Comments Page

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

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?

Thanks for great podcasts. Are you planning to make a bok about philosophy in India and africa? If so, when?

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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!

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

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

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?

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?

Is there a reason why School of Athens is not in the art rotation on the main page?

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.

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!

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)

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.

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!

Where are the Chinese & Japanese traditions?

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.

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.   

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. 

Hey Peter,

Just curious; have you ever seen Rene Magritte's The cut-glass bath ?

Hi Peter,

do you have any suggestions for a good (online) Arabic dictionary for philosophy work?

thanks.

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.

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!

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.         

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.

 

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.

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)

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).      

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!

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!

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.

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

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,
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

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

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

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

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.

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

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 ?

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.

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!

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. 

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!

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