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 Early Christian Debates by Tyler
Ethics and early Christianity
I am not a huge expert here but according to my understanding tensions in the church were more to do with theological considerations, especially the incarnation and Trinity, and also liturgical issues e.g. whether to use unleavened bread in the mass. It was not about Christian ethics, though that was of course a matter of debate within Christian philosophy as you'll see especially in the medieval episodes.
Comming books
Thanks for great podcasts. Are you planning to make a bok about philosophy in India and africa? If so, when?
In reply to Comming books by Lars Östh
Books
Glad you like them! Yes, the India book is already with the press and should come out about a year from now. The Africana one will obviously not be for a while since we aren't even halfway through that series yet. My guess would be that the book version might appear in 2022.
Also the Medieval Philosophy one will be out in September of this year.
Appreciation
I would like to thank everyone who is associated with these series of podcasts. And especially Peter, I feel indebted to you. I am a beginner, and am finding these to be very informative. I really appreciate the succint and to-the-point style of these podcasts. Please keep up the good work.
Praise
This site/project/enterprise is magnificent. It makes the rubbish strewn underground car park of the internet worthwhile. Please carry it on and bring it up to the present day.
Maximus on the Byzantine History Timeline
I think you should probably put Maximus on the Byzantine timeline in the same way you did for Augustine and Boethius on the medieval timeline, since the arguements on the trinity are so heavily intertwined with early Byzantine medieval thought, and that he, like A&B, strattles the line between the antique and medieval era.
In reply to Maximus on the Byzantine History Timeline by Alexander Johnson
Maximus
Right, good idea, thank you! I'll do that next time I adjust the Byzantium timeline which I have to do regularly anyway to add links to the relevant episodes.
Thanks
Hi Peter, your work here is outstanding, fascinating and amazing, so wise and humble at the same time. Please keep on going till the f*@king 21st century.
a bouquet
Hello Peter,
I have little to say: a boast, a confession, and a rah rah rah.
Boast: I have successfully absorbed 1-300, twice. Yay for me! I'm not sure how well.
Confession: I feel like I owe you money. Where else could I take the equivalent of several semesters, if not years, of top-notch content - for free?
The rah rah rah: There are so many things I enjoy about your work. The skillful melding of theology and philosopy; the revelations of why the 13th and 14 century are still astonishly relevant; the bias-free and authoritative voice and attitude; your committment to your task; and last but not least your great sense of humor. My favorite moments are when I get your puns belatedly - that "oh!" moment. Godspeed with all you do and thanks again.
In reply to a bouquet by Robert M. Kelly
Rah x3
Thanks so much! Glad that you like the series - listening to 300 episodes twice is really amazing commitment on your part and beats my own: I only listen to them once, when I am checking them one last time before uploading!
In reply to Rah x3 by Peter Adamson
rah x 3
Yeah, I don't know what to make of that. I guess I'm making up for a misspent youth without major doses (or any doses, come to think of it) of philosophy. I was in a Catholic seminary for four years. Many of the college-level seminarians talked about Aquinas and Augustine like they were Best Friends Forever but I never understood what the shouting was about until now. Hey I have two weak connections to your career path.....I spent over a year in the lovely town of Landshut, former home of LMU, and I live only a few miles from Williams College. Best of luck again and again thanks for all your work, I find it hugely enjoyable and interesting.
D&D Philosophy
Just thought I'd share a project I have been working on. Way back when i was listening to the presocratics, i thought "these ideas are cool, too bad I can't think about the plausibility of the ideas not clouded by known physical properties. If only I had a world where our physical laws don't exist..." Then i remembered that I play D&D every week, where vital things like conservation of matter/energy do not apply. And so I made my new character a philosopher. My rule is that all physical laws she comes up with must be consistent with the rules, and have been writing speculation and counter speculation every week.
Some fun conclusions: Zeno's paradox works! if you are traveling slow enough (slower than 5 feet per 6 seconds), you can continue doing that as much as you'd like, but you will never leave your 5' by 5' square. All objects do have 'souls' which bound the object into a binary "fixed" vs "broken" state. and Plato's theory of Knowledge in the Meno seems to be true (someone who goes into dangerous underground caves all the time will know more about forests than someone who lives a peaceful life in the forest, as your knowledge is tied to your character level).
Just thought this would be a fun thing to share!
In reply to D&D Philosophy by Otterlex
D&D Philosophy
There should really be a book about D&D and philosophy (well, there probably is one already?). Like, the idea that all moral outlooks can be classified into 9 categories (Lawful Good etc) or that there is a small set of character traits (Intelligence, Charisma etc) that make one apt for certain endeavors or careers in life (Fighter, Thief...) which is very Aristotelian.
In reply to D&D Philosophy by Peter Adamson
I stumbled on this old
I stumbled on this old exchange and was reminded irresistably of this old and very silly comic, which perhaps will amuse, if indeed it wasn't the inspiration for Otterlex's concept.
Pneumatic Physics
Hi, Peter,
I want to say first: thanks for such a wonderful podcast and such excellent books! Your work probably more than any other has helped me to get a sense of my bearings in both the history and content of philosophy. I have an MA in Religious Studies (emphasis in biblical studies, with a focus on Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity) and am working on an MA in Classics at the moment, so, as a philosophical amateur, having such great resources as these is invaluable.
I'm wondering/hoping if you could field a question that a friend who teaches philosophy here in St. Louis and I have been debating after Liturgy at Church the last few Sundays. Increasingly in New Testament studies, the running assumption is that the NT authors (especially, if not preeminently, Paul) have an essentially Stoic physics in mind when they use the word pneuma: pneuma is fiery star stuff, it's what the celestial bodies are made of, it's what the resurrected body of Christ is made out of, it's what the eucharist is made out of, and it's what the resurrected body at the end of the age will be made of, too (e.g., 1 Cor 15). This has been my assumption in reading Paul and it's actually undergirded some of the work I've done (that bit about Paul's eucharist and pneuma is more my observation than anything I've seen in mainstream publications. However, this would clearly imply that, for the NT authors, God, who is pneuma (e.g., John 4:24), is somehow material. This makes good sense from a strictly biblical-theological and historical-critical perspective: many passages in the OT, pseudepigrapha, and NT seem to envision God enthroned in a basically anthropomorphic body of Glory in heaven, and Origen and Augustine seem to inadvertently witness to the fact that apparently many early Christians thought of God in a corporeal way (it seems odd that Origen would start his On First Principles with the rejection of this concept if it did not have some considerable assent).
None of this particularly bothered me until I started talking with my friend the philosophy professor, who pointed out that a.) the majority of the Patristic tradition has been Platonic in its philosophical assumptions and b.) that the metaphysics inherent in particularly Nicene Christianity somewhat forbid the idea that God or the Holy Spirit are "material." Pneuma in patristic and later Christian writings seems to be, for the most part, decidedly immaterial in its physical aspect with regard to the Holy Spirit and immaterial, or at least as nearly as it possibly can be, with regard to created spirits (since, as Nathan Jacobs has pointed out, for the Fathers "creaturehood" is hylomorphic materiality on some level, even when talking about things like angels or the human soul). Theologically, this is not as comfy as I would like it, since it seems to suggest that there's a discontinuity in early Christianity's philosophical trajectory from a more Stoic physics to a more Platonic one. But as a scholar, this raises real questions for me: at what point did early Christians clearly and definitively say that pneuma was an immaterial reality?
So, I've attempted to search out the role that pneuma plays in non-Stoic physics. (This has been a convenient quest, since my seminar this semester was on Plutarch, and thus I've had ample excuse to dive into Middle Platonism.) As I've searched, though, two things have become apparent to me. First, pneuma plays a role in Classical and Hellenistic philosophy beyond the Stoics, but in none of those cases is it clear to me (probably because I'm just too materially dense) a.) what it is (immaterial? material?) or b.) what it has to do with God/gods. Second, pneuma makes appearances in the Middle Platonist philosophers--Philo and Plutarch especially--and, at least if John Dillon is to be believed, pneuma is an immaterial reality for these philosophers. But I'm lost on how, when, and where the transition was made between pneuma as a kind of material stuff and pneuma as a kind of immaterial stuff. Is there a locus classicus for this shift in physics before the Christian era? Was there a particularly important thinker who at some point clarified, "No, pneuma is not material?" This quest has morphed somewhat, retaining its original theological interests but also wondering, in a somewhat challenging manner, whether or not the emerging "consensus" of some NT scholars that Paul's pneumatic physics are fundamentally Stoic is totally correct.
Anyway, just wondering if you had any hunches of a direction in which to point me. Sorry this was so long, and thanks again,
David
In reply to Pneumatic Physics by David Armstrong
Pneuma
This is a great question, and it sounds like you already know much more about it in the Patristic context than I do. I've been interested in the Arabic context in which pneuma (rūḥ) is also important, and one lesson I take from there is that pneuma is often thought of as a kind of transitional substance between the material and immaterial. That sounds odd - like, either something is material or not, right? But you often see emphasis on the subtlety of pneuma, which makes it all but immaterial. Something else worth your while would be a look at medical literature of the time: pneuma (here understood obviously in very material terms) was a key element in anatomical theories like those of Erasistratus and Galen. You could check out the old episodes on ancient medicine for this idea. I would also have a look at Tertullian whose work on the soul also emphasizes spirit and may be quasi-materialist (I mention this in the episode on early Latin patristics). Finally for the Middle Platonists I would recommend George Boys-Stones' recent sourcebook on them, that has a big section on soul that may help.
About the works of Avicenna
Hello Peter, I wasn’t sure where the best place to ask this was, but I hope here is alright. First of all many thanks for continuing to put out the show, I’ve been following it from the start and it’s always an excellent listen. I have a simple question, I’ve been looking at getting something like a complete works version of Avicenna, but I’m not sure such a thing exists as it does for Plato for example. Any idea if such a collection does exist, or if not, what separate editions/translations of two or three major works are the best?
Best wishes and keep up the good work.
Andrei
In reply to About the works of Avicenna by Andrei L
Avicenna's works
If only that did exist! If we are talking about Avicenna in English, then the best you can do is cobble together individual volumes for instance Brigham Young Univ Press has done both the Physics and Metaphysics of his Healing (with facing page Arabic) and the whole of the Pointers and Reminders has been translated by Shams Inati; also there is part of the Deliverance (Najat) translated, the part on logic. A single volume reader based on selections his most important works would be an amazing thing, though, someone should really do that. (It wouldn't be possible to fit all his works into a single volume, that would be more like a 10 or 20 volume set.)
Searching non-western philosophers by topic
Hi Peter,
me again! :-) While it might be more accessible to find out the opinions of say Kant on a topic, I was wondering what is the proper way of actually searching the literature to find out which non-western (India, Africa, China, Islamic) philosophers had something to say on a specific topic? For example, I might be lucky to know what Miskawayh said about "Pleasure" thanks to your work which I noticed on your page, but generally how can one do a proper search?
In reply to Searching non-western philosophers by topic by Xaratustrah
Searching by topic
Yeah, that's a good question. Basically the answer is that it's hard. One effective way might be to go to a more academic interface than just Google, for instance JSTOR and put in the search terms. That will not turn up primary texts but would lead you to secondary literature that focuses on, or mentions the relevant name and topic.
Philosophy in the third person
Hi Peter,
I noticed that in many episodes you use female third person pronouns, an example would be like in the sentence "the philosopher is rearranging her thoughts." Is this a common practice in philosophical academic writings?
If that is the case, I am also curious to know whether there is a general tendency in the literature to use female third person pronouns only with "positive" attributes, but fall back to male pronouns whenever the described person has "negative" attributes?
In reply to Philosophy in the third person by Xaratustrah
S/he
Yeah, I do that intentionally to avoid the implicit suggestion that humans are, like, male by default. Actually more recently I've become convinced that it is ok (and also becoming increasingly common) to say e.g. "the philosopher is rearranging their thoughts." So in other words to use "they" as a gender neutral singular pronoun. There is a recent episode of the excellent Lexicon Valley podcast on this.
Of course sometimes I also do it so I can clearly demarcate two hypothetical people, like a determinist and an anti-determinist: it is handy to make them be different genders, to keep clear who is who.
Not sure about your second question; looking back on my own practice you might be right that I would be less likely to use "she" if the hypothetical person were going to be committing a crime or something in an imaginary scenario.
In reply to S/he by Peter Adamson
Come on y'all
The use of words does change, but most of us, no doubt, are going to have trouble treating "they" as a singular pronoun. Let's not forget our place in Nature. We refer to most other animals as "it," as in, "That otter is mightily angry. It is as ill-mannered as a wolverine." "The philosopher is rearranging its thoughts" sounds just right to me. Otherwise, my English teacher is going to be rolling over in its grave.
In reply to Come on y'all by Otter Bob
They
I disagree actually. Consider the following sentence: "if anyone from work finds out they are going to be so angry." I submit that this is not only tolerable English but even what any normal English speaker would say (can you imagine saying "if anyone from work finds out he or she is going to be so angry" or even using "he" if the workplace has both male and female employees?). In fact native speakers use "they" for singular cases all the time.
As I say I highly recommend the episode of Lexicon Valley on this, it also points out that pronouns in general are constantly changing and have been used in very different ways in the past (e.g. the story of how "you" got to mean what it means now).
By contrast no one would ever use "it" for a non-gender-specific human, I don't think.
In reply to They by Peter Adamson
English
Indeed, while it sounds perfectly fine to say e.g. "the criminal will be punished for his deeds" it sounds rather discomforting to use the female pronoun, maybe because historically criminals were rather men than women. So in a philosophy paper, one can not stick with using female pronouns everywhere.
On the other hand using male pronouns everywhere in the same paper may not be considered gender neutral from the modern perspective.
Alternating between female and male pronouns for "positive" and "negative" attributes inside the same paper respectively is rather awkward too, eventually causing distraction for the reader whether or not the author is presenting an underlying hidden point or is this just a gender neutral manoeuvre.
While I agree with the use of "they" in the example you provided, I have the feeling that that example might be one of the few places it actually works. "the criminal will be punished for their deeds" is rather confusing; is the criminal being punished for the wrong doings of a distinct and separate group of people?
"It" is also not a solution as was discussed earlier in the comments. "his/her", "he/she" are neither, it makes a paper difficult to read.
There seems to be no way out. English is not a gender neutral language, and probably will never be. Nor are most other languages in which philosophy has been and is being published. I wonder how philosophy can profoundly help enhance truth seeking above existing horizons, while its main tool, the language, has such shortcomings.
In reply to English by Xaratustrah
C'mon You Two
'It' was a joke. I was the one who began my noting that language was subject to change. If you want to use 'they' as a singular pronoun, fine with me--just so it doesn't confuse who you are talking about. As far as we non-English speaking otters go, we will continue to think and treat you as the dangerous environmental objects you are. Thanks Peter for the link to Lexicon Valley. What a hoot Prof. McWhorter is and very informative too. Another podcast to subscribe to.
In reply to C'mon You Two by Otter Bob
McWhorter
Yeah he's amazing. As a podcaster I am also in awe of his apparently unscripted yet flawless delivery. I genuinely don't know how he does that.
School of Athens
Is there a reason why School of Athens is not in the art rotation on the main page?
In reply to School of Athens by Alexander Johnson
School of Athens
I think I just thought it was too obvious, back when we first chose the images, though we are using it here on the comment page. Maybe also it isn't the right format, we need wide and not very tall to get it onto that banner shape. But we could crop it of course... Somewhere in these podcasts I tell a story about going to the Vatican and finding that this painting was not on display because it was being restored; I was really annoyed.
Native American Philosophy
Hi, Peter. Can you recommend any books or articles on Native American philosophical traditions? I realize it will be quite a while until you get to covering these in the podcast, and I would like to have some references to inform my discussions with my daughter as we cover Native American history and culture. Thanks, Emily.
In reply to Native American Philosophy by Emily
Native American philosophy
Hi there - to be honest I don't know anything about this, yet! But I do hope to cover it at some point. There is an article on it in the Oxford Handbook to World Philosophy which would probably be a good place to start.
In reply to Native American philosophy by Peter Adamson
Shintoism and Native American Traditions
Thank you. We will look for that.
I found this blog entry - by no means an academic reference - in which the author draws parallels between Native American ideas, Buddhism and Hinduism. Strikes me that a parallel could also be drawn between Shintoism and Native American traditions, with regard to the emphasis/importance both place on nature.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/buddhaimonia.com/blog/native-american-wisdom%3fformat=amp
Looking forward to your discussion of Native American philosophy down the road ...
In reply to Shintoism and Native American Traditions by Emily
Shinto and more
I'm looking forward to it too! And thanks for the link. The Shinto comparison is interesting - my usual gut reaction to cross-cultural comparisons is usually that apparent large scale similarities will crumble upon closer inspection of both traditions and what I like is studying each tradition from the inside so to speak (I am hence not a big fan of comparative philosophy: I'm more a tree person than a forest person). But of course in this case I am way too ignorant to say whether your parallel is a fruitful one.
I do hope to get to Shinto philosophy too someday by the way... so much philosophy, so little time!
In reply to Shinto and more by Peter Adamson
Tree of Knowledge
I hope that doesn't mean you can't see the forest for the trees - or that you are averse to forest bathing! In all seriousness, thank you for sharing your insights and your endlessly fascinating podcasts.
In reply to Tree of Knowledge by Emily
I suggest it means that if
I suggest it means that if you don't know the individual trees, their kinds and interactions you'll never understand the forest. Or maybe that is what understanding the forest is. I'm much given to forest bathing but I prefer next to a lake.
Otter (Bob)
In reply to I suggest it means that if by Bob K
Forest Play
I can see how that would be significant for an otter such as yourself. Splash on!
Where it all began
Peter,
I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for the efforts you've put forth here. I took a logic class for one of my gen eds and wound up intruiged by philosophy. Luckily, your podcast was the first result on the iTunes podcast section, and I've now made it all the way up to Medieval philosophy. That's not all though, It's thanks to you that I settled on Philsophy as my new major, and now that classes have begun I'm overwhelmed by how my classes can be both stimulating and fun at the same time. One of my classes is Ancient Greek Philosophy, and I've already cited the podcast in my first assignment on Thales. Thank you!
In reply to Where it all began by Ryan Cooper
Intrigued by philosophy
Wow, that's great! Mission accomplished. I wish you the best of success with the degree.
A Thank You from the Dutch/German border
The distance between my flat on the German side of the border and my office building in the Netherlands is 14.25 kilometers or 8.85 miles. This is relevant because it takes about 45 minutes for me to cover this distance by bicycle... just enough time for 2 Episodes of your Podcast.
I would like to thank you so, so much for your podcast project and for making available online - it has been a great enrichment of my daily life in the last few weeks, and since I have just reached Episode 83, I still have ways to go until I'm caught up.
You have improved my life in body, mind and soul, actually: In body, because I tended to find excuses for taking the train or the car to work, rather than the more healthy choice... but listening to the podcasts makes the cycling less boring and I do it more often now.
In mind, because there's so much new to learn and discover - I'm enjoying this so much!
And in soul, because it helps me to get away from the "on the job" mindset as soon as I leave the office building, and enjoy my free time more fully.
So it's a win-win-win situation for me, and I would just like to express my gratitude and let you know that you're really making a difference in some peoples lifes with your project!
Best regards
Inanna
(and yes, that's my official first name... my parents like ancient history)
In reply to A Thank You from the Dutch/German border by Inanna
Virtuous cycling
Thanks so much for getting in touch! I'm glad the podcast enlivens your cycling trips and hope you continue enjoying the series. At two episodes each way you will catch up in no time...
Heresy
Hey Peter,
Sorry for flooding the comments lately; I'll try to exhibit more restraint. But I just listened to the podcast on Marguerite Porete and was really struck by what seemed like similarities between her ideas and the teachings of the Buddha. I know this sounds like cherry picking ideas from mystical traditions and making facile claims that they amount to the same teaching, but the cherries you picked re. Marguerite's ideas and those that constitute my minimal understanding of Buddhist teaching seem to line up a little more than I would have expected. E.g. the distrust of book learnin' has had many sagacious advocates (many extremely learned) in the Buddhist tradition, e.g. most advocates of Zen, that trace this tendency back to the Buddha. The annihilation of soul sounds eerily like many descriptions of nirvana and the union of soul with that of god sounds like a slightly different description of the non-existence of individual soul. There were other ideas that seemed similar but I'll refrain from belaboring the point. I assume there are no suggestions, similar to Alison Gopnik's regarding Hume's contact with Buddhist ideas, of such contact for Marguerite, but I found what I perceived as similarities a little surprising.
In reply to Heresy by Karl Young
Marguerite and Buddhism
Hm, I hadn't considered that. I guess the strongest parallel would be the exhortation to give up on desire, but that is pretty pervasive in renouncer/ascetic/mystical movements in many cultures. I suspect the parallels you are seeing there are more like the ones we see between e.g. European and Indian epistemology: once you start thinking like this, there are certain themes that are just bound to come to the fore.
In reply to Marguerite and Buddhism by Peter Adamson
More Marguerite and Buddhism
Well, just to continue with the pile up of percieved similarities, I hadn't heard about any other Christian mystics taking such a strong stand on what seems extremely akin to the middle way (which obviously isn't to say that such doesn't exist; just that I'm unaware of it). The whole Buddhist "creation myth" (so to speak) centers on the Buddha trying and rejecting extreme asceticism, ergo eventually becoming an advocate of the middle way. It seems that even the Christian mystics that mat not have actually practiced extreme asceticism (e.g. Hildegard or the anchorites) never criticisized it's practice to the extent Marguerite seems to have.
T-Shirts
Hi Peter, I love your podcast and books. Thanks for all of your excellent work! Do you think you will ever open a site store, with shirts, mugs, etc? It would help support your show, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who would love a HOP shirt to show off. Thanks!
In reply to T-Shirts by John Mossman
Merch
Actually, I have thought about that - I am pretty committed to the idea of not making any money off the podcast (apart from royalties from the book version), but I had wondered whether I could do this to raise money for some good philosophy cause. But then I thought probably the amount of money that would be raised would be too small to be worth the undertaking. But I will ponder again now that you have reminded me to think about it. Thanks anyway for your enthusiasm!
In reply to Merch by Peter Adamson
T-Shirts and T-Shirt sales as complementary variables
Well, in addition to making you immeasurably richer (i.e. I don't know by how much) re. royalties on book sales, I'd certainly by willing to spring for the arrogant pleasure of being in the exclusive club sporting HOP T-shirts. But I fear, ala Heisenberg, that the certainty of that pleasure, threatens the certainty of that situation ever coming to pass.
In reply to Asia? by PFra
Asia
Working on it! My hope/plan is to do ancient China after the Africana series and then move on to either later India, later China and Japan/Korea, or possibly something else in the "non-Western" category. But this is all on my longterm agenda, don't worry.
Mystics or Anti-Mystics?
Thank you very much Dr. Adamson for the enlightening peek into the thought of many ancient philosophers like Plato, Plotinus, and Ibn Sina that you cover in this series. I am commenting today however because, having listened to numerous episodes on these and other figures, I am very curious to better understand your interpretation of many of these figures, as it is an interpretation that "mystifies" (pun-intended) me in some ways. Mainly, I am curious about the way that you seem to consistently seek to de-emphasize what you say are "mystical" aspects of these figures thoughts or doctrines. On the podcast on Ibn Sina for instance - traditionally viewed as something of a mystic par-excellence in the Islamic world - I noticed that you and Dr. Gutas seemed to agree that Ibn Sina wasn't really a mystic and that his treatment of mysticism was simply to subsume it into his philosophical system and in so doing, rationalize and de-mystify it. I worry however that this interpretation somewhat anachronistically projects a modern sense of what it means to be "rational" - a very secular, material scienticism - onto figures whom, from what I can tell, understood the hight of rationality to be achieving what strikes me as an exceptionally mystical state of union with what is literally the Divine's Intellect itself. This same issue extends in my view as far back as philosophers like Aristotle and Plato, who with their conception of unmoved-movers who rotate the spheres by merely inspiring them or of transcendant principles of "The Good" that emenate perfection unto the world, seem to me to be full of ideas that do not pass at all as strictly "rational" in the modern sense but rather strike me as deeply permeated with religious, otherworldly and, yes, "mystical" thought. How in your view does this state of union with the world intellect differs in essence from, for instance, the Sufis objective of union with the Divine itself in order to have access to what they term "haqiqah/haqa'iq", the unveiled reality of all things, essences, and objects? How is it you are defining the idea of "mysticism" when you say that you feel that figures like Plato, Plotinus, and Ibn Sina have had in your view the "mystical" aspects of their doctrine exaggerated or interpolated, in spite of the remarkable otherworldliness of their doctrines? I think this is a very important question to examine, as in my view mysticism in the classical period used to simply be part and partial to the standard world view of thinkers like all of these philosophers and more, and I worry that in projecting what strikes me as a more modern tension between scientific and mystical knowledge backwards in time onto these ancient figures may in fact do a great disservice to the proper understanding of them. After all, mysticism as a word and as a movement has far greater implications than simply ectsatic experiences and utterances.
In reply to Mystics or Anti-Mystics? by sam jaffe
Mysticism
Thanks for your comment here and on the page with the Gutas interview - I will just try to answer it here. You are raising an important question that has come up on many episodes of the series; if you look at the "Themes" links below under "Mysticism" you'll see I've tagged 20 episodes as covering mysticism, so it has come up a lot and in several different cultures, including Islam, ancient India, late ancient Europe, and medieval Europe. So it is not easy to generalize. Obviously I am in agreement with you that the study of mysticism needs to be integrated into the history of philosophy (I guess Gutas would tend to disagree with this). I do think it can be useful to oppose "mystical" to "rational" - many mystics in history have done so, the point being not necessarily that mysticism is anti- or ir-rational, but that it involves transcending reason. So I would even say that a rough working definition of mysticism might be that it has to do with cognitive or experiential states that cannot be expressed in rational terms, especially language - at least not fully expressed. But such states are often held to be the culmination of a reasoning process or of philosophical progress, like in Plotinus; yet they can also be held to be an alternative, like the idea that a simple mystic could, e.g. through ascetic practices, come to grasp God whereas the learned scholastic thinkers cannot. One reason that historians of philosophy should take mysticism seriously is precisely that mystics are making an epistemological claim about the best way to have knowledge, and what knowledge does or could consist in.
In reply to Mysticism by Peter Adamson
Mysticism and Ineffability
Sam and Peter,
Sorry, couldn't help adding my 2 cents though not sure if it sheds any light. I think Sam brings up a good point re. discussing mysticism, though I'd also argue that Peter has done an excellent job discussing it within the confines of what I take to be the scope of the podcast (e.g. the discussion of Pseudo-Dionysius and negative theology). I.e. it seems like in the podcast you're happy to mention and basically describe some of the ideas of various philosophers that lean towards mysticism but tend to spend less time on those ideas than the ideas constituting rational debates. That seems fine to me, as I think the podcast is fantastic, and I can get, e.g., more detailed disucssion of Mahayana metaphysical theory elsewhere (not to say that those uniformly lack any rational basis, e.g. some of the arguments you covered in the Indian philosophy podcast). If and when you get to contemporary philosophy, I'll be curious to see how you handle what I would consider analytic philosophers who seem to me perfectly respectable mystics, e.g. David Cooper and his ineffability arguments (and some would argue Wittgenstein's position in the Tractatus).
Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism & Confucianism
There are 62 entries under India so I was hoping someone might narrow my search for Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism & Confucianism, I only saw Buddha mentioned so perhaps my ignorance keeps me from knowing the possible contents of the other titles. I am under the impression that Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism & Confucianism are philosophy not religions even though they are often referenced as religion.
In reply to Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism & Confucianism by Michael J Wehr
Eastern traditions
Well, that whole series is basically about philosophy in the context of Buddhism and Hinduism - also Jainism. As you'll see if you go through the series there is a lot of philosophical material in those traditions. As for Taoism and Confucianism those are of course Chinese, so not covered yet though I hope to get on to China in due course.
Future podcast episodes
I recently heard you mention Machiavelli in passing (The HPI episode on politics), and I would love a future episode (or even better a series of episodes) on Niccolo Machiavelli. I am one of those people who are annoyed by the general misunderstanding of his writings and the reduction of his work to the adjective "machivellian". Just something to keep in mind for the future. Thanks, and keep up the great work.
In reply to Future podcast episodes by Acarya
Machiavelli
Oh don't worry, he will certainly get covered in the upcoming Renaissance series. Probably one scripted episode plus an interview.
Art
Hey Peter,
Just curious; have you ever seen Rene Magritte's The cut-glass bath ?
In reply to Art by Karl Young
Giraffe cocktail
I have now! Thanks, I had never seen that before.
Actually rather disturbing.
In reply to Giraffe cocktail by Peter Adamson
disturbing spirits
My sense is that Magritte would have appreciated your reaction in terms of what he was after. As I viewed a recent exhibit of his work I got the feeling that the unease viewers felt was directly correlated with their engagement with the subjects of the work.
Dictionary
Hi Peter,
do you have any suggestions for a good (online) Arabic dictionary for philosophy work?
thanks.
In reply to Dictionary by Xaratustrah
In reply to Yes I do! by Peter Adamson
wow Peter thanks! This be
wow Peter thanks! This be real old skool! Wouldn't ever find it without your hint. impressive has even Al-Munjid in it. I remember its print version as a kid, could hardly pick it up so heavy it was. Used it as a weight with other heavy books to keep broken pieces of things together while glue dried!
Thanks and Advice
Dr. Adamson,
Thanks for this website. It has been very enjoyable.
However, if possible, I'd also like to ask for some advice. While your website is great, I've become convinced that I should read the greatest works and influencers of thought from history, preferably in chronological order, so I undrstand the flow. I know this is supposed to be the focus of a liberal education or learning about the 'Great Conversation'. However, beyond a couple of compendiums of the most well-known authors in history (Aristotle, Marx, Locke,...) I haven't been able to find any good advice on how to structure a broad, in-depth study of the development of our greatest ideas. Given your expertise, do you have suggestions?
I know and have read selections from many of the big hitters, and looking to your website for suggestions has been helpful, but I'd like to focus, not only on philosophy, but also significant idea in fiction and government at the time. Do you think working through the suggested readings you provide in order would be a good idea?
All advice and help appreciated. Thanks.
In reply to Thanks and Advice by Gavin Nop
Greatest ideas
Thanks, glad you like the series! Your question is sort of in tension with my overall message, namely that the idea of focusing on only great ideas or the "best thinkers" makes no sense, because there were way too many of them and any such list would leave out equally great thinkers, plus involve reading them out of context. So I would hesitate to, like, give you a list of ten things I think you should read. On the other hand I realize life is short. One solution might be to google around and have a look at various syllabi for "introduction to philosophy" courses at different universities and see how they do it, or, since those may not be historical, you could look for syllabi on "ancient philosophy," "modern philosophy," "history of political philosophy/thought," etc. Then you can compare and also see what translations or texts they are suggesting, which will often be affordable ones (Hackett has a lot of major texts at affordable prices, and Oxford Univ Press does a series of major philosophical texts as well). Having said that I would strongly encourage you not to follow the lead of syllabi that ignore non-Western traditions, women authors, etc. If you are doing independent reading you have freedom to explore off the beaten path, so read Confucius, the Upanisads, and Mary Wollstonecraft and not just Plato, Locke and Marx!
If you look at the further reading on the series pages or individual episode pages here on the podcast website you'll see I've also suggested lots of sources to read - like for Islamic philosophy there is the reader by McGinnis and Reisman which would be a good place to start and there are also anthologies of Indian, Chinese, Africana philosophy, etc.
Still having fun!
I just wanted to thank you once more for all the work you put into the series, it has really revived my love affair with philosophy. I am still working my way through the back catalog, but I cannot wait to learn about African and Indian philosophy! Thank you so much, I hope you enjoy making the podcast as much as we enjoy listening to it!
In reply to Still having fun! by Benjamin
Having fun
Thanks! I am still having fun too - in a way more so than back when I was doing ancient and earlier Islamic philosophy where it was mostly in my field so I didn't have to do as much new reading and research. Collaborating with Jonardon and Chike has also been great.
Anyway glad you are enjoying the series! Thanks for getting in touch.
Sun Ra
Hi Peter and Chike,
Though still in it's infancy, I'm greatly enjoying the Africana series so far. And I guess I don't have a discerning enough intellect to worry like some other commenters that you're not getting the balance right between setting off Africana thought as unique, or subsuming it under a category of western philosophy; I thought the description of what would be considered Africana thinkers potentially provides an important and compelling list.
And I had a rather bizarre suggestion (which I fully expect to be completely ignored !). For many years I was a fan of the music of the great jazz pianist and composer Sun Ra. And I always loved the construction of his "afro-futurist" alternative universe, partly just for the great, slightly tongue in cheek, entertainment that it provided, though entertainment sounds like too reductive a term (particularly given what follows).
At one point I started reading the biographies of Sun Ra and accounts of the historical development of his thought and it struck me that the universe he created, while alternative in every sense, was amazingly consistent. The way in which he created it was extremely thoughtful and deliberate; as I understand it, it was a very serious attempt to offer a completely consistent way of rejecting the oppressive, and overwhelmingly restrictive framing of black life that mid 20th century American society offered as a norm. Though based in fantasy and science fiction as much as historical fact, his ideas were formed in the cauldron of mid century Chicago, in debate and dialogue with the founders of the Nation of Islam, Baptist leaders, civil rights activists, pragmatists at the University of Chicago and others. The system he eventually came up with seems to me almost as monumental as Hegel's. I.e. one could make arguments that it provides a rather complete metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical system, though many would probably argue that, not being based on analytic style inference, his system could never really be considered philosophical.
But when I consider various US thinkers that might be included in the Africana tradition, e.g. DuBois, Washingotn, or Chestnut, I can't help but think that Sun Ra deserves some place in the description of that tradition. I realize how idiosyncratic that view is but couldn't help mentioning it.
Thanks for the great podcast and I anxiously await the next installment.
In reply to Sun Ra by Karl Young
Thanks for the feedback and suggestion!
Really glad you're enjoying the series so far! And your suggestion does not strike us as very bizarre at all. While it's true that there will be tough choices to make in terms of what to cover when we get to 20th century diasporic thought in the third and final part of the series, Sun Ra fits into a fascinating tradition of Afrofuturism that it would be very useful for us to discuss. Peter and I are also big fans of P-Funk and that could go in the same episode. So while I can't make any promises, we are very open to this suggestion!
In reply to Thanks for the feedback and suggestion! by Chike Jeffers
Sun Ra feedback
Hi Chike,
Thanks for the reply (and reminder of how much younger you guys are re. P-Funk ! :-) - actually though, for a geezer, I'm a pretty big fan of George Clinton and Bootsy). Just knowing that you feel that it wouldn't be beyond the pale to consider the contributions of Sun Ra and other Afrofuturists to 20th century diasporic thought is almost satisfying enough for me (which isn't to say that I wouldn't thoroughly enjoying actually hearing you and Peter riff on Sun Ra's contributions).
Transcripts for Podcasts
Hello Peter and Jonardon
I started listening to your podcast series on Indian philosophy after the recommendation from Kit Patrick on his History of India podcast. I was not disappointed. Your podcasts are a very concise survey of the important issues. I'm really looking forward to the series on Africana and Chinese philosophy (when you get to it).
One question: Do you have transcripts of the podcasts? I can see that you see books, but those seem to be only for Western and Islamic topics, and don't seem to be actual transcripts. Having text that is searchable would be very useful in finding ideas across podcasts (and in fact, though my entire Evernote library) to delve into further.
Keep up the good work. I also second the previous appreciative comments on humour in the podcasts.
In reply to Transcripts for Podcasts by Anil Misir
Transcripts
This is actually one of the "frequently asked questions" so it is addressed there (see the FAQ link below). But re. India and Africana, there will be book versions of those as well, at least that is the plan - it's just that it takes a while to get them from scripts to published book.
You could also look at the list of "Themes" (again, link below) which should help you follow philosophical topics across episodes. Glad you like the series!
Thank you
Hi Peter,
Thank you for creating an excellent podcast that is so easily accessible. I'm currently on episode 71 (Rhetorical Questions - Cicero) and I can't wait to finish the rest of it on my commute back home in San Francisco. I listen to this podcast while walking, climbing, lounging, traveling and pretty much anywhere my mind has free reign. You've allowed me what feels like a glimpse into how our collective mental landscapes have been weaved together over the ages which I've found very difficult to find elsewhere. I just wanted to convey how many moments of joy, intrigue and satisfaction this podcast has catalyzed.
Thank you, Peter. You've set the gold standard for a quality podcast.
Hope you have a great rest of your day,
Igor
P.S. I've peeked ahead into the Philosophy of India and am I'm very excited to close the gaps to reach it.
In reply to Thank you by Igor Napolskikh
Thanks
Excellent, thanks very much for your kind words. Hope you enjoy the rest of the series and the India (and then Africana) episodes. And please be careful while climbing!
History of Indian Philosopy
Hi Professors Peter and Jonardon
I would like to thank you both very much for the brilliant podcasts on Indian philosophy that I am just starting to listen to. Although I am an Electrical Engineer I also studied phiIosophy at University, and have been a serious student of Indian philosophy for over 50 years ( I am 70...). I would have to say these podcasts are the best summary I have ever read or heard, Jonardon, including the excellent reading and input from Peter.
I have just listened to the first 2 and am moved to write this without delay. I am very much looking forward to listening to them all.
With best regards
Kim (Gates)
In reply to History of Indian Philosopy by Kim Gates
Thanks on behalf of me and Jonardon
Thank you, that's very kind! I'll pass your comment on to Jonardon, as I'm not sure if he is monitoring the comments.
In reply to Thanks on behalf of me and Jonardon by Peter Adamson
History of Indian Philosopy update
Thanks Peter - I thought I would let you know that I live in Albany on the south coast of Western Australia. I often think how lucky we are to have the internet - our modern version of the Library of Alexandria!
p.s I also appreciate the touch of humour you inject into your reading.
Dignaga's ravens
Hey Peter,
As usual my enjoyment of the podcasts has no gaps and that's in part due to the fact that it's fascinating to hear how much anticipation of more recent debates in philosophy occured with historical figures. The latest such case for me came up in listening to your discussion of Dignaga's theory of inference. If I understood correctly, his 3rd criterion sounds a lot like Hempel's paradox (which seemed ridiculously counter-intuitive when I first heard about it), that the observation of non-black non-ravens provides evidence for the inductive inference that all ravens are black (though upon reflection it seemed that the counter intuitive nature of the "paradox" stemmed mainly from contemplating the vastness of the set of non-ravens).
Teresa Avila in Iberian Philosophy
Prof. Adamson, will you include in your treatment Teresa de Avila when you’ll cover Iberian philosophy with Vitoria, Suarez, Molina, etc. as part of your plan to cover thinkers and Baroque Scholastics during the Counter-Reformation by various continent (e.g. you quipped having Bellarmine, Cajetan, etc. in Italy, Burgersdijk, etc. in the North)? I hope you’ll include Teresa de Avila, a monumental figure and first woman to be declared Doctor Ecclesiae. Thank you!
In reply to Teresa Avila in Iberian Philosophy by Garry Soronio
Soundcloud
Hi,
Thanks for this great job! It would be very very convenient for many, including me as users of Samsung, if you open a Soundcloud account and upload your podcasts on it. Thanks in advance!
In reply to Soundcloud by Ismail Kurun
Hi Ismail,
Hi Ismail,
The podcast episodes are hosted by Podbean which has an app for iPhone and Android.
Your view + spreading the word
Hi there, Peter.
I'm very happy that i finally can thank you for all the work you've been doing on the podcast. I honestly think that everything in it is really amazing. The pace and clarity on your speaking and the carefulness you've shown on the text preparation for each episode are flawless. Thank you so much for that!
I have two questions (probably these are repeated questions, i'm just new to the site and don't know it's previous threads. Sorry):
1. Have you ever thought about translating the podcast to different languages?
2. Where can i (if possible) read your own thoughts on general philosophical issues? Or at least get to know who (philosophers) you agee with. For instance, while listening to the podcast where you explain about Plotinus, for a moment i had the impression you agree with him. Is it correct?
Again, thank you SO MUCH for everything!
Sorry for any grammatical mistakes. Really need to brush on my english.
Wish you a happy Easter.
In reply to Your view + spreading the word by Fabricio Neves
My views
Thanks, glad you like the podcast (and your English is excellent)! You're picking up on a deliberate feature of the podcast which is that I hardly ever weigh in and say "oh and I think this philosopher is actually right." I always thought it would be better if listeners weren't distracted by feeling that I am partisan, e.g. whether my religious beliefs if any are coloring the way I present medieval philosophy, or what have you. Of course my "philosophical taste" is expressed by the things I choose to highlight, but I kind of want to keep the focus on what the historical figures thought and not what I think. Obviously good history of philosophy doesn't have to take that approach but I thought it would work best for the podcast.
Re. other languages the book versions could be translated and I would love to see that happen - actually the Classical Philosophy one already exists in Korean.
Distance Learning in Philosophy?
Hi Peter,
First, I am a longtime listener and I want to express my gratitude to you for creating this podcast. My graduate work has been in English Lit, but listening to your podcast has given me fantasies about pursuing an MA in Philosophy (if only there was time). While that may be out of reach, Philosophy books have been steadily taking up more shelf space over the last five years.
I was curious if you knew of/would recommend any distance learning programs in Philosophy. Things in-line with your recent Facebook post about the MA Intellectual Encounters of the Islamicate World, but totally online and more geared to continuing education/auditing courses.*
*I also work in, and am studying for a graduate degree which incorporates, the distance/e-learning field. Understanding how a Philosophy course operates in a distance/e-learning context is of great interest to me.
Thank you! I look forward to the coming series on Africana Philosophy.
-David
In reply to Distance Learning in Philosophy? by David
Distance learning
Thanks, glad you like the podcast!
For distance learning the thing that leaps to mind for me is the Open University in England so you might try that. Also there are philosophy MOOC's out there, one on mathematical philosophy has actually been run from the LMU in Munich where I teach. Hope that helps, but I am not a big expert on this so maybe others will add more suggestions.
Gratitude
I can only express my gratitude to Professor Adamson for making these short excursions in philosophy accessible in this format. As a political scientist doing international politics, I have always appreciated subject matter at the intersection of history, politics, theology, and philosophy, and I am much closer now to 'hanging out' in this space due to Prof. Adamson's prodigious intellect.
Thank you Prof. Adamson
Hi,
Hi,
I'm studying philosophy in Winnipeg Manitoba, and the Eastern/Western connections are somewhat unaddressed at my university. I began to notice similarities between Indian concepts and Hegel...and Plato...and Heraclitus Zeno, Parmenides, Kant, Nietzsche etc. Academically this has been of great interest to me, but is not considered relevant at my institution. How do you suggest, or rather where do you suggest that I turn to pursuing studies of the influence Indian philosophy has on western philosophy--or rather if they have a common source? Your podcast came at just the right time in my life. Thank you
In reply to Hi, by Jennifer Mead
Thank you!
Hi Peter,
I recently discovered your podcast just wanted to say a big thank you for all the amazing work you put into the series so far. In the age of seconds long viral videos, instant gratification, and societal ADD in general it's refreshing and inspiring to see someone take on and consistently deliver on as ambitious project as a complete and comprehensive history of philosophy. I read some philosophy in college in a mandated way and recently got into it again in a self learning way and I'd love to follow along as long as you're willing to keep doing this for.
I had a two questions for you as a new listener. Apologies if these have been discussed in previous comments, I haven't read through them all of them yet.
1. What are the major non-European philosophies of note that you'd like cover? I really appreciate your extensive coverage of Islamic and Indian philosophy, am looking forward to Africana philosophy, and was wondering what other philosophies are worth knowing about?
2. How long do you think the whole series will take to finish? I'm not trying to rush to the end, in fact I think it's fantastic that you're talking such great care to explain the usually skipped over parts of the history well. I'm more asking because Frederick Copleston's similar undertaking took 30 years to finish and I want to make sure you have the motivation and resources to be able to complete the journey. I hate cliffhangers :)
Marcus
In reply to Thank you! by Marcus Forrealius
Welcome to a new listener
Hi, thanks for your enthusiastic response! I pretty much cover your questions in FAQ (see link below) but re. the first question the other things that are tentatively on my to do list would be China and East Asia, after Africana, and then perhaps returning to finish off India. I have also wondered about Latin American philosophy, but perhaps that could be integrated into the main narrative later on.
As for how long I'll keep going, I always just say I have no plans to stop soon!
On French Philosophy
Dear Peter,
Thankyou sincerely for the podcasts. I've learned a huge amount from the mediaeval philosophy episodes, in particular.
I recommended it to my first year students, to whom I'm teaching mediaeval philosophy on a first year course on Philosophy and Religion.
I have to say though, I have stopped listening now, as a result of some comments you made in episode 250 on French philosophy, a speciality of mine, and something I've studied for maybe 15 years now.
It's egregious to voice 'suspicions' (on the basis of what? An attempt at reading Derrida while in 'grad school'?) about anyone, let alone an entire nation's philosophy. What is 'French philosophy', anyway? Surely not a single tradition. It would either have to be unified in some way, or you would have to know all of it rather well to pass judgement on it in that way. I'm afraid, particularly on the basis of a rather mean parody of Sartre in another episode, and on how you speak of it here, this is ultimately xenophobia.
That this desire to exclude Derrida in particular, and by extension perhaps all French philosophy from a history 'without gaps', follows close on the heels of the expression of a laudable ambition to retrieve neglected and excluded traditions and writers (you mention African philosophy, Chinese philosophy, women writers, in particular), is particularly galling.
So the history of philosophy without gaps... but let's ideally exclude the French.
Come on: it's 2018.
This is bad enough in anyone, as I was saying, and of course typical of those educated at the most traditional and privileged of institutions, in particular, but in one who boasts of these ambitions to not exclude anyone, only to express precisely a desire to exclude a whole nation's philosophy, that is just unprofessional. And personally insulting to those of us who've actually taken the time to really understand this - yes - phenomenally challenging philosophy.
I seem to remember your saying earlier in the same Q&A podcast that you try not to form judgements on the philosophers, as to their rightness or wrongness, or somethings similar, before you write the podcast. And yet, with the French....
I have to say, I can't listen further, and that's a real shame, because I have learned so much from your work. And I hope, in order that justice might be done to these thinkers who mean so much to me, and for the sake of a just view of philosophy *as a whole*, *without* any gaps, that the podcast never reaches the twentieth century. I don't think justice would be done - not without a serious change of heart.
Yours,
Mike
In reply to On French Philosophy by Michael Lewis
The French
Well, I still have the script from 250 so let's revisit it! I was asked if there are any philosophers I wish I could skip, and the relevant part of the answer reads as follows:
"As far as overrated thinkers go, I have to admit that I am one of those English-speaking philosophers who secretly wonder whether a lot of 20th century French philosophy might be an emperor with no clothes. I tried to wrap my mind around Derrida in graduate school, without much success. He’s someone I could perhaps mention in answer to Matthew’s question “Who is one philosopher you wish you could leave out?” But in all honesty, if anything I am eager to get to the so-called “Continental” tradition and to tackle the challenge of demystifying figures like Heidegger and Derrida."
So this, I would say, is just an honest report of my experience with French philosophy so far - notice, not an unfounded prejudice but based on actually reading Derrida (and, I could/should perhaps have added: back when I was about 20 years old and less broad-minded). More significantly though, I explicitly go on to say that I am looking forward to trying to understand them when I get that far. So how do you extract from this the idea that I am recommending that anyone ignore the tradition in question, or plan to do so myself?
In reply to On French Philosophy by Michael Lewis
Change of Heart
Mike,
You better listen again to #250, beginning at 28:45. Peter’s reply here is right on point:
More significantly though, I explicitly go on to say that I am looking forward to trying to understand them when I get that far. So how do you extract from this the idea that I am recommending that anyone ignore the tradition in question, or plan to do so myself?
Whereas your remark:
I have to say, I can't listen further, and that's a real shame, because I have learned so much from your work. And I hope, in order that justice might be done to these thinkers who mean so much to me, and for the sake of a just view of philosophy *as a whole*, *without* any gaps, that the podcast never reaches the twentieth century. I don't think justice would be done - not without a serious change of heart.
is itself a misconstrual of Peter's remarks here and an injustice to the whole enterprise of HoPWaG. It’s someone else that needs a serious change of heart. Personally I don’t care in what prejudices you indulge. But I think you owe an apology to at least Peter’s non-existent sister who (never) writes the scripts for the broadcast.
A question...
Sir:
First of all let me thank you both for this wonderful series of podcasts. I have been trying to educate myself in philosophy in general and the indian philosophy in particular and this series has been a godsend for me. I have now heard all the episodes at least once and several episodes many times over.
I dont claim to understand all the issues fully but one thing struck me as I tried to understand each school. All the schools rely on examples drawn from nature or everyday life to propose and support their position on metaphysics, epistemology etc. It seems logical and justified for schools such as the charvaka, the naiyayikas since they do not deny the reality of this world and everyday experience. But it seems incongrous for other schools since they all deny the self and worldly reality to some extent. Particularly egregious is the case of sankara's advaitha who deny everything other than brahman.
I am not capable of articulating it in philosophical terms but isn't it a contradiction for any philosophical school to justify its position by using the very things it is holding to be false or unreal?
I am not trying to be frivolous or flippant but this troubles me. If language is the ultimate limit of our knowledge (mimamsakas? Wittgenstein?) and everything one communicates is through language (which is necessarily of this world) then how can one deny this reality using the very same language? Or postulate about some reality beyond which is by definition not within the reach of language?
Thanks once again for the wonderful podcasts and the education you have provided through them.
- Sreenivas
In reply to A question... by sreenivas
Expressing the inexpressable
Hi there! Thanks, I'm glad you have found the podcasts so rewarding.
The point you are raising is indeed a deep and difficult one. It often arises as a (pretty easy) way for opponents of these radical schools to refute them: like, if Parmenides/Shankara/Nagarjuna/Meister Eckhart/Sufis are right in the things they say, then they can't say them at all, since their theories undermine the possibility of true language, or perhaps even the existence of language (and/or thought). As your mention of Wittgenstein perhaps anticipates, one idea is that language is like a ladder one throws away: it takes one beyond the illusory phenomenal world and is used as a mere instrument to escape that world. Of course the authors in question also often use language in non-straightforward ways, e.g. with metaphors, and it is less clear that such uses would be undermined. Of course even monists, skeptics etc will have to admit that there is an "appearance" somehow overlying the genuine reality that is one, or nothingness, etc, and the language they use is all used within that world of appearance. So it could be argued that their use of language is no more puzzling than the central fact that true reality does differ from the world of mere appearance. In any case I believe this is among the most central issues in philosophy, and it arises in pretty well all traditions, which is one reason that I am comfortable with thinking of mysticism as part of the history of philosophy: it is the mystics who come to grips with this problem most directly.
Encouragement
Greetings Peter,
I'll keep it short. What you are doing is very important and the quality of the podcasts are very good.
I encourage you to keep up the good work and to continue with this series as far as possible. You are expanding minds.
In reply to Encouragement by Christos Loulos
Encouraged
Thanks! I will do my best. I have to say that having people write in with encouragement like that does keep me going.
Thank you
Hey Peter! I downloaded your podcast with the intention listening to only the stoic-related ones. Despite my initial plan, I decided to check out the first episode anyways. Just a few weeks later, I am already twenty episodes in...
I think your podcasts are very effective! You yourself are an excellent speaker and I appreciate the manner in which you deliver your content. I believe you speak honestly - with little bias.
Do you have any other projects your working on? Do you study strictly philosophy?
Thanks a lot man!
Shane
In reply to Thank you by Shane
other projects
Thanks, glad you like the podcast! I pretty much stick to philosophy which is also my day job (I am a philosophy professor in Munich), though I do also have side interests in watching Buster Keaton movies and eating almond croissants.
Hiawatha
Hey Peter,
Love your work; I'm currently going through both sets of podcasts in series (i.e. without any gaps) and am having a rolliking good time; I intend to purchase the books at some point in the near future (an aging mind is a terrible thing !). But one question has been dogging of me of late and I can't help it ask. What formative experience led to the frequent (and enjoyable) cameos by Hiawatha and his ungulate bretheren ?
In reply to Hiawatha by Karl Young
Hiawatha
Glad you are enjoying the podcast! Your question about Hiawatha calls on me to usher you behind the curtain to the production process here at HoPWaG. Firstly we should clarify something very important which is that Hiawatha is female (I think I probably only decided this some time after introducing her so it may not be explicit in the episodes you've heard so far). Fortunately she rarely reads the comments here on the site so I guess there is little chance of her being offended.
Secondly, the name: this actually comes from a strange conversation where I invited a child to name the giraffe I was going to be using as an example in my podcast, and what she said (we aren't sure what it was) was misheard by my brother as "Hiawatha" which all agreed was a splendid name. So it is a philosophically interesting case: she was "baptized" as Hiawatha without anyone actually intending this to happen.
In reply to Hiawatha by Peter Adamson
Thanks for the elucidation
Thanks for the elucidation and behind the scenes production details ! Sounds like this could lead to a whole episode on reference by the time you get to Kripke et al., and also yet another cautionary tale re. the Internet. I was at first unsure of Hiawtha 's gender so decided to check the Internet re. the historical Hiawatha to try to make sure to avoid causing offense. So much for that... (though I do hope that the actual referent is in fact shielded from my offensive behavior !)
In reply to Hiawatha by Peter Adamson
Hiawatha / Hayath
I always suspected Hiawatha was a play on the Arabic word, "Hayaath" or "Life" :)
regards
Irfan
In reply to Hiawatha / Hayath by Irfan
Just Thanks
I just wanted to say a simple Thank You for this series. I received a BA in Philosophy more than 35 years ago, but never felt I had a comprehensive perspective on the history. I listen nearly every day to at least one episode.
Love these podcasts
This series of podcasts has been an enormous gift, as far my experience is concerned. I'm only up to around Episode 105 or so, and feel like my lifelong interest in Philosophy (I'm 64) has been greatly enriched. Many thanks!
In reply to Love these podcasts by Larry Hettinger
Podcasts
Thanks! Glad you enjoy them, and I hope the next couple of hundred episodes live up to your expectations...
Thank you!
I just want to thank you for your amazing podcast. I am soon planning on returning to school after a long 10 year break. You are helping me prepare
for this as I have learned, and re-learned, so much from your show! I have your books in my Amazon shopping cart and cannot wait to read them.
In reply to Thank you! by John Mossman
10 year break
I'm glad you like the series! Thanks for getting in touch and of course for getting the books, I really appreciate it.
Arabic Names
Hi Peter,
I was wondering why in some publications a mix of Arabic and English is preferred in words like Mu'tazilites and Ash'arites instead of either fully transcribed arabic Mutazila and Asharia or at least versions of the former just without apostrophes?
Cheers!
In reply to Arabic Names by Xaratustrah
Arabic names
I have been wondering that for years! I think probably the reason is that if you are writing for an audience that doesn't know Arabic, then you might hesitate to write for instance "Muʿtazila" because it wouldn't be clear that it is even a plural noun. Compare the fact that we usually say in English Shiites, not Shiʿa. If I read a non-Anglicized plural that would not bother me but I guess I would take it as a sign that the author thinks they are writing for other scholars and not a broader audience.
In reply to Arabic names by Peter Adamson
Dear Peter and Xaratush
Dear Peter and Xaratush
In my opinion the apostrophe in words like Muʿtazila is because of the way "Ayn" is pronounced in Arabic. If you write Muʿtazila in Arabic, it will be "Miim", "Ayn", "taa", "zaay", "laam", "alif" ..... (refer to the attached image). And generally, in most dialects, "Ayn" is pronounced with a throaty emphasis which gives it a dinstinctive delay.
Secondly, many thanks for the beautiful podcasts Peter. You voice is my constant companion during my daily walks around the streets and forests surrounding Ottawa. I went about it in little non-linear fashion, starting with Islamic philosophy, moving to Indian and now approaching Medieval to be followed by Classic. This might be because I was born in the Islamic tradition, raised in the Northern Himalayas of the Indian sub-continent and then migrated to North America. So, I guess I am re-tracing the route of my own physical evolution. I can see on the MapTracker app that about 20 people in Ottawa have visited your website, and I wonder if anyone of those kindred souls read this comment, please respond back .... so we can connect and discuss "Peter's Stories" :) :) ....
much regards
~ Irfan, Ottawa.
In reply to Dear Peter and Xaratush by Irfan
Ottawa
Thanks! I guess you haven't been walking around listening to the podcast in Ottawa the past week though, hasn't it been like -25 degrees celsius there?
In reply to Ottawa by Peter Adamson
Yes, you are right. Last week
Yes, you are right. Last week was brutal. -25C, with "feels like" reaching -40C. However, we are back to normal life again. Today is +5C.
In reply to Yes, you are right. Last week by Irfan
Byzantine philosophy?
Hello Peter,
I seem to remember you mentioning in an episode that after finishing medieval philosophy, you will move on to philosophy in the Byzantine empire. Am I remembering that correctly?
Thank you,
Tomas
In reply to Byzantine philosophy? by Tomas Hernando…
Byzantine philosophy
Yes, that's right: the series on Byzantine philosophy will start with episode 301. I will post a projected episode list on the blog shortly before it begins.
In reply to Byzantine philosophy by Peter Adamson
just a little bitty request
Darn it, Peter. We have to get Julian to work on this: Those of us following and thinking intently on the philosophical problems want to know what others are thinking on an issue even if we did not comment on an episode. Also, listeners are still commenting at much later times than that of the podcasting of any particular episode. We need a way to hit REPLY and truly activate “notify me when new comments are posted” without having commented or have another rectangle, say NOTIFY, that equally informs us that another comment has been posted to an episode in which we are most interested but did not comment. This neither is metaphysically impossible nor requires another possible world. And (since I'm being so demanding) we need to do this retroactively to Episode 1 since The History of Philosophy without any gaps will live for eternity (or a smidgen less).
P.S. I'd be willing to do some of the grunt work here in my golden years, if Julian shows me how.
In reply to just a little bitty request by Otter Bob
Notifications
So, you mean you want to be able to hit a button that says "notify me whenever a comment is posted on this episode page," right? I can ask him whether this is possible.
In reply to Notifications by Peter Adamson
Exactly and "whenever" puts
Exactly and "whenever" puts it much more succinctly than I did. I think I am asking way too much, but I also think it would be a very worthwhile feature of this podcast and may be an example to others.
Series on Chinese philosophy?
Hello!
Great podcast! Do you plan to add a series on Chinese philosophy? I would personally be interested, and I think it is the most conspicuous gap in the current collection.
Thanks!
In reply to Series on Chinese philosophy? by John B
China
yes, I hope so. The hope would be to do that after the upcoming series on Africana philosophy which will keep appearing in alternating weeks with European philosophy, and that will take a couple of years. So, maybe in 2020 or 2021?
In reply to pUBLISH DATE OF NEXT BOOK by Kieran Boylan
Next book
Thanks for asking! That will be on medieval philosophy and should appear in mid or late 2018. I have been revising the scripts for it already and expect to submit the manuscript in the first couple of months of 2018 so then it is just a question of how long it takes to produce from there. And the volume on Indian philosophy co-authored with Jonardon Ganeri should come out not too long after.
babylonian Philosophy
Greetings,
I was wondering if you knew of any good sources for learning about Babylonian / mesopotamian philosophy?
Love your content.
Many thanks
Gino
In reply to babylonian Philosophy by Gino Jabbar
Babylonian philosophy
Actually we will have an episode about this next year when we kick off the Africana series (obviously Babylonian is not African but we wanted to have it as context for ancient Egypt, plus it is a chance to cover it having failed to do so when I first launched the podcast series back in 2010). So, stay tuned for that, but here is what we are going to give as "further reading" for that episode.
• Y. Cohen, Wisdom from the Late Bronze Age (Ann Arbor: 2013).
• E. Dalley (trans.), Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others (Oxford: 1989).
• B. Foster, Before the Muses: an Anthology of Akkadian Literature, 2 vols (Bethesda: 1996).
• W.G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature (Oxford: 1960).
• W. Burkert, “Prehistory of Presocratic Philosophy in an Orientalizing Context,” in P. Curd and D.W. Graham (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Presocratic Philosophy (Oxford: 2009), 55-85.
• O. Neugebauer, The Exact Sciences in Antiquity (New York: 1969).
• T. Oshima, Babylonian Poems of Pious Sufferers: Ludlul Bēl Nēmeqi and the Babylonian Theodicy (Tübingen: 2014).
• K. Radner and E. Robson (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture (Oxford: 2011).
• F. Rochberg, The Heavenly Writing: Divination, Horoscopy, and Astronomy in Mesopotamian Culture (Cambridge: 2004).
• D. Snell (ed.), A Companion to the Near East (Oxford: 2005).
• M. Van De Mieroop, Philosophy Before the Greeks: The Pursuit of Truth in Ancient Babylonia (Princeton: 2016).
Translations of Plato
I'm still at the Plato stage of your wonderful podcast. You mentioned your version of Plato (complete works) that you would want on a desert island. If it is in English, would you kindly tell us who the translator is? Thank you.
In reply to Translations of Plato by Dan Urbach
Plato
What you want is the Hackett collection edited by Cooper, the translations are by lots of different people actually. I believe it is even available in paperback, though for the desert island you may want something more robust.
Thanks!
Thank you very much for making this podcast! I can only imagine how much work that has been.
But I think it was well worth the effort, the result is very entertaining, and I really like the in-depth coverage of even obscure thinkers.
I hope you enjoy making this podcast as much as I do listening to it!
In reply to Thanks! by Benjamin
Enjoyment
Yes, I do enjoy making the podcast, and as you can imagine I am learning quite a lot by doing it (though I may be forgetting stuff as fast as I am learning it). Probably my favorite part though is hearing from listeners like you, so thanks for getting in touch!
a century
Hi Peter,
I am writing on the occasion of just having passed my hundredth episode of THOPWAG. First of all, thank you. You always break down but never water down ideas (I have no background in philosophy), condense (by necessity) but don't leave gaps (naturally), and all with an entertaining sprinkling of questionable puns. Also, who knew the history of philosophy was good to work out to! ... Of course my listening has surged and ebbed — the Hellenistic schools had me holding on to the edge of my exercise bike, the neo-Platonists not so much — but even when my mind wanders, and I can't remember which Cappadocian you're talking about, I find myself pleasantly afloat on the vastness of human thought. So cheers, thanks again, and may you one day "catch up" with history, so that you can truly say, at the end of the final podcast, "... and then I said the words I am saying right now!"
Yours sincerely,
Cullen Gerst
Berkeley, CA
In reply to a century by Cullen Gerst
Catching up
Right, I had the similar idea that someday I could have episodes that begin, "this week on the History of Philosophy: this week in the history of philosophy." But it will be a while until I can use that joke.
Sixteenth Century Philosophy/Theology
Hi Dr. Adamson,
I am wondering if you plan to spend some time on sixteenth century protestant philosophy. Even if you don't plan to deal with the debates on free will or reason, I think you might be interested in the ethical thought of that period. So here's my case. First, the chapters that exist on that period in histories of ethics written by philosophers (you won't blame me if I don't name names) wouldn't pass muster if studied with the same care as other periods. Second, the thought of that period is intrinsically interesting and beneficial. For instance, I just gave a paper to the historical society on the way Peter Martyr Vermigli completes Aristotle's function argument. I have another paper in the works on how Vermigli uses Aristotle's discussion of arguing "to or from first principles" to interpret the 'Nicomachean Ethics' as a whole, and how this interpretation in turn attempts to reconcile what some 20th century folks call first and third personal perspectives or impartial and partial ethical considerations. Third, and if the first and second aren't persuasive enough for you, ethical thought in the sixteenth century goes virtually ignored by philosophers, which is a problem best remedied by your podcast.
There's an argument for you! I know that your resources are limited, but I'd love to see some attention given to that period if possible!
Best,
Dan
In reply to Sixteenth Century Philosophy/Theology by Dan Kemp
Sixteenth c
Thanks very much for the suggestion! I am not that far ahead with my planning but in general I am sure I will do quite a lot on Protestant theology, in fact I was thinking of calling a big section of the podcast and maybe one of the books "Philosophy During the Reformation". Perhaps you could email me some of your work on this, and I could save it to consult when the time comes? You can reach me at peter.adamson@lrz.uni-muenchen.de.
Indian Indian timeline?
In addition to my previous comment on the Modern phase of the Indian Timeline, I notice J.N. Mohanty’s reflections, analysis and interpretations of classical Indian Philosophy—ry Handbook of Indian Philosophy (my will be coming from Amazon.ca on November 23rd) has systematically excluded Aurobindo’s works—
fin
In reply to Indian Indian timeline? by Jay
India timeline
Well, that timeline is actually taken (mostly or entirely) from a volume that Jonardon is editing, so it may just be because none of the contributors in that volume mention Aurobindo. You may also notice it goes way, way past where we are stopping in the podcast series - I assume that one could actually add dozens and dozens of names if one wanted to mention all the interesting philosophers between, say, Dignāga and the early 21st century! There is a similar shortcoming in the Islamic world timeline in that it barely covers 19th, 20th and now 21st c philosophers. But the main goal of these timelines is just to help people orient themselves with figures mentioned in the podcast, so in a sense everything after the demise of Buddhism in India (which is roughly where we are stopping) is included gratuitously. Sorry, that is more an explanation than a justification!
Timeline
Hello Peter,
Excellent job with the timeline, but why Nehru and not Aurobindo? I don’t think Nehru’s History of India is comparable with The Life Divine, Synthesis of Yoga, Savitri, etc, etc?
Does he not worth mentioning?
Spanish thought
Hi Peter,
Thanks for your excellent podcast. I've been a faithful listener since the pre-Socratics. I was a little disappointed to see that in the Medieval philosophy timeline you have not really touched on any Iberian or Hispanic thinkers or literature (aside from Petrus Hispanus). I thought you'd talk about Raymond Lull at the end of the 13th century, on Alfonso X and his remarkable collection of law, the Partidas, or on the University of Salamanca, founded in the 12th century). True, some of them are not as well-known (though Lull is, I think), but then again, this is without any gaps!
Anyhow, just a suggestion. Thanks again for your great work.
In reply to Spanish thought by Pedro
Llull
Thanks for the suggestion - sorry, I only just saw this comment. Actually I am going to work Llull in, still, in an episode about medieval figures who seem to anticipate developments of the Renaissance. So he is still to come, somewhat out of chronological order admittedly.
Ecclesiastes
First- Thanks for the series- it's awesome!
I recently went through and studied Ecclesiastes, and I was surprised by how much of the philosophy there reminded me of Stoicism. The main tenants seems to be a lack of certain knowledge about anything, determinism, and the life philosophy to accept and be happy with one's lot in life. Most of the ideas expressed sound like they could have been lifted off a Stoic manuscript.
Traditional Jewish dating predates Ecclesiastes to the hellenistic movements by several centuries (ascribed to King Solomon in the 10th centrury BC), though most modern studies place the text around the Hellenistic era.
I was wondering if any works have been done comparing Ecclesiastes to stoicism and analyzing ideas drawn from each other?
In reply to Ecclesiastes by Josh S
Stoics and the Bible
I don't know about Ecclesiastes in particular but I know that there has, in general, been the suggestion that early Christian thought and perhaps even books of the Bible were influenced by Hellenistic philosophy. As you might have noticed I chickened out of trying to cover the Bible itself in this series, so I have not read up on this. But here for instance is a review of a book on Stoicism and early Christianity.
Modern philosophers when you get there?
First, what a treasure this site is. I have downloaded and look forward to listening during my daily commutes.
When you get to modern philosophers, I hope you will give a good treatment to Ayn Rand. She hits the diversity button and in all cases of philosophical dichotomies, she comes down on integration rather than extremism. (empiricism v rationalism, mind v body, idealism v materialism, etc)
In reply to Modern philosophers when you get there? by Zardoz
Rand
Thanks, glad you like the site!
I wonder what Ayn Rand would think of your arguing for her inclusion partially on the basis of diversity? Anyway, that is a decision I guess I won't have to reach until the 2030s or so. I have to admit that I am a bit nervous about tackling the 20th century at all - reminds me of what Mao supposedly (apparently not really, unfortunately) said when asked his views on the French Revolution: "too soon to say."
Transcendence
Hi Peter,
I am sure you have used the word "transcendence" or its variants somewhere in the medieval episodes, but I can't recall exactly in which. Meanwhile I am not sure if I really understood its meaning in different philosophical contexts, or even at all. Apparently Kant has coined the word in his Critique but I see the term is also used in connection with the literature on the islamic philosophy e.g. the title of the book of by Sadra who lived much earlier than Kant. And one often speaks of the transcendental realm/world in opposition to this/material world or maybe as an indication to the world of intellect.
So I am a bit confused and am looking for a kind of straightforward definition of the concept. Any hints is appreciated.
In reply to Transcendence by Xaratustrah
Transcendence
Yes, I think I have used it but not in the Kantian sense. I've used it when talking about divine ineffability: God "transcends" language in the sense that He is too exalted to be spoken of. So here "transcend" just means "to be beyond" and this is what is meant by talking about "transcendent philosophy" regarding Sadra or a transcendent world of intellect. Kant calls arguments "transcendent" when they focus on the conditions for the possibility of something, like, you could argue that God exists by saying that He is the condition for the possibility of things we see in the empirical world. (I guess the idea here is that you "transcend" or "go beyond" experience to grasp something that is the prerequisite for that which is experienced). So, bascially we are dealing with two different uses of the word. Hope that helps!
Gratitude
Thank you Peter for the enjoyable cruise down the history of ideas. I only wish I could upload the link to Salo ( the amiable droid from Tralfamdore in Vonnegut's Sirens of Titan ) on his lonely mission of peace to the edge of the Cosmos.
Blessings on you.
Richard Leader
Pre-islamic middle eastern philosophy
Hi Peter!
Firstly I would like to thank you for you wonderful series. Secondly I would like to ask you if you maybe plan to cover pre-islamic middle eastern philosophy like Babylonian or Persian?
Thank you for what you're doing again!
- Add new comment
- 177549 views
Early Christian Debates
First, I appreciate you taking the time to create the podcast and books. I have learned a lot and have added several of the texts mentioned in the show to my to read list.
I am on episode 108. Maybe I'm just impatient or missed it due to other drivers wanting to test metaphysical beliefs about the soul, but I have a few questions about the early Christian debates.
It sounds like most of the strife was due to disagreements about the metaphysical nature of Jesus and the trinity. Were there every any major ethical conflicts? If I understand the gospels correctly, Jesus makes it clear that the old testament laws still apply. In Luke, Jesus seems to contradict the 5th commandment about honoring ones parents by saying anyone that does not hate their parents cannot be his disciple. Were there any debates between early Christians on such matters? Are any of these apparent contradictions in the English translations due to language differences?