Comments Page

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

My recollection is that 1 of the Islamic philosophers  Believes that God-created the universe  And it and everything it can continues to exist simply because God continues to will it.  Should GodCease to willSomething or someone's existenceIt would cease to exist instantly.

 I thought it was  Al razi But I  Re listened to that episode and I see that he was the one who believed in the 5 Eternal substances...

No is a great answer but do you happen to recall Who might have Held that unique theory I would love to be reminded.

What happened to Episodes 392 to 395?

Just interested when episodes on Frantz Fanon will appear, and if you will be covering Angela Davis and Kimberlé Crenshaw. 

A suggestion for your Links page: 81 lecture series  - A History of Philosophy - Prof Arthur Holmes  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yat0ZKduW18&list=PL9GwT4_YRZdBf9nIUHs0z…

Thanks for this ambitious podcast series.  I just noticed that the Reformation series is skipped in the "All Episodes" tab.  You may want to add it!

Hi Peter, just a random thing that popped in my head.

You should find ways to take advantage of the fact that this is a audio medium. You have to some level, like the music video in the islamic world, and that random law and order clip I can't remember which episode it is from, but it has been extraneous to the philosophy so far. To be fair, I don't really know how you could for some of the philosophy you are currently doing but one example in my head would be when explaining the Phenomenological tradition (if you ever get there). I think leverging the medium can help get across (especially Phenomenology) the philosophy in a way that the philosophy isn't usually presented, since most philosophy people encounter is via books.

Just a random thought.

Hey Peter,

I was wondering how far you are going to take your expansive view on philosophy, especially as you get to modern times? So far, most of what you done hasn't attracted controversy as far as I know, outside of maybe the eastern traditions in the islamic world with the whole Persian thing with the Iranian revolution maybe. But I was thinking, if you are going to tackle Marx eventually, what to say for an episode on Lenin or Mao? For Mao, he would be important for Alain Badiou, and there were philosophers in the soviet union (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_in_the_Soviet_Union). How willing would you be to tackle these, despite the definite controversy they would attract? Or what about Nazi philosophers? I am mainly thinking of Carl Schmitt, but there are probably other examples. I am sure there is something to find in Gaddafi as well.

I am putting this more so as a interest in how far the boundries for "without any gaps" is going to go, but also there is (potentially perverse, depending on your perspective) curiosity of you actually covering these people, despite the controvery. I feel the need to say this before I get weird eyes from people.

Peter, 

Enormously educational and entertaining series - have enjoyed every episode and have almost caught up to the current releases. I have also been using the ebook versions for the full text search and hyperlinked index features. Here, there seems to be a “gap” - the Kindle version of volume 2 is not available, will it be released at some point?

+JMJ

Greetings --  Have been enjoying the podcast immensely and learning a lot.  I especially enjoy the puns and wordplay!  I just delved into this website today -- have been aware of it but not really looked into it.  Is there a Search capability?  That would be very helpful.  

Thanks for all the outstanding work.

Best wishes.

I noticed the focus early on for ethics was built around ethics as the study of the best way to live one's life.  But now, the general case is taken to be what is acceptable in society.  When and why did this transition take place?  

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

I've immensely enjoyed your podcast and just received Classical Philosophy.  Thank you sincerely for your work and attention to detail.  Your clever presentation makes me wish I could actually meet your sister.  I'm sure she'd have tales to tell. 

Hi Peter,

Thank you so much for this podcast! I have enjoyed it immensely so far! I joined relatively recently and am not yet up-to-date but I have just reached the end of your coverage of the Italian Renaissance (Episode 370). Where I’m up to you’ve been discussing Galileo and I’m wondering if there will be any coverage of the developments in music and aesthetics soon. Particularly I think Gioseffo Zarlino’s first book of Le institutioni (recently translated by Lucille Corwin) might be of interest as he explicitly uses ideas of form and matter in his conception of music. Zarlino was involved in the church and worked at st marks in Venice. He also studied philosophy and logic under Ligname as well as Greek and son Hebrew. He is a fascinating figure in the history of music and a wonderful blend of music theory and philosophy. His work was based upon antique readings as well as the humanist writings of H Glareanus. Also he was an influential teacher and Vincenzo Galilei was a student of his, who also made important contributions. Anyway, I’m getting a little carried away but I just wanted to put a good word in for some excellent musical philosophers and philosophers who wrote of music (Descartes comes to mind). Alright, thank you so much for the wonderful work you are doing!

Sincerely,

Kai

Hey Peter. I have recently found out myself about a group called the Brixton Black Women's Group, and they seem really fascinating, being that some of the founding members were previously active in the British Black Panthers. After reading a pdf of one of their works, I really want to learn some more about them. Do you plan to cover them? I'm guessing that if you are, it would be just a mention in the Black Feminism episode though.

Hi there! I recently discovered your podcast on Spotify and I love it! I'm only up to Episode #38 so far, but it's been really fascinating and I'm so glad to see you're still doing it. Thank you for all the philosophy!

Peter,

Good evening - long time listener to your series here, and have enjoyed it immensely. I tend to drop in on specific episodes, and often revisit those that delve specifically into areas of interest of mine. There is of course so much to consume. I certainly applaud the time, and detail that you take to this process. 
 

My question concerns the meeting point of Jurisprudence and theology with that of philosophy proper, specifically within the Arabic and Islamic traditions. I should mention that I am a student in history more so than philosophy - but the two topics have many fascinating points of overlap. In any case, I have long been fascinated by the divergent ways in which the major figures of Christian theological history have been treated philosophically - be it Augustine, Boethius, Aquinas, Scotus and so forth - as opposed to those within the Islamic sphere. For instance, within the Islamic intellectual sphere Abu Hanifa, Malik ibn Anas, Al-Shari’s, and Ahmad ibn Hanbal assume a position of greater reverence over most anyone, the prophet aside. Yet scant mention is made of any of these figures within most overviews of Islamic philosophy. Later predominant theologians, such as Al-Ghazali, Fakhr Al-Din Al-Razi and others to warrant more consideration. I suppose I am this curious as to whether these four Imams, and originators of jurisprudence in Islam, indeed have any connection to philosophy, or whether their efforts were somewhat aside. I have tried, without success, to determine for instance, was Malik ibn Ana’s familiar with Aristotle - or centuries later did Al-Farabi or Ibn Sina draw any knowledge forth from Al-Shari’i. I have also attempted to discern whether later Latin theologians, specifically those operating within such matters as law - such as Aquinas - were familiar with any of these early Muslim jurists. Would be very curious as to any thoughts you may have.

One additional thought - I have wondered why the jurisprudence transition within Islam is so much greater than that of Christianity. As well as why theology seems to be less of a focus by Muslim’s during the medieval period than Christians. At some point I came across the perspective that Islam was itself such a comprehensive, complete faith - one that through the Qur’an already attempted to address most every concern of life - and those that were missed, the Hadith would take up the task. Whereas, even from the outset, Christianity had a more perhaps patchy, approach to things. Thus, within Islam theologians who carry the proverbial water of explaining entire concepts within the faith were less necessary - but what was needed were interpreters of law. Whereas in Christianity, a less thorough screed opened the door for Augustine, Aquinas and many others to have greater say and influence on the direction of the religion. I have come around to that perhaps too-simplistic interpretation but again would love for someone of your knowledge to weigh in on its veracity.

thank you

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

Stuck with me all these years..

Hey Peter,

Not to saddle you anything more than all the great stuff you already provide but I was wondering if there might ever be the possibility of posting a super index for the books on the website. When you refer to a thinker you’ve discussed in the past in one of the episodes, it’s easy to find the volume and section for the big names. But sometimes you mention an idea associated with a less well known  thinker and don’t have time to mention their dates. I know it’s easy to look them up re. the podcast index. But (as a geezer) I sometimes find it easier (and faster) to grab one of the books and skim there for a little more on that idea. No worries if that seems unreasonable; just wanted to float the idea…

Thank you for a most impressive web-site! 

I live in South Africa and had no idea that that Africa boasts such an impressive gallery of philosophers. Not to mention Indian & Byzantine philosophers!  

Is it the sheer volume of your work that has kept you from going beyond the Reformation or are there other reasons why your website does not seem to include post-Reformation philosophers?

I would like to hear in particular about Bacon's distinction between active Hebraic inquiry and passive Aristotelian receptivity, a distinction I heard he has made. If my information is incorrect, I would be happy to be corrected. At a minimum, I would like to know where in Bacon this distinction can be found, if indeed he makes it. I would be happy to learn about that in a reply to this comment, if you know the answer. Thank you for your work on this podcast. 

Hey Peter, I was wondering - are you going to cover Thomas Sankara? He was another African revolutionary and Pan-African. I looked and I don't think there has been any mention of him anywhere on the website. Is there nothing interesting to cover with him? I would be surprised if that was true.

The other thing is that the comments link at the bottom of the home page of the blog leads to 404 page.

Any note to y’all would be remiss if I didn’t start with many thanks.  You have produced something truly remarkable (and terribly punny).  The podcasts remain, for me, an intellectual highlight.

You did however “miss” (or at least reduced to background status) one of the most important African American political thinkers (and my personal hero).  Sure, you mention Rustin, but his uniqueness and impact in the Civil Rights movement is almost impossible to overlook.  Here is a pacifist who went to jail rather than serve in even a support position in WWII (his letter to the draft board is, as all Rustin’s writing cogent, piercing, and well reasoned).  As AP Randolph’s right hand, he was also a man at the center of political power.  Not only did this include planning the cancelled March on Washington, through which he and Randolph won concessions from the FDR, but also the principle organizer of the more famous one in 1963.  He was also the man who pushed Randolph to push Robeson out of the movement for fear of the damage he might do.

Here is a thinker who stood astride the whole of 20th century African American politics, pushed to the background because of his sexuality (though in his later years his strong zionism also doubtless played a role).  If there is a figure who should be included to fill in tragic gaps, I can’t imagine a more important figure to include.  Rustin is long overdue.  Perhaps a later filler episode?  

Again, all my thanks.

Hey Peter,

Are you going to cover the Combahee River Collective? They were a Black feminist lesbian socialist organisation in Boston USA. Just learned about them recently and seeing that they were the ones who coined the term "identity politics" they seem like they would be an important group to cover in the history of Africana podcast. I'm guessing they are going to be covered in the Black Feminists episode right?

Hey Peter,

I know this is still quite far away, but considering how never ending potentially this project this podcast is, what will happen when you feel or just can't continue it anymore? Maybe someone else will take over? Or will the podcast just stop?

Hi Peter, love the podcast but love the books even more! I haven't seen anything recently about the first Africana book; I'm assuming that's the only one even close to being published, but any news would be great!

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

Hey Peter,

I just discovered a podcast called Robinson’s podcast and noticed that you were on in April re. a discussion of Plotinus and Porphyry (a current topic of interest for me, e.g. went back through the appropriate chapters in Philosophy in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds before trying to plow through The Enneads). I was just curious as to why you didn’t do a blog post mentioning that (or I missed it), i.e. should I save that hour and half for plowing ? :-)

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

I love your podcast and have learned so much from it. I had already thought myself better-educated than the average bourgeois bohemian, who thinks religion is bunk and history began with the French Revolution and culminated in Marx. But I had no idea of the role of Byzantium in transmitting philosophy to the Arabs or the Italians, and shamefully had no idea of the Roman Empire as continuous through it. I also did not appreciate the extent to which philosophy today follows along lines laid down by Aristotle. I got a decent education in the moderns, but not much of the ancients. 

I think, however, you make an error in globalizing what you are calling philosophy, a misnomer for what are wisdom traditions that command respect as foundational of entire ways of life, but which are not at the origin of the sciences that have decisively transformed the world, and which began in ancient Greek thought. Czeslaw Milosz characterizes "that little peninsula" of Western Europe as having conquered the world through technology that has natural philosophy to thank for its emergence, and he does not shrink from the fact that he praises the West at Poland's expense, Copernicus notwithstanding. One commentator on your website argued that the Torah should be seen as "philosophy," as though it is not enough that we have originated monotheism and the ethics of billions of which it is the source, but must must claim everything as our own and allow nothing its distinctive privilege of being different. There is a kind of talking down to others and not believing what we are saying when we label wisdom traditions "philosophy." Besides, between you and me, the argument that the Torah is philosophy is a politically loaded argument aimed at that Western philosophy that is simply a reiteration of Christianity at a secular level, claiming a universalism that denigrates particularity of all kinds. This is an internal Jewish debate pitting liberal democracy against Jewish nationalism, but a leveling of all wisdom traditions into philosophy is an insult to particularity of another kind. (There is no "solution" to the question around which this internal Jewish debate turns.) Give credit where credit is due, I say. If every culture has labored to produce something of its own, the Greeks and the Western Europeans should not be robbed of this in the name of a misguided notion of equality. 

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

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

Peter,

What, no anouncement ?

https://nationaltoday.com/world-giraffe-day/

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

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

For example for the Italian Renaissance section; 

https://historyofphilosophy.net/timeline-renaissance

1. Vittorino da Feltre

2. Gentile de' Becchi

3. Marcello Adriani

4. Agostino Steuco

5. Giulio Vanini 

6. Cesare Cremonini

7. Archangela Tarabotti

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

Byzantine series;

https://historyofphilosophy.net/timeline-byzantium

1. Symeon the New Theologian

2. Eustathios

3. Joseph Rhakendytes

4. Theodore Prodromos

Indian Series;

https://historyofphilosophy.net/timeline-india

1. Moggalaputra Tissa (was he scrapped?)

2. Āryadeva

3. Cīttalai Cāttaṉār

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

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

Great series! 

The twitter embed no longer works

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

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

Hey Peter,

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

Regarding India... 

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

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

Regarding Africana...

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

Regarding China...

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

And in general...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours,

Bogdan Radu

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

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

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

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

Hi Peter,

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

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

Thank you.

Cristián

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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