you need it (just send me an email). Also worth looking at is Black's paper on Fictional Beings in Avicenna.
Sajjad Chowdhry
on 31 August 2013
Further Reading
Hello,
Do you have a single page that gives the further reading sources for ALL your episodes?
Thanks,
Sajjad
Terry Duchow
on 30 August 2013
Augustine's Epistemology
Hello, I really liked your episode that deals with Augustine's epistemology. In it, you mention that knowledge is characterized by intention. I'm familiar with his "Against Scepticism" but not sure he discusses that there. Is there any chance you could please point out where he discusses this?
This is in the effort to consider how knowledge defined as justified true belief might include intentionality, or not, and possibly bring some closure to it.
Thank you!
In reply to Augustine's Epistemology by Terry Duchow
Peter Adamson
on 30 August 2013
Knowledge and intention
Hi there,
I was thinking of "On the Trinity," for instance in book 9 - the intentionality is here described as "love". It is a point he deals with extensively in that work since the intentionality gives him the analogue in the thinking case to the Holy Spirit. You might also want to listen to the interview with Charles Brittain.
Glad you enjoyed the episode by the way!
Peter
In reply to Knowledge and intention by Peter Adamson
Terry
on 31 August 2013
Knowledge and Intention - Augustine
Hi Peter, I read chapter 9 of On the Trinity it was fantastic. It was exactly what I was looking for. He does speak to love, knowledge and the mind, where knowledge is an object of love, as far as I understand. The mind is able to know itself, love itself and one of the outcomes of this is knowledge. Knowledge itself isn't exactly an object, but part of the life of reason, as I intepret it.
So, we can have knowledge. It's motivation is love, as well as its object.
That might be another way of describing how we can have objectivity within a framework of human cognition that is thought of as subjective.
Thanks for getting back to me so soon, as I'm preparing for a talk, and this we be very helpful!
Terry
Brandon Andrathy
on 21 August 2013
A Comment and a Question or Two
I think one of the best parts about your show is not only the historical element but also the fact that even touching on the surface of each of these philosophers' contributions provides a great deal of logical and deductive enlightenment to individuals who are philosophical novices (such as myself). Out of all th philosophers you have talked about so far (I'm up to Augustine which I'm excited about relearning), I find Diogenes the cynic to be truly inspiring and interesting. Do you have any literature or papers to recommend for further research into his legacy...or lack thereof haha. Also, is it worth reading Galin other than just for pure amusement?
In reply to A Comment and a Question or Two by Brandon Andrathy
Peter Adamson
on 21 August 2013
Further reading
Thanks, glad you are enjoying the series! There is actually further reading suggested on each episode page (you've probably been listening through the RSS over iTunes or something but you can listen to them streaming on this website). So for instance there is reading on the Cynics here. I would recommend starting with the Desmond book.
Galen is not always fun, exactly; he is long-winded and very polemical and of course the topic is usually history of medicine. But some of his works are fascinating, for instance "That the Soul Depends on the Body."
Thanks for listening!
Peter
Charline
on 13 August 2013
The source of the picture on "The Presocratics " page
I was just curious to know the source of the picture on "The Presocratics" page, and what it does represent (if you do know)
Thank you for the podcast it is really interesting to discover philosophy following it.
Charline
In reply to The source of the picture on "The Presocratics " page by Charline
Peter Adamson
on 13 August 2013
The Presocratics image
It represents the 4 elements, and it is an image from a manuscript of Isidore of Seville. I got it off Wikicommons, where get most of the images since they are copyright free. Here is a link to the source.
In reply to The Presocratics image by Peter Adamson
Charline
on 13 August 2013
The presocratics image
Thank you very much for the quick answer!
I was wondering as it reminded me in some ways the Medicine wheel which Aboriginal people in North America uses to teach many things, generally cyclic. And if this is the 4 seasons well, this not so surprising for it to be quite close.As there is the 4 seasons in the medicine wheel too. Anyway this is a bit off topic here!
Thanks again!
Jake D. Parsons
on 12 August 2013
Downloading podcasts
Could a zipped (or tared and gziped) file be provided of every period? The Presocratics and Socrates and Plato for example would be each a file. Much easier to download the series. I was keeping up and then lost my archive.
In reply to Downloading podcasts by Jake D. Parsons
Peter Adamson
on 12 August 2013
Zipped
Hi there,
This is already available, just go to any episode and in the right margin you'll see an icon to download that whole series (e.g. Late Antiquity) as a .zip file.
Cheerio,
Peter
Gerald FLYNN
on 11 August 2013
Gerry's dog - not Rousseau's dog - gets walked a lot more.......
Peter,
You might be in the running for an Irish animal welfare award....I have downloaded all your podcasts on my iPod. Twice a day I bring my beagle (Pippin) for a 45-minute walk so that I can take in two episodes each walk.
I did four years' single honors philosophy at Trinity Dublin but you really expand on that and I am looking forward to the neoPlatonists and the early Christian adaption of Greek thought.
Kings College should be very proud of your contribution to global education and critical thinking.
I hope you and your family enjoy a well-deserved holiday (vacation).
Thanks again,
Gerry FLYNN --Dublin ireland
In reply to Gerry's dog - not Rousseau's dog - gets walked a lot more....... by Gerald FLYNN
Peter Adamson
on 11 August 2013
Walking the Dog (as Rufus Thomas would say)
Dear Gerry,
Thanks, I'm glad you and Pippin are enjoying the podcast! Unfortunately I doubt that he would get along with my pet Pepper, since she's a cat.
Cheerio,
Peter
Brandon Andrathy
on 3 August 2013
Just an avid listener bestowing my thanks unto you
Good Afternoon Peter,
I just wanted to say that I love listening to your podcast. You are very eloquent and the subject matter discussed is very intriguing. Thank you for rekindling my interest in philosophy after ten years of dormancy when I took intro to philosophy my freshman year of college. I'm only up to episode 25 but I hope to see you continue releasing new episodes!
-Brandon
JKE
on 1 August 2013
The Metaphysics
So I'm thinking about diving back in to Aristotle's Metaphysics, a book I haven't looked seriously at in a few years. That said, I'm far from an expert on the subject, and as everyone knows it's a pretty daunting text. Can anybody recommend a good translation and commentary or something along those lines? (Other than Aquinas', which is a little lengthy for my purposes.)
In reply to The Metaphysics by JKE
Peter Adamson
on 1 August 2013
On Aristotle's Metaphysics
By my old teacher at Notre Dame, Mike Loux, there is "Primary Ousia." For the important Book Z, try M. Burnyeat, "A Map of Metaphyiscs Zeta." An affordable general introduction would be V Politis, Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Aristotle and the Metaphysics and the bibliography at the end is useful.
In reply to On Aristotle's Metaphysics by Peter Adamson
PeterW
on 30 July 2013
Great!
Awesome podcast dude! Other books I've read treat the ideas in isolation, which makes it difficult to understand the historical context. Your podcast OTOH pieces ideas into a smooth(ish) ramp. The cheesy jokes and puns are a nice touch too. Anyway during the last 2 months I've been listening almost non-stop, beginning with the first episode. It's been fun. Now I'm with the current episode. Look forward to following things at a more sedate pace! Thanks!
In reply to Great! by PeterW
Peter Adamson
on 30 July 2013
Catching up
Wow, that's some pretty fast catching up! Thanks for going through all of it, I'm glad you've been enjoying it.
And great first name by the way.
(The other) Peter
Liam Smith
on 30 July 2013
This site is unbelievably
This site is unbelievably good. I'm doing an undergraduate subject right now about Plato, Descartes, Hume and Kant and this has been amazing so far. Its great to get a general idea about some of the ideas that were floating around in the field. You're amazing, wowzers.
In reply to This site is unbelievably by Liam Smith
Peter Adamson
on 30 July 2013
Thanks
Gosh, thanks! Sorry that it will take me a while to get to D H and K.
TARDIS
on 30 July 2013
Floating Man
Please go greatly in-depth on the floating man argument of Ibn Sina. I know a lot of people who aren't convinced by this, which troubles me!
In reply to Floating Man by TARDIS
Peter Adamson
on 30 July 2013
Floating/flying man
Don't worry, there is an upcoming episode where I talk about it in detail, number 141 I think.
In reply to Floating Man by TARDIS
Rhys W. Roark
on 1 August 2013
Avicenna's Floating / Flying Man
Dear TARDIS,
I don't wish to steal his thunder here, but Peter has given a somewhat briefer account of this on the program Philosophy Bites (about 14 minutes):
If you are not familiar with it, you may find here:
http://philosophybites.com/2012/11/peter-adamson-on-avicennas-flying-ma…
Very good and thought provoking--all the more as I'm a sucker for these kinds of transcendental subjectivity discourses.
But as with you, I am looking forward to Prof. Adamson's more forthcoming detailed treatment of this subject(ivity?).
Rhys W. Roark (1st name: 'rise')
OKC, OK
Gustavo Ricardo
on 29 July 2013
Questions about the Timeline
Peter,
I have just recently found out about your podcast, and I'm really interessted in watching them and slowly catching up (even though it could take a couple of years) But I do have one question before I start the journey.
I've noticed the website states that you are a Professor of Ancient and Medieval Philosophy at King's College; and presently your are on the Islamic Timelime around the year 1111.
When I saw that you are a professor of Ancient and Medieval philosophy I wondered: will you continue chronologically into Modern and Post-Modern philosophy also? Will you be concluding the historical journey in the present? Or will you cover only Ancient and Medieval?
In reply to Questions about the Timeline by Gustavo Ricardo
Peter Adamson
on 29 July 2013
The future
At the moment my plan is to keep going indefinitely. But medieval including Byzantium will probably take me into 2015 so I still have time to decide. You're right that it would be further out of my comfort zone but in A way that makes it more appealing!
In reply to The future by Peter Adamson
Gustavo Ricardo
on 30 July 2013
OK! That's great to know!
OK! That's great to know! Hope you decide to take that challenge and continue on :)
I'll be doing my catching up, hope I can do it. Thank you for the prompt reply Peter, and congratulations on such a great job by what I've noticed so far.
Gustavo
In reply to OK! That's great to know! by Gustavo Ricardo
Josh Lee
on 24 September 2013
Keep it going!
I'm also interested in following you all the way up to the present!
Rhys W. Roark
on 28 July 2013
RE: By the Time I Get to Phoenix
Peter,
Great show! Looking forward very much to the next one as I’m very intrigued about these various essence vs. existence debates, esp. as it has to with (any) Absolute Realities . . . .
Question: In referencing the squared circle whose essence precludes its existence owing to its complete impossibility, what is then the actual status of this “essence” here? To posit an “essence” whose very nature precludes absolutely its non-existence, sounds, at least in how we have to make use of language, like how we would describe unrealized contingent existences, like your aforementioned sister, if but taken more absolutely: There’s an essence out there which not only it so happens not to exist, it cannot in anyway exist.
The term was used frequently, but my guess, Avicenna and other Medievals are using the term “essence” here more as a purely “logical” or “semantic” modality since, unlike Anselm’s God, it remains just a conceptual thought without the literal corresponding, also aforementioned, “out there” counterpart.
But is there anything else I’m might be missing in this understanding?—can it be something more than just a mental concept even though lacking actual or substantive existence?
I seem to having a Parmenidean moment—and in fact, I was researching Parmenides and the Platonic dialogue named for him just yesterday in understanding how this might inform various kinds of negative theologizing (and talk about the paradoxical Parmenidean language use here) such as Plotinus or Dionysius’s path of negation vs. Aquinas’ path of eminence.
And, if it be—essentially—your want (forgive me), if you want to recommend any good texts on the Greek, Arabic and Christian history of the intersection of essence, existence and apophatic (and even kataphatic) theology, that would be great. I assume these concerns, will, at some point, in essence, be actualized in further episodes.
Thanks!
Rhys
OKC, OK
In reply to RE: By the Time I Get to Phoenix by Rhys W. Roark
Peter Adamson
on 28 July 2013
Essences
You're putting your finger on a very difficult question. As you'll see in a later episode the question you're asking became a big issue of controversy in later Islamic thought, I mean, how we should think about these essences if they are distinct from existence. (Do they have some other kind of "existence" like as abstract entities? Are they mental constructs? Or ideas in God's mind?) I think it is not easy to say what Avicenna's own view on this was, especially since, as I mentioned in this episode, in fact he thinks that all essences do receive existence. So he doesn't need to get into the question of what to say about an essence that has no existence.
As far as Avicenna goes I would start with the secondary literature recommended for this episode. There has also been some discussion of the distinction as it might bear on Plotinus e.g. in Lloyd Gerson's book "Plotinus." I've actually been writing a piece about this but it is still a work in progress!
Cliff
on 27 July 2013
Thanks
I just wanted to say how much I am enjoying the podcasts. I always thought that philosophy would be "too hard" - but now I know it's all about giraffes and film stars.
Cheers.
In reply to Thanks by Cliff
Peter Adamson
on 27 July 2013
Giraffes and film stars
But only silent film. Once they invented sound it stopped being philosophical.
But seriously, thanks very much! Glad you are enjoying the series.
In reply to Thanks by Cliff
Don
on 11 August 2013
Philosophy
It is about anything that turns your crank, floats your boat, or generally stimulates you to become a better person and to recognize your current excellence. Some people even do it with mathematics. Others just smile or meditate.
Ollie Killingback
on 25 July 2013
Arabic period
I enjoyed pushing back the boundaries of my ignorance with the Ancients, and warmed to the Christian Fathers of whom I knew something from theological studies. But I've struggled with the Arabic period. Partly I guess it is to do with the strange names which just don't stick. Some of the thinking does, but what goes with whom I find hard to resolve or retain. There is only really any clarity with Saadia Gaon. I wonder if that's to do with his being Jewish and my acquaintance with Jewish thought. Or is his name Hebrew and does it therefore sound less strange to me than Arabic? I don't know.
Much the most difficult podcast to engage with was 136. Maybe that had something to do with Farhad Daftary's speaking voice - I guess English is not his first language. Maybe it was to do with the content. There seem to have been almost innumerable splits among the Ismailis, all of them political, i.e. to do with matters of succession. I didn't get any sense of different ideas, and while the political history is important, it's the ideas I am most interested in. For example most of the Christian splits have a political element in their motivation, but there are distinct theological differences too. I didn't get that from Dr Daftary. I'm still not clear how, if at all, Ismaili belief differs from other Shia. Perhaps the ideas are less important in Islam than loyalty to a particular line of succession.
One thing that has come across with great clarity is how inadequate the coverage of Islam was in the Comparative Religion course I took in the 1970s. I guess the time limit had something to do with it.
I have been looking forward to Avicenna - the first name on the list that already meant something to me. I'm glad there are going to be more podcasts on his thought. The first podcast whetted my appetite but left me feeling he was not a very nice man. But so what? I don't think Socrates would have been my best friend either.
In reply to Arabic period by Ollie Killingback
Peter Adamson
on 25 July 2013
Arabic period
Yes, I know this material may be a bit more challenging if only because of the avalanche of unfamiliar names. (On the other hand a lot of listeners probably already felt that way about late antiquity.) My hope is to make them more familiar though! The book veresion, which will appear eventually, may be slightly easier since you would then be reading the names over and over and that might help with remembering. But also it may just be that if the material is unfamiliar it blurs together a bit no matter what you do; bear in mind though this is inevitably a kind of introductory taster to each thinker; if what comes through in the end is a sense of broad themes and periods in the tradition I would be happy with that!
And by the way Saadia's name is Arabic but "Gaon" is a title, not part of his name. It's interesting that he seemed to stick better with you than, say, al-Kindi who actually has many of the same philosophical views (as I mentioned in the podcast that connection needs to be explored better than it has).
Cody Sitton
on 24 July 2013
Volume One
When is the projected date for the release of Volume 1 of the book series? I apologize if you have already answered this question more than once; I've listened to every episode but have failed to follow the blog :(
In reply to Volume One by Cody Sitton
Peter Adamson
on 24 July 2013
Date of vol.1
Actually I think I haven't said because I only just found out; it depends a bit on how quick I am with some last revisions now (which include adding a chapter on women and ancient philosophy), but in theory they hope to publish it May 2014. Then I hope that subsequent volumes will appear about once each year.
Serkalem Degefu
on 4 July 2013
Can I get a reference site on woman in philosophy
Hi Peter,
Am a big fan of your podcast and Philosophy. I appreciate the effort you have put to prepare all this. I live in Ethiopia. I feel very blessed to get resourceful site such as yours. Actually I have commented on your article "Woman in Philosophy" unfortunately I couldn't get your response so I switched over here. I have planned to prepare a book about a woman philosophers using our local language but am in shortage of reference material. If you ever know any site to refer or if you have done further about that article will you please suggest me.
Serkalem
In reply to Can I get a reference site on woman in philosophy by Serkalem Degefu
Peter Adamson
on 4 July 2013
Women in philosophy
Yes, I'm actually at work on a chapter for the book version about women in ancient philosophy. Here's a list of references I have assembled with a useful website at the end; note that this is mostly about the ancient world though, since that is what I am doing at the moment. And maybe others could add references for medieval and modern, that would be helpful to me too later!
Annas, Julia, "Plato's Republic and Feminism," Philosophy, 51 (1976), 309.
Archer, L. S. Fischler and M. Wyke, eds. 1994. Women in Ancient Socieities (London: Routledge)
Calvert, Brian, "Plato and the Equality of Women," Phoenix, 29, 3 (1975)
Fortenbaugh, W. W., "On Plato's Feminism in ‘Republic V,’" Apeiron, IX, 2 (1975)
Fortenbaugh, W. W., "Aristotle on Slaves and Women," in Articles on Aristotle: 2, Ethics and Politics, J. Barnes, J. Schofield, and R. Sorabji, eds. (London: Duckworth, 1977)
Freeland, "Feminism and Ideology in Ancient Philosophy" in Apeiron Vol. XXXIII, no. 4. December 2000
id ed, Feminist Interpretations of Aristotle, Cynthia A. Freeland, ed. (University Park: Pennsylvania University Press, 1998)
Lesser, Harry, "Plato's Feminism," Philosophy 54 (1979), 113-117.
Levin, Susan B., 2000. “Plato's On Women's Nature: Reflections on the Laws” in Ancient Philosophy 20/1 (Spring). 81-97
Lovibond, Sabina, "An Ancient Theory of Gender: Plato and the Pythagorean Table," in Women in Ancient Societies, Archer, Fischler, and Wyke, eds. (London: Routledge), 88-101.
Pomeroy, Sarah, "Feminism in Book V of Plato's ‘Republic,’" Apeiron, VIII, 1 (1974)
Sakezles, Priscilla K., "Feminism and Aristotle," Apeiron 32, 1 (1999), 67-74.
Tuana, Nancy, 1992. Woman and the History of Philosophy (New York, Paragon Press).
Ward, Julie K., 1996. Feminism and Ancient Philosophy (New York and London: Routledge)
Warnock, Mary ed. 1996. Women Philosophers (London J.M. Dent).
In reply to Women in philosophy by Peter Adamson
Steve Barsky
on 2 July 2013
Strange links
So browsing the site, I saw references to a possible book version of Hopwag. I went to Amazon and searched "Peter Adamson." No luck. But I saw a sponsored ad: Philosophy at Sephora®
Hmmm... I must be on the right trail!
Alas... http://www.sephora.com/philosophy
But I'm still enjoying the podcast. Cheers for all your work.
Steve
In reply to Strange links by Steve Barsky
Peter Adamson
on 2 July 2013
Making up
The book is actually with the publisher now, but won't be out for some months yet. I can't promise however that it will restore that youthful sheen to your skin, or bring out your eye color.
shahid Tarer
on 2 July 2013
Podcasts
Hi Peter,
Just wanted to thank you for the brilliant podcasts (particularly like the style of questioning!) . They've been a priceless discovery. I had an interest in philosophy for many years but didn't read or learn enough on the subject. These podcasts have reignited my interest and will be supplementing my future reading!
Finally all credit to the Leverhulme trust and King's college for spreading knowledge in this way.
Thanks again for a great resource.
In reply to Podcasts by shahid Tarer
Joe J
on 29 June 2013
Heraclitus
Dear Peter, thanks for the great podcasts. I am a newcomer and have only managed to get up to Aristotle so far. I was also pleased to hear you talking on Heraclitus on an old episode of 'In our time'. One thing I felt was missing from that programme was a discussion of the similarities between Heraclitus's Logos and the Dao of Lao-Tzu. I was wondering if you had any thoughts on this, and if you have considered doing any tangential one-off podcasts that explore similarities between east and west? I appreciate that this is somewhat outside of the scope of this podcast, and that you must be busy enough already, but it could be interesting. Thanks again for the podcasts!
In reply to Heraclitus by Joe J
Peter Adamson
on 30 June 2013
Chinese parallels
Hi there,
I am actually pretty skeptical about this kind of cross-cultural comparison. Pretty much whenever I see it done it is rather superficial, so when I cover Indian and/or Chinese philosophy (and I hope I will) I will probably try to avoid highlighting possible parallels, or at least I won't put much emphasis on this but will rather look at those traditions in their own right. I know some people like the comparative project because they find the traditions mutually illuminating but as you might have noticed I am very into the idea of properly understanding each author, or even philosophical work, in historical context.To some extent a matter of taste maybe, but that's my own approach. For the same reason you might have noticed I've been relatively sparing with allusions to later periods of philosophy including contemporary thought, and when I mention it it is usually to dispel the notion that there is an exact parallel!
Thanks for listening,
Peter
Before the Greeks
Actually, since writing the comment above I have come to think that I should in fact have done an episode, or two, on the Egyptians and Babylonians, right at the start. I listen to this other podcast on Egyptian History and the host has covered some texts that are clearly philosophically interesting - mirror for princes kind of stuff. So if I had it to do over again I would have done more on the pre-pre-Socratics, if you will. Oh well!