Comments Page

Unfortunately, a new chapter in the history of philosphy is missing: The "Hamburg Interpretation" by Dr. Michael Oliva Córodba and Prof. Dr. Rolf W. Puster (Universität Hamburg) based on Mises "Praxeoligie". It would be nice if this gap could be closed.

The goal is to identify all answerable questions and all unanswerable questions. So you start with every combination of every letter to some sufficient length, then you put a question mark at the end of all of them. The greatest percentage of these are unpronounceable so you ignore them. Then the of the remaining, the majority of them are so difficult to pronounce that they will never make up words. Then only some are formed of only words in the dictionary or words that can in the future hold meaning. Now these questions contain all the right questions we need to ask ourselves to get to the answers of the universe. But we aren’t done, we need to exclude all questions that aren’t in grammatical order as well because although every word in these sentences make sense they hold no more meaning than the unpronounceable questions even though some examples can be changed in interpretation to give an answer like “What your name”. Continuing on, we have questions that ask for opinions like the best colour. This question is unanswerable because the definition of best requires expectations and the question never sets them out. This questions is formed to allow for people to easily interpret a meaning but really it’s simply unanswerable. There are also questions that seem to make sense grammatically like “what does a banana often eat”  these questions are also unanswerable because a banana doesn’t have the property of eating, even though we can interpret the nutrition it absorb as that which it eats, the question must be changed in an interpretation so this unchanged question is unanswerable. What about what happens when an unstoppable force comes across an unstoppable object. For an object to be immovable, regardless of the definition of moving, forces etc. the object has to have the property that all forces in the universe that act upon it don’t move it. This is the only way it can be objectively immovable. Otherwise for a force that is unstoppable all objects in the universe that meet this force must move. Meaning, from the perspective of the unstoppable force, for the unstoppable force to be qualified as unstoppable and also move the immovable object, the immovable object has to both be in the set of all objects that are movable and immovable which is a contradiction. To conclude, the unstoppable force not only does not have the property of acting on the immovable object, but the unstoppable object does not have the property of existing in the same universe as an immovable object. The question is as meaningless as “what a banana eats?” and “vdieowkhwusowj?”. These mispropertising questions are all unanswerable. The remaining questions can further be vague/relative, insufficiently defining, incorrectly assuming and finally questions that are unanswerable because the knowledge they seek is unattainable like the exact height of something or what you ate . These final ones are excusable. Otherwise,this is the one thing I don’t understand: Why ask unanswerable questions when you can ask answerable questions. Surely unanswerable questions are improper and only inhibit academia except in the search of answerable questions. So why spend ages searching for meaning in meaningless scrambles like “is knowledge virtue” and why not trade it for an answerable question like “Did Socrates believe his definition of virtue was attainable through what he felt enough to describe as the path of knowledge” which is still unanswerable due to a lack of historical evidence? I think either the reason needs to be taught or the answer made available easily for children to get interested in philosophy. Otherwise surely there needs to be a platform other than debating where the sophists don’t win and the truth never looses. If my comments were misplaced I apologise.

Hi I’m a curious teenager looking to vent my frustration. I started listening to this podcast from the start and so far, I’ve found it hugely helpful for the type of information I was looking for so I’m a happy customer. However, as a sceptic of the field of philosophy, listening to the first 25 episodes, I found why philosophy is practiced the way it is confusing. I believe I found a way to solve the nature of philosophy to never present a conclusion. I was wondering if I could somewhere, sometime discuss my ideas and alleviate my concerns with a benign conversation. I understand I’m asking for special treatment and risk wasting your time. 

Respectfully, Can

Hi! I wish you teached us about old Egypts mythology and philisophy.

thank you!

Is there any chance you’ve a date for paperback editions of Medieval Philosophy and Indian Philosophy? I’ve asked OUP without reply. Cheers, MB

Thanks for getting back with me on my question regarding Meno’s paradox. I have another question from antiquity. I am not sure if I have understood Aristotle correctly, but he seems to affirm 1) that the heavenly spheres revolve around “God”, and 2) that the universe is geocentric. Is this correct? If so, does this suggest that Aristotle somehow thought that “God” was present on earth? Or that humanity’s participation on the divine nous was enough to make the heavenly spheres revolve around the earth?

Hi Peter,

I was checking your theme list about "Soul and the Self" there are many episodes. I was wondering if you have a recommendation of whom to check regarding the topic of self-awareness specifically (all traditions are welcome!).

thanks!

Hey Peter,

Maybe this is mostly just a chance to express my deep gratitude for your perseverance re. sticking with the podcast and continuing to make it fresh and captivating for all these years - and my perseverance - I don’t know if I’ve ever stuck with anything for 10 years but have been on the edge of my seat for every episode - though  as a geezer my retention isn’t what it used to be so we need get on OUP re. the paperback release schedule! :-) For some of us geezers reaching for a book is easier than searching a list of podcasts.

But I digress; the original purpose of writing was to say that I just listened to and greatly enjoyed your interview of a couple of years ago on the Secret History of Western Esotericism podcast. As a retired physicist I’ve strayed pretty far from my naturalist grant writing persona and am taking a lot more things “seriously if not literally” and as such have enjoyed that podcast as a kind of complement to yours. And as a quintessential peripatetic type (as well as Buddhist type) negotiating the Scylla and Charybdis of your and Earl Fontanelle’s approaches allows me to get ever closer to that middle way Dedekind cut.

Greetings. I am not sure if my previous comment went through or not, so I will just give a real quick summary here. I just listened to Episode 21 on Plato’s Meno. If I understood you correctly, then you claim that the paradox had to do with partial knowledge, which doesn’t seem to be much of a paradox at all, as your explanation made clear. I am wondering, however, if the paradox is somewhat different: could it be that Meno is applying the whole “being vs non-being” debate to the issue of knowledge? In other words, if someone doesn’t know something (= non-being), then how could he or she know it (= being)? Not sure if my question is clear or not, but I hope you get the gist. I look forward to your answer. Kind regards.

Greetings. First off, great podcast. I am a bit late to the game, and have gone back to the beginning episodes (hence the question about a topic from several years ago). I just listened to Episode 21 on Plato’s Meno, and I am wondering if Meno’s paradox actually is an extension of the “being vs non-being” debate from the previous century. Is Meno actually talking about the problem of partial knowledge (as I understood you to explain in the podcast), or rather of the problem of how one would acquire knowledge (= being) of something that they don’t know (= non-being). In other words, if something doesn’t “exist” in someone’s mind, then how would they acquire it? This would make sense historically, and is a much more interesting interpretation of the dilemma, but I don’t know if it is correct or not. I look forward to your reply. Kind regards.

I noticed recently the timelines have gone. Would it be possible to bring them back? I found them very useful and better than other timelines available on other websites. Thanks.

Dear Peter,

Thank you for the first 10 years. You make my world more beautiful (I mean it). I have learned, I was inspired, I read some sources. Thank you so much. We should have a possibility to give you a gift. If you ever need a time in the woods of Norway (where I live) you are invited to stay in our sidehouse. It is calm and beautiful. You would make me even more happy if you initiate a bilingual introduction to Arabic philosophy with original texts and Arabic main terms...

Best

Gernot

And thanks for teaching us dang kids a thing or two along the way!

Congratulations on 10 years!

Hello, Mr. Adamson,

I'm interested in East Asian philosophy. So, could you let me know when Chinese philosophy series start? and also I'm curious about how deep you would touch Korea and Japan and how much volume they would take.

Dear Dr. Adamson,

Will you be discussing the reception of Islam in China? I think that would be fascinating.

Hi! I'm writing a masters thesis on a subject relating to history of philosophy and I would love to quote the podcast in the introduction but I'm unable to find the epsiode I'm looking for. In one episode that I thought related to medieval mysticism, prof. Adamson states something in vain of that while history of philosophy is often justified through what it can contribute to current philosophy, it is often most fruitful when it challenges us by being nothing like current philosophy. This thought was very close to the reasons I have for writing about my subject, so I wanted to quote it, but despite my best efforts I have been unable to find the episode it was said in.

I'm sorry if this is not the proper channel, or if the question is unreasonable. Thank you!

Do you plan on covering philosophy, theology, and intellectualism among Indigenous societies in the Americas? You've done a commendable job trying to stretch out into non-western philosophy, but unless I'm missing it (and I might be!) you haven't seem to have covered it in the Precolumbian Americas yet (or Indigenous American societies post-Columbus)

I realize that the relative lack of written records makes this difficult, but there's a lot more sources available then I think people realize: A good starting place might be with Aztec/Nahua philosophy, which is probably some of the most documented and written about. For some basic context, for the below text; Nahua is the broader Aztec culture, "Aztec" as a term variously refers to either it or the specific Mexica subgroup, who were the denizens of Tenochtitlan, the most powerful of an alliance of 3 city-states (it, Texcoco, and Tlacopan), with that alliance and their subjects states (of various Nahua and non-Nahua groups) making up the "Aztec Empire".

In terms of primary sources, The Florentine Codex is a series of 13 volumes written by the Spanish Friar Bernardino de Sahagún collaborating with Mexica scribes, elders, and nobles, documenting various facets of their history and society in great detail, with one of the volumes (Book 6) being focused on their ethical and moral concepts, adages and epithets, etc. Meanwhile, the "Cantares Mexicans" and "Romances de los señores de Neva España" are collections of Nahuatl songs and poetry also from the 16th century. There's dozens of other surviving sources of various subjects from direct, known Nahua individuals from the early colonial period, such as Domingo Chimalpahin, Fernando Ixtlilxóchitl (who is notably from Texcoco and the Acolhua Nahua-subgrou rather then Mexica, giving a different perspective from most), and Fernando Tezozómoc, etc.

In terms of modern texts on the subject, "The Allure of Nezahualcoyotl: Pre-Hispanic History, Religion, and Nahua Poetics" is a text on the king of Texcoco of the same name, who is acclaimed in much of the above sources as a poet, patron of the arts, and legal reformer, and seeks to act both as a biography of him as well as cut through some of the revisionism and romanticism about him present in such sources, such as from the aforementioned Fernando Ixtlilxóchitl, who was a descendant of his. Miguel Leon-Portilla has made a dozens of academic texts on Nahua thougt, two notable examples (the former probably being the single most notable) "Aztec Thought and Culture" and "Fifteen Poets of the Aztec World". James Maffie is another modern researcher focusing on the subject, having published "Aztec Philosophy: Understanding a World in Motion".

It is however worth noting that some of both "Aztec Thought and Culture" and "Understanding a World in Motion" has been criticized, the former for proposing the existence of a singular primordial diety (Ometeotl) in Nahua thought which some dispute, and the latter for taking an overly metaphysical interpretation of Aztec theology where gods don't really exist, just natural processes that then got misinterpreted as deities in Spanish sources, which some (Such as David Bowles, who has made many translations of Nahuatl sources, including Poetry itself, whose works are also worth checking out) have disputed as being inconsistent with actual Nahuatl writing. So both of those texts are perhaps, at least based on my understanding, best approached as more interpretative lenses to view the primary sources they cover through then anything else; but are still definitely worth covering as they are widely referenced as some of the most major texts on the subject of Nahua intellectualism and thought.

I know Maffie has done some interviews with people online before, and David Bowles is quite active on twitter and I've interacted with him a number of times (I'm not a researcher, just a hobbyist: I also only read English, so that limits my sources, there's MUCH more then what I mentioned that are obscure and are only really well-known in the Spanish academic community or are still only in Nahuatl that I'm unaware of), both or either may be willing to assist (some sort of assistance with primary sources would probably be helpful: I know that the english translation of Book 6 of the Florentine Codex I own just translates the moral adages literally with no context for the symbolism and metaphors they are trying to convey in the original nahuatl, for example) or be guests if you ask (and if your podcast features guests).

I apologize if this comment is overly detailed or comes off as condescending with all the suggestions: It's a fairly obscure subject so I'm used to having to provide a lot of contextual information! As a bonus/extra thing that might entice you, here's a short excerpt from Matthew Restall's "1491" where it covers some of the symbolic metaphors in two Nahua poems: https://i.imgur.com/Lb2ELJE.png

HoP 355 sound quality was poor.  I was able to hear it but I had to turn up the volume too high to everything else I do on my computer.  Something you and your team need to pay attention to.  Other than that... great podcast and episode.

I am having trouble subscribing to get alerts for new episodes

hi,

thank so much for your podcast which has been a savior through quarantine! I realize it's not the standard in HoP to classify philosophy in Arabic as Western philosophy, but wondering why you also made that choice in this podcast. if anything, the narrative in the podcast seems to emphasize the continuity of philosophy in Arabic with Greek and Roman philosophy before and philosophy in Latin after. Arabic philosophy seems to fill the 'gaps' in Western philosophy in the 10th through the 12th centuries. do you think the Arabic philosophy covered could've competed for e.g. the 'Early Medieval' header in the podcast? or is Western philosophy tied to Christianity in a way that doesn't allow for neatly fitting philosophy incubated in an Islamic context directly in the timeline? (or something else?) would love to hear your thoughts!

Hi, I am surprised that the name of Sree Narayana Guru of Kerala(1856-1928) is not finding a place among the philosophers of India in your list.  

Regards,

      Ajith Kumar

Hi, I'm going to publish content online and will use you as a resource. I plan to drive traffic your way as much as possible. Are there any permissions necessary when linking to your content? Please let me know and thank you for what you do for philosophy. 

Hi, thanks for the information in this podcast, especially the Africana philosophy section.

You may have heard the news already, but YouTube is now getting rid of their community captions feature, which was a feature where volunteers could add captions to videos for non-native speakers, Deaf people, and hard of hearing people. The reason they are doing this is because they'd like to transition to relying on third parties which do captioning for a fee, which will mean profit for Google. They are essentially creating a disability fee, which while shocking in how brazen it is, is sadly a very common experience for disabled people.

There has been a lot of discussion about this everywhere, and my social circles are no exception. These conversations have naturally led to discussion of your podcast and its policy on transcripts. Your policy, as I understand it from your FAQ, is against circulating transcripts as that would decrease demand for your books.

I'm writing to you now because twice now, I've spoken about your podcast, citing it for certain things I came to learn, and someone Deaf asked where they could find the transcripts so they can access it too. They discovered that the only place where it's written down is in the books, and furthermore that there is a policy against any transcripts, which usually ruins their week. This is to some extent their interest in the podcast, I'm sure. But as exciting as the premise of your podcast may be, it's usually more a reaction to yet another instance of something like this in their lives.

Having lost job and academic opportunities because I'm a woman (and a woman in philosophy at that), I sympathize deeply with their experience and psychological toll of having to pay for being who they are. This sort of disadvantage existing no matter where you look can really wear you down. This is (at least partially) why I am making this appeal.

My hope is that you'll find that there's plenty of reason to want the books even with the transcripts provided, and that you'll sympathize with the experience I've described enough to reconsider your policy on transcripts as well. If you no longer have the scripts yourself, I'm sure that plenty of your fans would be willing to create the transcripts provided your encouragement.

Hope to hear from you soon.

1. Will you be doing a series on China? I'm intrigued especially about the mohists, who apparently did propositional logic using full sentences. You could call the episode "Not Minding Your Ps and Qs".

2. What about Persia? You've barely mentioned the zoroastrians at all, let alone the mazdaists before Zoroaster.

3. Will you be doing anything on the effect of printing before Gutenberg? I've often wondered why wood block printers never bothered to do whole pages of classic works that were in high demand, or failing that, simple texts for beginning readers.

4. You spoke of the process of copying and the problem of errors. Will you be refering to the technique devised by jewish scribes for copying Torahs? I mean the one where each page is regarded as a fixed matrix of letters and the copyist can get a quick accuracy check by counting the letters in each row and column. I've seen articles that extol the method but i've never heard of it being used for any other work.

5. Also, you've mentioned philology a few times, but rarely numerology. Were there any philosophers who used numerical equivalence of words as a basis for theories?

Hello! I'm interested in how philosophical concepts made their way to the people through the sermons of medieval masters like Aquinas. Can anyone recommend any medieval masters who may have had contact with the Basque community in places like Navarre?  

Jews as both a religious group and a culture/ethnicity have made many contributions to philosophy, logic, and related disciplines. Jews are known by some other cultures as People of the Book. But it was not limited to just one "book"; Jews have valued literacy, scholastics, and analysis, throughout modern history (CE) at least.  One might call them People of the Mind or People of Ideas. Anyway, please have a look at these and see if there are some you might want to include.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jewish_philosophers

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Jewish+philosophy&…

Note: In the seven college courses I had in philosophy & political philosophy, I don't remember learning about any of these except Spinoza and Marx.  Aquinas, yes, Maimonides, no. I suspect Christian-centric Western education simply doesn't know about many of these.

Hi. Great series! I downloaded it last fall and i've been listening to it while doing chores. It really helps pass the time. I just finished episode 278, so i've got a ways to go.

Anyway, i was wondering if Peter has ever tried tracing his own mentor/student lineage? It would be cool if he could go back to Plato, but i don't expect it.

Dear Prof. Adamson,

First of all, I would like to dearly thank you for your rigorous work on the podcast. I am a first year undergraduate Israeli student at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, at the department of philosophy, Jewish thought and Talmud. For me, a student of philosophy who approches the study from a deeply historical perspective, your podcast has been nothing short of spectacular and most valuable to me. In terms of method, our department is not unlike the majority of the english speaking ones, in the sense that it is mainly comitted to methodical courses and research from a contemporary ananlytic approach; as such, historical courses are scarce, especially ones concerning the less-than-canonical parts of the history of philosophy, most noteworthy Arabic and Islamic philosophy. The study of such matters is essential especially for me, as I am interested namely in Maimonides in his non-jewish context (in order, naturally, to understand that very jewish context of his!). And so, it can be said of HOPWAG: "Like cold water to a weary soul, So is good news from a distant land" (Proverbs 25, 25) [in hebrew it would sound somthing like this: mayim kareem 'al nefesh 'ayeffa ushmua tova me'ertz merhak].

I am concerened today with a wide-scope matter in the history of philosophy. I have just learned Aristotles Physics 1-2 and de Anima for the second time, and upon finishing de Anima at my class, my teacher compared Descarts' dualistic theory of mind to Aristotle's heliomorphic world view. It can be said that Descarts' view is one that fits harmonically within the scientific revolution that took place at his age, as it emphasises a distinctions between the mechanistic view of the world of matter and a non-mechanistic one for the mind. Contrarywise, mind for arsitotle is a part of the living creature as much as the body (soma) is. Aristotle's mind the the form of the living creature - and as such, its' actuality (entelecheia), while its' material aspect is its' matter or potentiality (dunamis). Both the actuality and potentiality are natural aspects for Aristotle, of any Ousia. Thus, and correct me if my analysis is wrong sofar, it can be said the mind, for Aristotle, belongs to the same ontological category that any other scientific term concerning the world belongs.

Now, this view is quite different from our way of understanding the mind, following descarts' cogito. On the other hand, I am not sure what would  the Neo-Aristotleanism in its' medival Arabic-Islamic iteration would have to say about that. Furthermore, what can be said of these philosophers treatment of the soul and it's relation to the physical world as they have come to know it through the traditional Islamic prism, that is saying - views concerning the Nafs, is to be thought of. I predict that the answer may be complicated and most likely is to vary from each thinker to another. I am mainly interested in pre-Maimonidean thinkers, such as al-Kindi (although I wouldn't classify him as a Neo-Aristotelean), al-Razi, al-Farabi, Ibn-Bajja, Al-Ghazali (who very clearly was aquainted with the Aristotlean tradition), Ibn-Sina, and Averroes; and, if relevant, on even earlier late-antiquity interpretations of Aristotle that influenced them, and even Neo-Platonic sources, following all the way back to Plato and his discussion of the soul in Phadeo.

This subject is especially interesting in the Maimonidean context beacuse many of the disagreement in modern research of Maimonides circles around the question of 'Olam ha-Ba', the jewish version of the afterlife, or another version of it: "T'hiyat ha-Metim", meaning the rising of the dead (come Judgment day) -  both of which are terms that coincide culturally with ideas such as 'الجَنَّة' in their Religious and Philosophical contexts. I am interested in figuring out what how Maimonides' refrences of the soul or the mind should be read in light of these questions. The consequences of this inquiry may be remarkable, as far as perhaps revealing philological evidence of a non-ontological understanding of the eternality of the soul according to Maimonides, rather eternality akin to the eternality of Aristotelean forms or numbers (that is to say, eternality of the soul only in virtue of actualizing its' potential fully, and intelectualizing itself or God) - not even a so-called 'spiritual' one.

Many thanks and the very best regards - and a sincere apology for the probable many inaccurate points I may have laid out throughout this letter.

Yotam Schremer.

Finally caught up after more than 2 years (I have about 30 podcasts I split my time between, so I only did 3-5 per week).  and I guess it felt appropriate to give feedback now that I have heard all of it.  First, I'll start with letting you know what type of audience I am, cover the sections, then let you know what I thought of the podcast so far as a whole.

Audience:  Demographically, I am a white male in my 30's from the USA with a math and economics degree who loves history as well.  My background in philosophy before this was that I learned about the cliff notes version of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle in high school.  I knew Descartes, Pascal, and Leibniz existed through math.  I heard "I think therefore I am" with no idea what he was trying to say.  I also knew about the political theory of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, and the economic theory of Smith, Marx, and the Austrians.  In my non-western history class I learned about Confucius, Taoism (which I really don't like), and Legalism (Han Fei!), and the Buddha.  And I read the Bhagavad-Gita in humanities.  And my impression of philosophy was largely shaped by the one person I knew who talked about it being the type of person who would say "what if what you see as red is what my green looks like?"  Which made me have no interest in learning about it.  I got into your podcast because an entertainer I watch mentioned that he took philosophy and it was totally different than what he was expecting.  Then you were the only review on the back of Mike Duncan’s book I didn’t know about, and history of japan podcast mentioned liking Philosophize This, so I figured I’d give both of you a try.

Classical:  I actually really liked that the podcast started with what I would describe as largely natural philosophers, because I had been wondering what scientists did before they had access to our array of scientific tools.  I also liked that you covered what modern philosophy talked about in Parmenides.  Finally, I think the investment in Plato and Aristotle early on was well worth it, as I learned a ton and got to hear a little baseline about most of the topics talked about.  Further, this showed that “without any gaps” could be extended to a major philosopher’s lesser known works in the same way that it could for covering minor philosophers.  I kind of hoped that we’d see 1 last deep dive covering something like “Hume, Kant, and Hegel (1 section with the 3 of them sharing it).” or something like that, but I’m sure however they get covered it will be good.

Later Antiquity:  I knew the name of 3 of the schools off the bat, so I looked forwards to this as well, I was surprised when the Epicureans (who I didn’t know the name of prior) were my favourite.  I thought that was a great section overall and was glad we saw something similar pop up in the India section.  Late Antiquity didn’t make much of an impact positively or negatively, and I was uncertain about Early Christianity but thought it was good, though Augustine maybe got too much attention for my liking. 

Islamic World:  I came in not knowing what to expect, but I knew of the great work of Al-Khwarizmi, so I was hoping we’d see that the golden age of Islam was also a golden age of philosophy.  I have to say that balance wise, this felt like the best era of the podcast.  You struck a great balance between talking about topics, and talking about minor philosophers, talking about major philosophers, and background.  The balance was also good in Medieval, though with less minor figures by themselves and more topics.  (In both cases the major figures got about 27% of the episodes, though late antiquity was closer to 37% depending on how the schools were counted, which was also good.  I think the major philosophers make for nice sign-posts for getting caught up on topics I may have somewhat zoned out on, or seeing how sections of seemingly unrelated topics may hang together).  The one trend that started her that I liked was that the default for the major figures was 2 scripted episodes plus one interview, with more for the major major figures.  Andalusia was surprising because barely any Muslim philosophers showed up, but if most of Andalusian philosophy was done by Jews, I don’t think that would be a problem.  Eastern Tradition I got the impression in the introduction that we were going to get a treatment closer to the way Hellenistic was covered, so then not having it covered that was a bit jarring.  Mulla Sadra was great, but the historical wrap up lasted too long.

Medieval:  As I said above, this also had a wonderful balance, and I liked the lead in segment that all the time spent on various little topics like Individuation and Transcendentals.  I was really sold on the Scholastics being serious philosophers worth paying attention to.  The treatment of Aquinas was really strange though.  You didn’t cover any metaphysics from Aquinas during the Aquinas segment, which made it feel like something was missing, in addition thanks to the interview on self-awareness, the episode on soul knowledge, and the interview on human knowledge, I felt like a lot of what was talked about instead was repetition.  Then you also repeatedly said that Aquinas was not that important in the medieval era and kind of odd man out, but innovative individuals do stand out from the pack, and I hear in way more episodes than I expected people responding to Aquinas, which makes him feel more important than Scotus and Ockham (who I got the impression you were trying to make the case that were more important than Aquinas?).  Overall I felt the treatment of him was full of mixed/muddled messages and overconcentration on one aspect at the expense of the rest, as well as the first time I felt like the podcast was being addressed to one specific type of audience in such a way that made it harder for me, a non-academic philosopher, to follow.  However, this did not spoil the rest of the series.  This series also have several that would make a list of my favourite episodes, such as the Angels episode, and I think these deep dives into one very narrow topic was a nice trend.

Byzantine/Renaissance:  Byzantine was hard to categorize.  I enjoyed all of it, but I also struggle to say what I really learned from it.  Some religious stuff was at the beginning and end, but otherwise, it was mostly rhetoric and advice for emperors?  One omission I thought was notable was that the great schism came and went without much attention, which I thought might have had things to talk about given the earlier attention given to the trinity debate as background where philosophy was used by both sides, but you’d know better what actually is out there.  For the Renaissance, I am very unimpressed with the humanists, but I am pretty sure that has nothing to do with you.  So far it is an interesting section. 

India:  I was pleasantly surprised by India as well.  I knew The Buddha and the Bhagavad-Gita were going to be cool, but the Age of Sutra was one of my favourite sections in all of the podcasts.  I especially liked the Nyayas, but every group in the age of sutra, even the ones I thought I wouldn’t like, were interesting.  It was here I was sold that Indian philosophy was every bit as interesting as Greek philosophy.  The Buddhists and Jains were almost as good as well, but I thought tracking which sect of Buddhism was which, and what they branched off from was hard to keep track of.  I also thought Dignaga section could have been more clear, as you spoke a lot about Idealism and Phenomenology, but I don’t think I had a very good idea what those two meant in relation to these two.  And was more confused when I tried to research it and found that Idealism and Phenomenology have multiple branches and so which sub-branch you were relating both Dignaga and Dharmakirti to could change the message.  I also didn’t get a good impression of how Dignaga actually improved upon Nyaya logic, but I know logic can be hard to get into detail with via podcast form. 

Africana:  I know there are a lot of naysayers on this part, so I will try to keep it to things I don’t think I heard others say.   I guess the precolonial bounced off of me because I didn’t really hear many arguments for the things they were arguing for, so I ended up being no more convinced than I am with the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.  And because I couldn’t see why anything couldn’t reasonably been independent of one another, the idea of “Africaness” linking them didn’t feel convincing.  Slavery/Diaspora has been a bit more interesting, but for a lot of it, I am just hearing them make the case for “slavery bad,” but that is my default position.  So if I’m not hearing the “slavery is not bad” side they are arguing against, and I’m not seeing people influenced by the arguments, it gives the impression that people from Jefferson to Davis just heard the arguments on why slavery is bad and went “yeah, but so what?” and then weren’t really impacted by it.  The topic of if violence is justified has been more interesting, but since most of the people were of two minds about it, that part too came out muddled.  I’ll keep sticking with it though

Overall:  This is one of my favourite podcasts, and has really gotten me into philosophy, and gotten me to read Aristotle and Plato, and indirectly got me to read Montesquieu, and Han Fei.  Overall, I am very happy with the podcast you have put out, and I look forwards to seeing where you go, especially when you cover China, India part 2, China part 2, and the enlightenment.  I would be worried about how you cover the continentals, but I think your rules essentially forbids you from the empty dismissals I’m used to seeing from them, so I doubt you’d end up not covering the properly due to priors.  And I hope you keep going for the long time it takes to find out!

Hi Peter,

Usually Kant is associated with "Vernunft" and "Verstand". Do you know, which one of the figures mentioned in your podcast (Western / Islamic / Africana / India) discussed "reason" and "mind"? Avicenna in Shifa? Abelard? Nagarjuna?

Thanks

Hi Peter:

I'm a regular listener and lover of the podcast from Detroit, MI. During the the Coronavirus shutdown, the cinema for which I work is offering an "at home" series of films that includes a title which right interest you. The link is below. I hope you and Hiawatha will be willing to devote a little of your time to it.

https://kinonow.com/the-woman-who-loves-giraffes-detroit-institute-of-a…

Stoically yours,

Matthew Breneau

I wonder why there is no mention about Ali ibn Abi Talib in the Islamic World? 

Once you finish with the history of all philosophy, you could start making introductory podcasts into really heavy hardcore stuff like for example Supervenience (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/supervenience/) or Process Philosophy (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-philosophy/)! :--)

The tagline is "A history of philosophy without any gaps".  While I understand why Indian, Islam, and African philosophies are included because they interacted with Western philosophies, I would hope you would include Chinese & Japanese philosophies despite roughly progressing on a parallel track.

Dear Professor Adamson,

I thought you would be pleased to know that your titanic philosophical podcast is one of the things that consoles and sustains me here in New York City as we face an indeterminate period of "social distancing." I am rationing myself 2 to 4 a day. As a small token of thanks I invite you to go to my website, paradoxyproducts.com and select any items you and your collaborators would like. I will be happy to send them to you as a gift if you give me a mailing address. Do not hesitate to choose as much as you would like.

This is really wonderful to be here, glad to know the philosophy behind it., thanks for sharing with us.

"We must discover the power of love, the power, the redemptive power of love. And when we discover that, we will be able to make of this old world a new world. We will be able to make men better. Love is the only way." -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Mr. Adamson,

I live a pretty good life and listening to your podcast ranks among my favorite activities. Your lectures and conversations are both richly pleasurable and deeply nourishing. Thank you very much for doing this work, and more thanks to you and your sponsors for making it freely available. The world is better for your efforts.

Cheers,
Liam

As long as you are in Neo-Platonic philosophy, I was wondering.  You refer to a lot of the Scholastic and Islamic philosophers as "neo-platonic" from time to time, but it seems like some of them are obvious (Eriugena, for example), and others are seem more straight forwards Aristotilian (Averroes, though i'm not sure you have ever refered to him as neo-platonic).  So I was wondering if you see...  al-Kindi, al-Farabi, Avicenna, Abelard, Aquinas, Maimonedes, Scotus, and Ockham as neo-platonists, or a more fushion of neoplatonism with Aristotilianism? or Aristotilians with neo-platonic influences?  or is it more of a spectrum?

Hi Peter, Have you ever thought of writing a philosophically themed fiction / novel? Like bringing back to life philosophers of different epochs and traditions into a nice story line where they interact? Like Ficino discussing with Nagarjuna and Averoes on reincarnation and world soul on a banquet where Nietzsche was not invited!? I would be the first to buy the book!

Btw. whom would you choose as your main protagonist?

Hi Peter!

 

Thank you so much for this wonderful gift to the world!

I am a philosophy graduate student at Notre Dame. I am very grateful for this podcast. It's wonderful for filling in the gaps I have in my philosophy education. Do you know of any podcasts that might be able to fill in my gaps in more modern philosophy?

 

Thank you!

Grace

Dear Peter,

Thank you so much for all your great work, I have been a regular listener to the podcast since 2012 and always look forward to new epsidoes being posted. 

I wondered whether you ever considered doing episodes on the religious scriptures of the Abrahamic faiths as philosophical texts? This would certainly seem to be in keeping both with your inclusion of things like mysticism in your history of philosophy, and with your treatment of similar sources in non-western traditions.

It would be interesting to know how the thought of, say, the historical Jesus fit into the intellectual trends of the time. I have heard from popular sources that, for example, the teachings of the new testament may have been inspired by contemporary eastern thought. Does modern scholarship back this up?

I understand that such historicization of religious figures could be seen as disrespectful and/or offensive, which may be why you chose to stay clear.

I also wondered specifically whether you considered covering the thought of St Paul, who seems to fit the bill even more closely for the kind of figure you would cover.

Interested to hear your thoughts

Hi Peter,

what are your favourite philosophy magazines, like not academic journals but normal magazines (those with colorful pages)?

Any plans to explore East Asian philosophy? Rather large gap. :)

Hello!
I’m a former child & adolescent neuropsychiatrist broadening my horizons In early retirement by, amongst other things, listening to your podcast series; currently at #099.
OK so it’s a HISTORY of philosophy series, but... here’s my ‘so what?’
This-opolis stated that the world is a pool table supported by five giraffes whereas that-opolis disagreed, stating that there were in fact seven giraffes. The commentators argued about how the balls were racked in the triangle and if chalk was truly necessary or even really blue.
We now know (or currently think we do) that the earth is sphere of accreted matter orbiting a rather non-descript star. Hence my question: so what does it matter what a bunch of ancients mistakenly thought?
I recall in training in psychiatry having to present an analysis of one of Sigmund Freud’s writings to a seminar group. I did a great job - you could say my presentation had no gaps - but, in the end, the substance of what had been written was archaic and meaningless; it was pool tables, giraffes and blue chalk.
Help me out here!
Frank.

Hi Peter,
This might come to you as a fairly unusual request. My name’s Elliot and I’m a 22-year-old officer in the US Army. I’ll start by saying that ever since I started listening to your podcast, it’s changed my life. It’s done so much, in fact, that it’s inspired me to try my hand at philosophical writing of my own. The discipline that has always interested me the most, even before I started listening, is philosophy of religion, and that’s what I’ve decided to write about. Earlier this year, I began writing a book on that topic in dialogue form (drawing on Plato’s literary style), and I just completed it. My dialogue pits an atheist (who is a representative of my own ideas as the author) against a devout religious person (although the specific religion abided by is never revealed). Some of the particular issues I touched on in the conversation were heavily inspired by your discussions on theological philosophy of the Islamic world. I was fascinated by your explanation of the divide between Mutazilism and Asharism, in terms of trying to understand God’s power, and either the potential limitations or boundless nature of it. I also incorporated elements of Avicenna’s theories on existence, such as God’s knowledge of particulars or universals, as well as the problem of arbitrary creation of the universe. This all, of course, is in conjunction with the household issues such as the problem of evil, and free will vs. determinism. I self-identity as an existentialist, and for that reason I attempt to clash these problems with the more contemporary views of Sartre and Heidegger, with the intention of drawing on their explanations of how we can have morals without God. Although I never mention any of these particular thinkers by name, my ultimate goal is to bring back their age-old ideas to attack modern problems, in a format that’s attractive to a wider readership, not just philosophical academics. I’d love to try and get my work published someday, and for that reason, I’d like for it to be the best it can be. I know you’re a busy guy, but I was wondering if you’d be interested in reading a short excerpt or two from my work and sharing some of your thoughts on it. It would honestly mean the world to me, and then some, since your show is essentially what motivated me to do any of this in the first place. Thanks for your time and keep making those incredible podcasts!

Hello —

My name's David Montgomery; I'm a longtime fan, and also host the podcast The Siècle, covering France 1814-1914. In addition to covering the political narrative I also try to cover the social, economic and intellectual currents at the time. As such, as I plot out future episodes, I'm hoping to do an interview episode about Comte and Positivism. As a longtime listener of the "History of Philosophy" my first thought was to reach out to you to see if — though Positivism is many years away for you yet! — you could recommend any experts in Positivism who I might be able to reach out to about possible interviews. (I will also recommend any reading suggestions, especially books or articles aimed at a lay audience.)

Thank you!

I made this Album cover for your podcasts I downloaded.

I thought I'd make it available to everyone, at your discretion.

Hello! I absolutely love your podcast and have been listening to it for the last few months (still not caught up yet, but I'll get there!). I'm really interested in the influences that the Timaeus has had through late antiquity and even into medieval philosophy. Could you recommend some further reading in regards to this? It seems like there's absolutely no love for it today...

This podcast was the catalyst that got me reading philosophy again and now also studying it in the university. Just letting you know that you got that on your conscience now. ;)

Hi Peter,

I know this is a little premature but figured I'd float it anyway (given the extra time I'm afforded by the summer break !). I'm reading The Fifth Corner of Four by Graham Priest which has a pretty narrow focus re. Buddhist Metaphysics but a rather broad historical scope. It occured to me that when you get to the Buddhist section in the Chinese philosophy podcasts, an interview with him might be a great way to connect your excellent podcasts on Mahayana metaphysics in India to later developments in China re. setting some context.

In any case, I'm sure whatever you choose to do in those podcasts will be edifying; e.g. I'm really anxious to learn more about some of the areas with which I'm not very familiar like Mohism and Legalism (of course I'm sure I'll also learn a ton about the areas that I kid myself that I'm somewhat familiar with, like Confuniacinism and Taoism).

Clicking on the "zip" icon on the right hand side of the https://historyofphilosophy.net/india/origins page gives a 404 error

Dear Peter,

Having listened to almost every episode of the podcast, I just want to extend my deepest gratitude for your outstanding work – to call it a pinnacle of the digital age is not an overstatement, I believe, especially in these times of misguided thought and frailty of reason. Not only have you reinvigorated my personal interest in philosophical inquiry and opened my eyes (or ears, rather) to areas of thought I had yet not come across, but these series have led me to further studies, guiding me to works I had otherwise probably not learned about.

For this I am ever so grateful.

Hi Peter, do you plan to cover Paracelsus?

Hi Prof. Adamson,

I just picked up the second book in the HoPwaG series. I noticed you dedicated it to your brother, and was curious as to why? Why that particular book rather than any of the others in the series? Does he have a particular attraction to the Hellenistic and Roman periods?

Hey Peter I'd just like to say thank you so much for your wonderful work on the podcast. I started getting into philosophy a little over a year ago when I was 17 and did som very basic research on my own which mostly included watching videos, reading wikipedia entries, and reading a few books. I started to listen to your podcast around February of this year and I am only up to episode 250, but your podcast has partly inspired me to try and become a philosophy professor and I am heading off to my first year of undergraduate school this September. I plan on majoring in philosophy and then attempting to get my masters and PhD. Although I am more interested in modern philosophy I still find your podcast episodes very interesting and it has shown me that ancient and medieval philosophy can be very interesting. I especially liked the episodes on Abelard. This summer I have read De Anima and I am reading Fear and Trembling as the existential philosophers interest me very much.Thanks for making such a great impact on me and maybe if you're not done with the podcast by the time I receive my PhD and get a position at a university in 12 years or so I will be able to come on the podcast.

Hi Peter,

I am not sure if we discussed the idea of "privation" anywhere in Aristotle or Thomas. Would love to finally understand it, or at least to make sure they all use it in the same way. It seems that Cusa also did say something about it, not sure. Do you plan to cover that?

cheers!

I've listened to all of the episodes in this European Focus track and I'm excited we finally hit the Renaissance and really like the way you laid out what you're going to do for the next year or two along these lines. I know this is a bigger project than what you originally thought of but I have enjoyed it today and I'm really looking forward to what new understandings you're going to bring to the Renaissance thinkers

Minor point - Marsilio Ficino is listed twice -

Looking forward to podcasts!

Is this a thing?  I mean colloquially it seems to be.  But it should be a thing.  How is this not a thing?  Quantum physics or study of the nature of reality at fine detail brings up the nature of reality itself.  That's pretty heavy philosophy.  Eat your heart out Brian Green, Feynman had his day.  Let's get on this one.  Also what if ..... such a small question had big implications?  

Greetings!  I was introduced to this podcast from the interview on The History of Byzantium podcast.  I'd like to get started in the series, but I notice the first 30 episodes are missing on the Apple podcast library.  It begins with episode 31.  Why is that?  I realize I can download directly from the website, but I like to keep all the podcasts in one place and it's more convenient for me to listen to it on the Podcast app.

Thanks for your consideration and all you do!

Hi Prof. Adamson, I'm not sure if you've gotten this far with the series on Chinese philosophy, but I was wondering if there's a tentative list of episode topics yet. If so, will the Confucian philosopher Xunzi get his own episode?

Hello Mr. Adamson et al.,

I have really loved listening to your podcast. Unfortunately, I am currently using Google play to listen (as opposed to different methods that I have used in the past) to podcasts, but I cannot find yours there. I believe the process of adding your podcast to their system is pretty quick and easy by going here:

https://play.google.com/music/podcasts/publish

I tried to add it, but it also requires a verification via email, so you may have already received an email (it uses whatever is embedded in the RSS feed).

Thanks,

Matt

 What are your favorite cross-cultural works of aphorism, proverb, and parable?



I am wanting to read up on this.  Also -- do you have any thoughts or have you read anything on what is behind these genres, and what makes the good ones good?  Obviously, memorizability is part of it -- but why are some things easy to memorize?

Hi Peter,

One of the many things I enjoy about your podcasts is they get me thinking about ideas I normally wouldn't come across in my daily life. Having recently familiarized myself with basic research terminology for an exam - P value, null hypothesis, independent and dependent variables, confidence intervals and the like - I began wondering how scientists today, both hard and soft, reconcile the existence and/or involvement of God in their research. I realize this may be more of a theology question than a philosophy question, but so much of what you have covered in the evolution of philosophy seems to involve humankind developing a system to investigate/justify/explain the ineffable.

Recently, there have been interesting comments left by mathematicians and other scholarly listeners, and I'm curious how God factors into modern day research, if at all, for those involved. In my limited academic endeavors, I've run across beautifully designed studies that yielded results no one could have anticipated, as well as unethically funded, poorly designed studies rife with sampling bias, that still would not yield the researchers' desired results. Do modern scientists who believe in the existence of God characterize God in the vein of Teilhard de Chardin, with human scientific advances moving us higher and higher to an Omega point, or do some see God as "tri-personally" involved directly in their research? Could God be considered the ultimate confounding variable in our perpetual randomized clinical trial? And is there a current school of philosophy or a particular philosopher who is focusing on that area of inquiry today?

Full disclosure, I am no longer a religious person (although I do enjoy the occasional ritual and the smell of burning incense from time-to-time), but I am truly fascinated by the metaphysical world and open to the possibility of God's involvement at both the micro and macro level in our messy, complicated little lives.

Thank you for your time and patience. I always enjoy reading your responses, as well as those from your listeners, to comments from people like myself - those of us tentatively unfurling our philosophical tendrils - as well as to the deeply-rooted philosophical sequoias with whom you engage in sophisticated technical and analytical discussions. I never fail to learn something!

Gratefully,

Emily

Just want to compliment you on this. What a wonderful resource. THe podcasts are so well written and, for those of us with less of a background , are clear and concise. Can't believe you're allowing us access for free. Congratulations and all the best.

Bruce from NZ

ps have heard Prof Adamson on "In Our Time" and found his explanations to be of the same order.

Hi Peter!

First off: your podcast is great. To do a history of philosophy without any gaps in such an accessible way is very impressive.

I have a question/suggestion. Will you be doing any work on the philosophy of mathematics in the future?

What springs to mind is the Grundlagenkreise in the early 20th century, culminating in Gödel's incompleteness theorem and intuitionism (a long time away). But both Kant and Mill developed interesting takes on mathematics. Frege developed predicate logic primarily to complete his, ultimately failed, attempt to reduce mathematics to pure logic. There is also the debate over the status of infinitesimals (infinitely small numbers), the arithimetization of analysis, and the new role of mathematics in natural philosophy, starting in the Renaissance.

The reason I ask is that it would be interesting to hear about these issues in a larger philosophical context: a historical take on them, so to say.

Cheers,

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/how-an-18th-century-philosopher-help…

Hi Peter,

When Googling the phrase "the cudgel of religion," I came across this latest work from David Farrell Krell - The Cudgel and the Caress: Reflections on Cruelty and Tenderness.

https://books.google.com/books?id=bXiJDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA82&lpg=PA82&dq=the+…

I thought he might be a philosopher with whom you would be familiar and wondered if you had any comments on his latest endeavor. Do you think his work would be accessible reading for a non-academic like me? It ain't cheap and I would hate to spend money on an exercise in self-perplexion (unless it was Maimonides' guide!).

Thank you,

Emily