Podcast appearances and mentions of Adam Phillips

So why did Harris lose in 2024? For one very big reason, according to the progressive essayist Bill Deresiewicz: “because she represented the exhausted Democratic establishment”. This rotting establishment, Deresiewicz believes, is symbolized by both the collective denial of Biden's mental decline and by Harris' pathetically rudderless Presidential campaign. But there's a much more troubling problem with the Democratic party, he argues. It has become “the party of institutionalized liberalism, which is itself exhausted”. So how to reinvent American liberalism in the 2020's? How to make the left once again, in Deresiewicz words, “the locus of openness, playfulness, productive contention, experiment, excess, risk, shock, camp, mirth, mischief, irony and curiosity"? That's the question for all progressives in our MAGA/Woke age. 5 Key Takeaways * Deresiewicz believes the Democratic establishment and aligned media engaged in a "tacit cover-up" of Biden's condition and other major issues like crime, border policies, and pandemic missteps rather than addressing them honestly.* The liberal movement that began in the 1960s has become "exhausted" and the Democratic Party is now an uneasy alliance of establishment elites and working-class voters whose interests don't align well.* Progressive institutions suffer from a repressive intolerance characterized by "an unearned sense of moral superiority" and a fear of vitality that leads to excessive rules, bureaucracy, and speech codes.* While young conservatives are creating new movements with energy and creativity, the progressive establishment stifles innovation by purging anyone who "violates the code" or criticizes their side.* Rebuilding the left requires creating conditions for new ideas by ending censoriousness, embracing true courage that risks something real, and potentially building new institutions rather than trying to reform existing ones. Full Transcript Andrew Keen: Hello, everyone. It's the old question on this show, Keen on America, how to make sense of this bewildering, frustrating, exciting country in the wake, particularly of the last election. A couple of years ago, we had the CNN journalist who I rather like and admire, Jake Tapper, on the show. Arguing in a piece of fiction that he thinks, to make sense of America, we need to return to the 1970s. He had a thriller out a couple of years ago called All the Demons Are Here. But I wonder if Tapper's changed his mind on this. His latest book, which is a sensation, which he co-wrote with Alex Thompson, is Original Sin, President Biden's Decline, its Cover-up and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again. Tapper, I think, tells the truth about Biden, as the New York Times notes. It's a damning portrait of an enfeebled Biden protected by his inner circle. I would extend that, rather than his inner circle protected by an elite, perhaps a coastal elite of Democrats, unable or unwilling to come to terms with the fact that Biden was way, way past his shelf life. My guest today, William Deresiewicz—always get his last name wrong—it must be...William Deresiewicz: No, that was good. You got it.Andrew Keen: Probably because I'm anti-semitic. He has a new piece out called "Post-Election" which addresses much of the rottenness of the American progressive establishment in 2025. Bill, congratulations on the piece.William Deresiewicz: Thank you.Andrew Keen: Have you had a chance to look at this Tapper book or have you read about Original Sin?William Deresiewicz: Yeah, I read that piece. I read the piece that's on the screen and I've heard some people talking about it. And I mean, as you said, it's not just his inner circle. I don't want to blame Tapper. Tapper did the work. But one immediate reaction to the debate debacle was, where have the journalists been? For example, just to unfairly call one person out, but they're just so full of themselves, the New Yorker dripping with self-congratulations, especially in its centennial year, its boundless appetite for self-celebration—to quote something one of my students once said about Yale—they've got a guy named Evan Osnos, who's one of their regulars on their political...Andrew Keen: Yeah, and he's been on the show, Evan, and in fact, I rather like his, I was going to say his husband, his father, Peter Osnos, who's a very heavy-hitting ex-publisher. But anyway, go on. And Evan's quite a nice guy, personally.William Deresiewicz: I'm sure he's a nice guy, but the fact is he's not only a New Yorker journalist, but he wrote a book about Biden, which means that he's presumably theoretically well-sourced within Biden world. He didn't say anything. I mean, did he not know or did he know?Andrew Keen: Yeah, I agree. I mean you just don't want to ask, right? You don't know. But you're a journalist, so you're supposed to know. You're supposed to ask. So I'm sure you're right on Osnos. I mean, he was on the show, but all journalists are progressives, or at least all the journalists at the Times and the New Yorker and the Atlantic. And there seemed to be, as Jake Tapper is suggesting in this new book, and he was part of the cover-up, there seemed to be a cover-up on the part of the entire professional American journalist establishment, high-end establishment, to ignore the fact that the guy running for president or the president himself clearly had no idea of what was going on around him. It's just astonishing, isn't it? I mean, hindsight's always easy, of course, 2020 in retrospect, but it was obvious at the time. I made it clear whenever I spoke about Biden, that here was a guy clearly way out of his depth, that he shouldn't have been president, maybe shouldn't have been president in the first place, but whatever you think about his ideas, he clearly was way beyond his shelf date, a year or two into the presidency.William Deresiewicz: Yeah, but here's the thing, and it's one of the things I say in the post-election piece, but I'm certainly not the only person to say this. There was an at least tacit cover-up of Biden, of his condition, but the whole thing was a cover-up, meaning every major issue that the 2024 election was about—crime, at the border, woke excess, affordability. The whole strategy of not just the Democrats, but this media establishment that's aligned with them is to just pretend that it wasn't happening, to explain it away. And we can also throw in pandemic policy, right? Which people were still thinking about and all the missteps in pandemic policy. The strategy was effectively a cover-up. We're not gonna talk about it, or we're gonna gaslight you, or we're gonna make excuses. So is it a surprise that people don't trust these establishment institutions anymore? I mean, I don't trust them anymore and I want to trust them.Andrew Keen: Were there journalists? I mean, there were a handful of journalists telling the truth about Biden. Progressives, people on the left rather than conservatives.William Deresiewicz: Ezra Klein started to talk about it, I remember that. So yes, there were a handful, but it wasn't enough. And you know, I don't say this to take away from Ezra Klein what I just gave him with my right hand, take away with my left, but he was also the guy, as soon as the Kamala succession was effected, who was talking about how Kamala in recent months has been going from strength to strength and hasn't put a foot wrong and isn't she fantastic. So all credit to him for telling the truth about Biden, but it seems to me that he immediately pivoted to—I mean, I'm sure he thought he was telling the truth about Harris, but I didn't believe that for one second.Andrew Keen: Well, meanwhile, the lies about Harris or the mythology of Harris, the false—I mean, all mythology, I guess, is false—about Harris building again. Headline in Newsweek that Harris would beat Donald Trump if an election was held again. I mean I would probably beat—I would beat Trump if an election was held again, I can't even run for president. So anyone could beat Trump, given the situation. David Plouffe suggested that—I think he's quoted in the Tapper book—that Biden totally fucked us, but it suggests that somehow Harris was a coherent progressive candidate, which she wasn't.William Deresiewicz: She wasn't. First of all, I hadn't seen this poll that she would beat Trump. I mean, it's a meaningless poll, because...Andrew Keen: You could beat him, Bill, and no one can even pronounce your last name.William Deresiewicz: Nobody could say what would actually happen if there were a real election. It's easy enough to have a hypothetical poll. People often look much better in these kinds of hypothetical polls where there's no actual election than they do when it's time for an election. I mean, I think everyone except maybe David Plouffe understands that Harris should never have been a candidate—not just after Biden dropped out way too late, but ever, right? I mean the real problem with Biden running again is that he essentially saddled us with Harris. Instead of having a real primary campaign where we could have at least entertained the possibility of some competent people—you know, there are lots of governors. I mean, I'm a little, and maybe we'll get to this, I'm little skeptical that any normal democratic politician is going to end up looking good. But at least we do have a whole bunch of what seem to be competent governors, people with executive experience. And we never had a chance to entertain any of those people because this democratic establishment just keeps telling us who we're going to vote for. I mean, it's now three elections in a row—they forced Hillary on us, and then Biden. I'm not going to say they forced Biden on us although elements of it did. It probably was a good thing because he won and he may have been the only one who could have won. And then Harris—it's like reductio ad absurdum. These candidates they keep handing us keep getting worse and worse.Andrew Keen: But it's more than being worse. I mean, whatever one can say about Harris, she couldn't explain why she wanted to be president, which seems to me a disqualifier if you're running for president. The point, the broader point, which I think you bring out very well in the piece you write, and you and I are very much on the same page here, so I'm not going to criticize you in your post-election—William Deresiewicz: You can criticize me, Andrew, I love—Andrew Keen: I know I can criticize you, and I will, but not in this particular area—is that these people are the establishment. They're protecting a globalized world, they're the coast. I mean, in some ways, certainly the Bannonite analysis is right, and it's not surprising that they're borrowing from Lenin and the left is borrowing from Edmund Burke.William Deresiewicz: Yeah, I mean I think, and I think this is the real problem. I mean, part of what I say in the piece is that it just seems, maybe this is too organicist, but there just seems to be an exhaustion that the liberal impulse that started, you know, around the time I was born in 1964, and I cite the Dylan movie just because it's a picture of that time where you get a sense of the energy on the left, the dawning of all this exciting—Andrew Keen: You know that movie—and we've done a show on that movie—itself was critical I guess in a way of Dylan for not being political.William Deresiewicz: Well, but even leaving that aside, just the reminder you get of what that time felt like. That seems in the movie relatively accurate, that this new youth culture, the rights revolution, the counterculture, a new kind of impulse of liberalism and progressivism that was very powerful and strong and carried us through the 60s and 70s and then became the establishment and has just become completely exhausted now. So I just feel like it's just gotten to the end of its possibility. Gotten to the end of its life cycle, but also in a less sort of mystical way. And I think this is a structural problem that the Democrats have not been able to address for a long time, and I don't see how they're going to address it. The party is now the party, as you just said, of the establishment, uneasily wedded to a mainly non-white sort of working class, lower class, maybe somewhat middle class. So it's sort of this kind of hybrid beast, the two halves of which don't really fit together. The educated upper middle class, the professional managerial class that you and I are part of, and then sort of the average Black Latino female, white female voter who doesn't share the interests of that class. So what are you gonna do about that? How's that gonna work?Andrew Keen: And the thing that you've always given a lot of thought to, and it certainly comes out in this piece, is the intolerance of the Democratic Party. But it's an intolerance—it's not a sort of, and I don't like this word, it's not the fascist intolerance of the MAGA movement or of Trump. It's a repressive intolerance, it's this idea that we're always right and if you disagree with us, then there must be something wrong with you.William Deresiewicz: Yeah, right. It's this, at this point, completely unearned sense of moral superiority and intellectual superiority, which are not really very clearly distinguished in their mind, I think. And you know, they just reek of it and people hate it and it's understandable that they hate it. I mean, it's Hillary in a word. It's Hillary in a word and again, I'm wary of treading on this kind of ground, but I do think there's an element of—I mean, obviously Trump and his whole camp is very masculinist in a very repulsive way, but there is also a way to be maternalist in a repulsive way. It's this kind of maternal control. I think of it as the sushi mom voice where we're gonna explain to you in a calm way why you should listen to us and why we're going to control every move you make. And it's this fear—I mean what my piece is really about is this sort of quasi-Nietzschean argument for energy and vitality that's lacking on the left. And I think it's lacking because the left fears it. It fears sort of the chaos of the life force. So it just wants to shackle it in all of these rules and bureaucracy and speech codes and consent codes. It just feels lifeless. And I think everybody feels that.Andrew Keen: Yeah, and it's the inability to imagine you can be wrong. It's the moral greediness of some people, at least, who think of themselves on the left. Some people might be listening to this, thinking it's just these two old white guys who think themselves as progressives but are actually really conservative. And all this idea of nature is itself chilling, that it's a kind of anti-feminism.William Deresiewicz: Well, that's b******t. I mean, let me have a chance to respond. I mean I plead guilty to being an old white man—Andrew Keen: I mean you can't argue with that one.William Deresiewicz: I'm not arguing with it. But the whole point rests on this notion of positionality, like I'm an older white man, therefore I think this or I believe that, which I think is b******t to begin with because, you know, down the street there's another older white guy who believes the exact opposite of me, so what's the argument here? But leaving that aside, and whether I am or am not a progressive—okay, my ideal politician is Bernie Sanders, so I'll just leave it at that. The point is, I mean, one point is that feminism hasn't always been like this. Second wave feminism that started in the late sixties, when I was a little kid—there was a censorious aspect to it, but there was also this tremendous vitality. I mean I think of somebody like Andrea Dworkin—this is like, "f**k you" feminism. This is like, "I'm not only not gonna shave my legs, I'm gonna shave my armpits and I don't give a s**t what you think." And then the next generation when I was a young man was the Mary Gates, Camille Paglia, sex-positive power feminism which also had a different kind of vitality. So I don't think feminism has to be the feminism of the women's studies departments and of Hillary Clinton with "you can't say this" and "if you want to have sex with me you have to follow these 10 rules." I don't think anybody likes that.Andrew Keen: The deplorables!William Deresiewicz: Yes, yes, yes. Like I said, I don't just think that the enemies don't like it, and I don't really care what they think. I think the people on our side don't like it. Nobody is having fun on our side. It's boring. No one's having sex from what they tell me. The young—it just feels dead. And I think when there's no vitality, you also have no creative vitality. And I think the intellectual cul-de-sac that the left seems to be stuck in, where there are no new ideas, is related to that.Andrew Keen: Yeah, and I think the more I think about it, I think you're right, it's a generational war. All the action seems to be coming from old people, whether it's the Pelosis and the Bidens, or it's people like Richard Reeves making a fortune off books about worrying about young men or Jonathan Haidt writing about the anxious generation. Where are, to quote David Bowie, the young Americans? Why aren't they—I mean, Bill, you're in a way guilty of this. You made your name with your book, Excellent Sheep about the miseducation...William Deresiewicz: Yeah, so what am I guilty of exactly?Andrew Keen: I'm not saying you're all, but aren't you and Reeves and Haidt, you're all involved in this weird kind of generational war.William Deresiewicz: OK, let's pump the brakes here for a second. Where the young people are—I mean, obviously most people, even young people today, still vote for Democrats. But the young who seem to be exploring new things and having energy and excitement are on the right. And there was a piece—I'm gonna forget the name of the piece and the author—Daniel Oppenheimer had her on the podcast. I think it appeared in The Point. Young woman. Fairly recent college graduate, went to a convention of young republicans, I don't know what they call themselves, and also to democrats or liberals in quick succession and wrote a really good piece about it. I don't think she had ever written anything before or published anything before, but it got a lot of attention because she talked about the youthful vitality at this conservative gathering. And then she goes to the liberals and they're all gray-haired men like us. The one person who had anything interesting to say was Francis Fukuyama, who's in his 80s. She's making the point—this is the point—it's not a generational war, because there are young people on the right side of the spectrum who are doing interesting things. I mean, I don't like what they're doing, because I'm not a rightist, but they're interesting, they're different, they're new, there's excitement there, there's creativity there.Andrew Keen: But could one argue, Bill, that all these labels are meaningless and that whatever they're doing—I'm sure they're having more sex than young progressives, they're having more fun, they're able to make jokes, they are able, for better or worse, to change the system. Does it really matter whether they claim to be MAGA people or leftists? They're the ones who are driving change in the country.William Deresiewicz: Yes, they're the ones who are driving change in the country. The counter-cultural energy that was on the left in the sixties and seventies is now on the right. And it does matter because they are operating in the political sphere, have an effect in the political sphere, and they're unmistakably on the right. I mean, there are all these new weird species on the right—the trads and the neo-pagans and the alt-right and very sort of anti-capitalist conservatives or at least anti-corporate conservatives and all kinds of things that you would never have imagined five years ago. And again, it's not that I like these things. It's that they're new, there's ferment there. So stuff is coming out that is going to drive, is already driving the culture and therefore the politics forward. And as somebody who, yes, is progressive, it is endlessly frustrating to me that we have lost this kind of initiative, momentum, energy, creativity, to what used to be the stodgy old right. Now we're the stodgy old left.Andrew Keen: What do you want to go back to? I mean you brought up Dylan earlier. Do you just want to resurrect...William Deresiewicz: No, I don't.Andrew Keen: You know another one who comes to mind is another sort of bundle of contradictions, Bruce Springsteen. He recently talked about the corrupt, incompetent, and treasonous nature of Trump. I mean Springsteen's a billionaire. He even acknowledged that he mythologized his own working-class status. He's never spent more than an hour in a factory. He's never had a job. So aren't all the pigeons coming back to roost here? The fraud of men like Springsteen are merely being exposed and young people recognize it.William Deresiewicz: Well, I don't know about Springsteen in particular...Andrew Keen: Well, he's a big deal.William Deresiewicz: No, I know he's a big deal, and I love Springsteen. I listened to him on repeat when I was young, and I actually didn't know that he'd never worked in a factory, and I quite frankly don't care because he's an artist, and he made great art out of those experiences, whether they were his or not. But to address the real issue here, he is an old guy. It sounds like he's just—I mean, I'm sure he's sincere about it and I would agree with him about Trump. But to have people like Springsteen or Robert De Niro or George Clooney...Andrew Keen: Here it is.William Deresiewicz: Okay, yes, it's all to the point that these are old guys. So you asked me, do I want to go back? The whole point is I don't want to go back. I want to go forward. I'm not going to be the one to bring us forward because I'm older. And also, I don't think I was ever that kind of creative spirit, but I want to know why there isn't sort of youthful creativity given the fact that most young people do still vote for Democrats, but there's no youthful creativity on the left. Is it just that the—I want to be surprised is the point. I'm not calling for X, Y, or Z. I'm saying astonish me, right? Like Diaghilev said to Cocteau. Astonish me the way you did in the 60s and 70s. Show me something new. And I worry that it simply isn't possible on the left now, precisely because it's so locked down in this kind of establishment, censorious mode that there's no room for a new idea to come from anywhere.Andrew Keen: As it happens, you published this essay in Salmagundi—and that predates, if not even be pre-counterculture. How many years old is it? I think it started in '64. Yeah, so alongside your piece is an interesting piece from Adam Phillips about influence and anxiety. And he quotes Montaigne from "On Experience": "There is always room for a successor, even for ourselves, and a different way to proceed." Is the problem, Bill, that we haven't, we're not willing to leave the stage? I mean, Nancy Pelosi is a good example of this. Biden's a good example. In this Salmagundi piece, there's an essay from Martin Jay, who's 81 years old. I was a grad student in Berkeley in the 80s. Even at that point, he seemed old. Why are these people not able to leave the stage?William Deresiewicz: I am not going to necessarily sign on to that argument, and not just because I'm getting older. Biden...Andrew Keen: How old are you, by the way?William Deresiewicz: I'm 61. So you mentioned Pelosi. I would have been happy for Pelosi to remain in her position for as long as she wanted, because she was effective. It's not about how old you are. Although it can be, obviously as you get older you can become less effective like Joe Biden. I think there's room for the old and the young together if the old are saying valuable things and if the young are saying valuable things. It's not like there's a shortage of young voices on the left now. They're just not interesting voices. I mean, the one that comes immediately to mind that I'm more interested in is Ritchie Torres, who's this congressman who's a genuinely working-class Black congressman from the Bronx, unlike AOC, who grew up the daughter of an architect in Northern Westchester and went to a fancy private university, Boston University. So Ritchie Torres is not a doctrinaire leftist Democrat. And he seems to speak from a real self. Like he isn't just talking about boilerplate. I just feel like there isn't a lot of room for the Ritchie Torres. I think the system that produces democratic candidates militates against people like Ritchie Torres. And that's what I am talking about.Andrew Keen: In the essay, you write about Andy Mills, who was one of the pioneers of the New York Times podcast. He got thrown out of The New York Times for various offenses. It's one of the problems with the left—they've, rather like the Stalinists in the 1930s, purged all the energy out of themselves. Anyone of any originality has been thrown out for one reason or another.William Deresiewicz: Well, because it's always the same reason, because they violate the code. I mean, yes, this is one of the main problems. And to go back to where we started with the journalists, it seems like the rationale for the cover-up, all the cover-ups was, "we can't say anything bad about our side. We can't point out any of the flaws because that's going to help the bad guys." So if anybody breaks ranks, we're going to cancel them. We're going to purge them. I mean, any idiot understands that that's a very short-term strategy. You need the possibility of self-criticism and self-difference. I mean that's the thing—you asked me about old people leaving the stage, but the quotation from Montaigne said, "there's always room for a successor, even ourselves." So this is about the possibility of continuous self-reinvention. Whatever you want to say about Dylan, some people like him, some don't, he's done that. Bowie's done that. This was sort of our idea, like you're constantly reinventing yourself, but this is what we don't have.Andrew Keen: Yeah, actually, I read the quote the wrong way, that we need to reinvent ourselves. Bowie is a very good example if one acknowledges, and Dylan of course, one's own fundamental plasticity. And that's another problem with the progressive movement—they don't think of the human condition as a plastic one.William Deresiewicz: That's interesting. I mean, in one respect, I think they think of it as too plastic, right? This is sort of the blank slate fallacy that we can make—there's no such thing as human nature and we can reshape it as we wish. But at the same time, they've created a situation, and this really is what Excellent Sheep is about, where they're turning out the same human product over and over.Andrew Keen: But in that sense, then, the excellent sheep you write about at Yale, they've all ended up now as neo-liberal, neo-conservative, so they're just rebelling...William Deresiewicz: No, they haven't. No, they are the backbone of this soggy liberal progressive establishment. A lot of them are. I mean, why is, you know, even Wall Street and Silicon Valley sort of by preference liberal? It's because they're full of these kinds of elite college graduates who have been trained to be liberal.Andrew Keen: So what are we to make of the Musk-Thiel, particularly the Musk phenomenon? I mean, certainly Thiel, very much influenced by Rand, who herself, of course, was about as deeply Nietzschean as you can get. Why isn't Thiel and Musk just a model of the virility, the vitality of the early 21st century? You might not like what they say, but they're full of vitality.William Deresiewicz: It's interesting, there's a place in my piece where I say that the liberal can't accept the idea that a bad person can do great things. And one of my examples was Elon Musk. And the other one—Andrew Keen: Zuckerberg.William Deresiewicz: But Musk is not in the piece, because I wrote the piece before the inauguration and they asked me to change it because of what Musk was doing. And even I was beginning to get a little queasy just because the association with Musk is now different. It's now DOGE. But Musk, who I've always hated, I've never liked the guy, even when liberals loved him for making electric cars. He is an example, at least the pre-DOGE Musk, of a horrible human being with incredible vitality who's done great things, whether you like it or not. And I want—I mean, this is the energy that I want to harness for our team.Andrew Keen: I actually mostly agreed with your piece, but I didn't agree with that because I think most progressives believe that actually, the Zuckerbergs and the Musks, by doing, by being so successful, by becoming multi-billionaires, are morally a bit dodgy. I mean, I don't know where you get that.William Deresiewicz: That's exactly the point. But I think what they do is when they don't like somebody, they just negate the idea that they're great. "Well, he's just not really doing anything that great." You disagree.Andrew Keen: So what about ideas, Bill? Where is there room to rebuild the left? I take your points, and I don't think many people would actually disagree with you. Where does the left, if there's such a term anymore, need to go out on a limb, break some eggs, offend some people, but nonetheless rebuild itself? It's not going back to Bernie Sanders and some sort of nostalgic New Deal.William Deresiewicz: No, no, I agree. So this is, this may be unsatisfying, but this is what I'm saying. If there were specific new ideas that I thought the left should embrace, I would have said so. What I'm seeing is the left needs, to begin with, to create the conditions from which new ideas can come. So I mean, we've been talking about a lot of it. The censoriousness needs to go.I would also say—actually, I talk about this also—you know, maybe you would consider yourself part of, I don't know. There's this whole sort of heterodox realm of people who did dare to violate the progressive pieties and say, "maybe the pandemic response isn't going so well; maybe the Black Lives Matter protests did have a lot of violence"—maybe all the things, right? And they were all driven out from 2020 and so forth. A lot of them were people who started on the left and would even still describe themselves as liberal, would never vote for a Republican. So these people are out there. They're just, they don't have a voice within the Democratic camp because the orthodoxy continues to be enforced.So that's what I'm saying. You've got to start with the structural conditions. And one of them may be that we need to get—I don't even know that these institutions can reform themselves, whether it's the Times or the New Yorker or the Ivy League. And it may be that we need to build new institutions, which is also something that's happening. I mean, it's something that's happening in the realm of publishing and journalism on Substack. But again, they're still marginalized because that liberal establishment does not—it's not that old people don't wanna give up power, it's that the established people don't want to give up the power. I mean Harris is, you know, she's like my age. So the establishment as embodied by the Times, the New Yorker, the Ivy League, foundations, the think tanks, the Democratic Party establishment—they don't want to move aside. But it's so obviously clear at this point that they are not the solution. They're not the solutions.Andrew Keen: What about the so-called resistance? I mean, a lot of people were deeply disappointed by the response of law firms, maybe even universities, the democratic party as we noted is pretty much irrelevant. Is it possible for the left to rebuild itself by a kind of self-sacrifice, by lawyers who say "I don't care what you think of me, I'm simply against you" and to work together, or university presidents who will take massive pay cuts and take on MAGA/Trump world?William Deresiewicz: Yeah, I mean, I don't know if this is going to be the solution to the left rebuilding itself, but I think it has to happen, not just because it has to happen for policy reasons, but I mean you need to start by finding your courage again. I'm not going to say your testicles because that's gendered, but you need to start—I mean the law firms, maybe that's a little, people have said, well, it's different because they're in a competitive business with each other, but why did the university—I mean I'm a Columbia alumnus. I could not believe that Columbia immediately caved.It occurs to me as we're talking that these are people, university presidents who have learned cowardice. This is how they got to be where they got and how they keep their jobs. They've learned to yield in the face of the demands of students, the demands of alumni, the demands of donors, maybe the demands of faculty. They don't know how to be courageous anymore. And as much as I have lots of reasons, including personal ones, to hate Harvard University, good for them. Somebody finally stood up, and I was really glad to see that. So yeah, I think this would be one good way to start.Andrew Keen: Courage, in other words, is the beginning.William Deresiewicz: Courage is the beginning.Andrew Keen: But not a courage that takes itself too seriously.William Deresiewicz: I mean, you know, sure. I mean I don't really care how seriously—not the self-referential courage. Real courage, which means you're really risking losing something. That's what it means.Andrew Keen: And how can you and I then manifest this courage?William Deresiewicz: You know, you made me listen to Jocelyn Benson.Andrew Keen: Oh, yeah, I forgot and I actually I have to admit I saw that on the email and then I forgot who Jocelyn Benson is, which is probably reflects the fact that she didn't say very much.William Deresiewicz: For those of you who don't know what we're talking about, she's the Secretary of State of Michigan. She's running for governor.Andrew Keen: Oh yeah, and she was absolutely diabolical. She was on the show, I thought.William Deresiewicz: She wrote a book called Purposeful Warrior, and the whole interview was just this salad of cliches. Purpose, warrior, grit, authenticity. And part of, I mentioned her partly because she talked about courage in a way that was complete nonsense.Andrew Keen: Real courage, yeah, real courage. I remember her now. Yeah, yeah.William Deresiewicz: Yeah, she got made into a martyr because she got threatened after the 2020 election.Andrew Keen: Well, lots to think about, Bill. Very good conversation, as always. I think we need to get rid of old white men like you and I, but what do I know?William Deresiewicz: I mean, I am going to keep a death grip on my position, which is no good whatsoever.Andrew Keen: As I half-joked, Bill, maybe you should have called the piece "Post-Erection." If you can't get an erection, then you certainly shouldn't be in public office. That would have meant that Joe Biden would have had to have retired immediately.William Deresiewicz: I'm looking forward to seeing the test you devise to determine whether people meet your criterion.Andrew Keen: Yeah, maybe it will be a public one. Bread and circuses, bread and elections. We shall see, Bill, I'm not even going to do your last name because I got it right once. I'm never going to say it again. Bill, congratulations on the piece "Post-Election," not "Post-Erection," and we will talk again. This story is going to run and run. We will talk again in the not too distant future. Thank you so much.William Deresiewicz: That's good.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

LISTEN TO THE FULL EPISODE HERE!Alright, we're back with another Patreon SHORT SESSION and this week Tim is at the shops buying a Tickle Me Elmo and we're taking a look at some aspects of laughter in a few different ways.SHORT SESSIONS, variable length sessions, however you wanna put it, in these episodes we'll wrap them up because of something that is said, rather than the tyranny of the clock.So what's so ticklish about the ticklish subject? Can it tickle itself?We're talking Žižek's totalitarian laughter, Adam Phillips on the erotic grammar of tickling, Trump as the David Brent of Empire, Romanian orphanages and Rhesus monkeys, and the dialectic of cringe and tickling.Whatever you do, don't google "competitive tickling".Check out Aaron Schuster's piece on tickling here.Jamil Khader's RELOADING LAUGHTER: ŽIŽEK AND A THEORY OF COMEDYSee you in Paris,Ž&...

Samtiden säger att vi ska uthärda och aldrig ge upp. Men att alltid avsluta saker leder till tyranni, konstaterar David Wästerfors. Lyssna på alla avsnitt i Sveriges Radio Play. ESSÄ: Detta är en text där skribenten reflekterar över ett ämne eller ett verk. Åsikter som uttrycks är skribentens egna.Det går lätt i början, du nästan flyger fram. Musiken i hörlurarna lyfter dig, stegen känns självklara, skorna sitter perfekt. Marken liksom fjädrar när du springer din favoritrunda i kvarteret, på väg mot parken.Men efter ett tag blir andningen tyngre. Benen känns stumma, humöret förmörkas. Det här blir för tufft, du har överskattat dig själv, du måste ge upp.Men hur då, egentligen? Stanna och gå tillbaka – så nesligt och meningslöst. Stanna och vila – även det ganska nesligt. Det blir svårt att komma i gång igen, kanske omöjligt.Du känner igen motståndet och de dystra tankarna. Du biter ihop och härdar ut. Du fortsätter, fortsätter, fortsätter.En sådan här bild av kamp och envishet utgör en kontrast till bilden av att ge upp. Att ge upp gör oss sällan stolta eller malliga. Vi döljer gärna våra övergivna projekt och avbrutna löparrundor eller bäddar ned dem i fraser och lånade resonemang. ”Jag kände mig krasslig”, ”musten gick ur mig”, ”vädret slog om”, ”jag fick ett samtal”. Att ge upp brukar kräva en förklaring – en kulturellt tillgänglig ursäkt – vilket motsatsen inte alls kräver, alltså att lyckas, att fullfölja något.Hjältar i filmer eller spänningsromaner ger sig inte, däri ligger själva hjältestatusen. Motgångar infinner sig förstås, men till slut reser de sig. Men hjältarna blir tragiska om de helt saknar förmåga att i vissa lägen ta ett steg tillbaka och omgruppera. Att fortsätta slåss när slaget är förlorat blir ingen hjältesaga, bara ett kvitto på bristande ödmjukhet och realism.Vi säger väl aldrig ”hon är riktigt bra på att ge upp” eller ”att ge upp kan vara bra för dig”, men vi kan legitimera en avbruten strävan med att vi lärt känna våra begränsningar. Att tillåta sig ge upp i en prestationsorienterad kultur kan rättfärdigas precis så, som om vi förväntas finna en lärdom även i nederlaget, en tröstande liten vinst.Ungefär de här tankarna finner jag i den brittiske essäisten Adam Phillips bok ”On Giving Up”. Jag känner mig lite lurad av titeln eftersom bara den första texten handlar om att ge upp. Resten handlar om andra saker, till exempel om känslan av att vara vid liv eller om nöjet i att censurera sig själv.Adam Phillips är psykoanalytiker och förlorar sig naturligtvis i Sigmund Freud och psykoanalysens interna angelägenheter. På sidan 67 är jag nära att ge upp. Phillips tolkning av intrigerna mellan Freud och hans kronprins Carl Jung på det internationella psykoanalytiska förbundets kongress i München 1913 intresserar mig måttligt. Jag har andra olästa böcker i hyllorna. Varför ska jag lägga tid på just den här?Men skam den som ger sig. Jag fortsätter, fortsätter, fortsätter.Phillips lånar en aforism av Franz Kafka för att formulera vårt kanske vanligaste trick för att motstå frestelsen att ge upp. Vid en viss punkt, skrev Kafka, finns ingen väg tillbaka, ”och det är den punkten som måste nås”. Om vi bara lyckas avverka en så lång bit av löparrundan att vi lika gärna kan fortsätta – att vi hellre kan fortsätta, att det känns för sent att vända om – ja, då minskar risken för att vi kapitulerar. Vi kan med andra ord arrangera våra egna och andras handlingar så att frestelsen göms undan eller minimeras.Framgång består i att nå Kafkas punkt, att se till att bomma igen fönstren och stänga nödutgången. Men Phillips lyfter också fram det faktum att ”giving up” är tvetydigt. På svenska är den här tvetydigheten dold, men på engelska blir den uppenbar: ”to give up smoking”, ”to give up drinking”. Att ”ge upp” kan stå för något vi ibland beundrar och vill ta efter. Det finns en sorts ”ge upp” när vi tror att vi kan förändras och en annan sort när vi tror att vi inte kan det. I båda fallen offras något, men värderingen av det som offras varierar.Den här tvetydigheten i handlingen att ge upp är talande. Att alltid avsluta saker blir tyranni, ett slags förtryck som begränsar vårt medvetande. Det kan ge oss tunnelseende eller en avsmalnad uppfattningsförmåga, som om vi inte kunde föreställa oss något annat än ”framåt, framåt!” Att ge upp kan då synliggöra andra vägar – åt sidan eller bakåt. Vi kan också få syn på vårt beroende av andra som kanske fångar upp oss när vi faller, som kommer med en kopp te och några lindrande ord – och påminner om alternativ.Att ge upp har fått dåligt rykte i vår kultur, men ett milt och försiktigt sätt att erkänna sig besegrad skiljer sig från ett drastiskt. Det måste inte ses som skamligt.Ett självmord är den mest slutliga och radikala kapitulation vi kan föreställa oss. Självmord anses fel, ett kulturell tabu, tidigare var det kriminaliserat. Och ogillandet av självmordet kanske på ett underförstått sätt bidrar till att även små kapitulationer har fått något skamset över sig, som om hela ens identitet skulle gå till spillo i och med att Projekt A eller B kapsejsar.En mjukare modell finns i sömnen. Varje kväll ger vi upp när vi avslutar dagen och lägger oss i sängen. Vi överger ambitionerna, planerna, vår fåfänga strävan och våra offentliga roller. Vi överlämnar oss till det planlösa, det omedvetna. Att somna utgör en vardaglig variant av att erkänna sig besegrad, kulturellt godkänd och mentalt stärkande.Vi vill inte vara en ständigt vaken, sömnlös person – vi vet hur lättretlig en sådan person är. Vi vill vara en återställd och utvilad människa, alltså en som igår kväll gav upp. Men vi gav inte upp för alltid, vi gav bara upp just där och då.Inför varje strid mot de vita kolonisatörer i Nordamerika under 1800-talet brukade urfolket the Crow uppföra soldansen, en vädjande och stärkande dans med militära inslag. Men folket kuvades och stod inför utplåning. Vad skulle de göra med soldansen när det inte längre fanns någon mening att slåss? Tre alternativ stod till buds: att fortsätta dansa som om inget hade hänt, trots att den heliga funktionen försvunnit; att hitta på en ny mening med dansen, kanske definiera den som hälsobringande eller en vädjan om vackert väder; eller helt enkelt ge upp.The Crow gav upp soldansen kring 1875. Det blev ett sätt att bekräfta den kulturella förstörelsen. Risken fanns att dansen annars skulle degenerera till en nostalgisk parodi på sig själv. Därmed blev det också möjligt för urfolket att röra sig bortom sitt nederlag och inte fastna i det förflutna. Det var dags att – hur orättvist det än var – arbeta fram mer pragmatiska relationer till den där vita överheten.Det är inte givet att den som tvingas ge upp verkligen avstår från att skapa något.När den prisade författaren Sami Said intervjuades i radion och fick frågan ”hur vet du att du är klar?” citerade han sin kollega Claes Hylinger som sagt att det vet man aldrig som författare. Man blir faktiskt aldrig färdig med sitt manus. Man ger upp.Said beskrev hur han sitter med sina tusentals sidor – utkast och fragment i överflöd – och in i det sista är genuint osäker på hur hans roman ska se ut.Till slut skickar han in ändå, ”skit samma”. Och sen trycks boken.David Wästerforssociolog

Passage: Isaiah 41:10 WATCH THE VIDEO HERE: https://youtu.be/PwyIwu4bo_Q  To learn more about Adelphi, visit us at: adelphibaptist.com

We're all anxious, and none of us can pay attention. We don't read long books anymore; our kids don't read at all. When we watch TV, we scroll at the same time. And we absolutely cannot be alone with ourselves. These are the symptoms of a modern malaise that is everywhere diagnosed but rarely treated with the dire seriousness it deserves: an epochal sickness that is fundamentally changing the way we relate to each other and to our own minds. What would it take to reclaim control? Chris Hayes — journalist, author, and host of MSNBC's All In — joins to discuss his new book The Sirens' Call: How Attention Became the World's Most Endangered Resource. Together, Chris and the boys theorize how attention replaced information as the defining commodity of modern life. Along the way, we discuss our own struggles with social media addiction, prayer as an ancient technology for organizing attention, the evolutionary origins of attention-seeking, Donald Trump as the "public figure par excellence" of the attention age, and how to fight back against the corporate takeover of our minds. Toward the end, Chris explains how he's navigating hosting his cable show amid another bewildering Trump era, which seems designed to divide and fragment our attention.Further Reading: Chris Hayes, The Sirens' Call: How Attention Became the World's Most Endangered Resource, (2025)Simone Weil, Gravity and Grace, (1952)Adam Phillips, Attention Seeking, (2022)Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, (1844)Kyle Chayka, FIlterworld: How Algorithms Flattened Culture, (2024)Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power, (2019)Daniel Immerwahr, "What if the Attention Crisis Is All a Distraction?" The New Yorker, Jan 20, 2025....and don't forget to subscribe to Know Your Enemy on Patreon to listen to all of our premium episodes! 

Social media Accounts: https://www.instagram.com/theesciendist/ https://www.instagram.com/frame.watcher/Gear that I use: Cameras I use for the Podcast: • Canon EOS R6 (Kit) https://amzn.to/30xxXOy • DJI OMSO Pocket 3 https://amzn.to/2OZQZrh Lenses I use to Capture the thumbnails: • Canon RF28mm F2.8 STM https://amzn.to/4dE9WsF • Samyang 85mm f1.4 RF mount https://amzn.to/3lhoGncMics that I use to record the Podcast: • RODE Microphones Wireless GO II https://amzn.to/3E5nwE7 • RODE Interview Go https://amzn.to/4efdqlTTable Top Gear: • Microphone Stand https://amzn.to/4dQtZUR • Microphone Holder https://amzn.to/4gpViXV

In this special episode, hosts Medaya Ocher, Kate Wolf, and Eric Newman discuss the case for and against giving up—on life, vices, dreams, creative pursuits, jobs, relationships, exercise, and work. Their conversation is inspired by Adam Phillips's recent book On Giving Up, in which the psychoanalyst observes that “we give things up when we believe we can change; we give up when we believe we can't.” The hosts discuss what is acceptable to give up, their own fears of failure, both fictional and real-life inspirational quitters, and whether Bartleby was onto something when he said he'd prefer not to.

In this encore special episode, hosts Medaya Ocher, Kate Wolf, and Eric Newman discuss the case for and against giving up—on life, vices, dreams, creative pursuits, jobs, relationships, exercise, and work. Their conversation is inspired by Adam Phillips's recent book On Giving Up, in which the psychoanalyst observes that “we give things up when we believe we can change; we give up when we believe we can't.” The hosts discuss what is acceptable to give up, their own fears of failure, both fictional and real-life inspirational quitters, and whether Bartleby was onto something when he said he'd prefer not to.

We get the message before we're out of training pants – when the going gets tough, look on the bright side, make lemonade out of lemons and just do it. We're going to consider the exact opposite – the wisdom of giving up and letting go. Because sometimes, the strongest and most courageous thing you can do is walk away. Original Air Date: April 27, 2024Interviews In This Hour: The boundary-breaking power of fasting — How do we know when to call it quits? — Escaping the tyranny of certaintyGuests: John Oakes, Adam Phillips, Maggie JacksonNever want to miss an episode? Subscribe to the podcast.Want to hear more from us, including extended interviews and favorites from the archive? Subscribe to our newsletter.

On this episode of Faith in Elections, Adam Phillips talks with Jennifer Roberts, former mayor of Charlotte and advocate for trusted elections. Roberts discusses her work with the North Carolina Network for Free, Fair, and Safe Elections. She emphasizes the importance of building trust, promoting community engagement, and combating misinformation. Roberts also shares insights from a recent trip to Northern Ireland, where she learned about the role of faith communities in peacebuilding during "The Troubles." Drawing parallels to U.S. political polarization, she advocates for faith leaders to encourage peaceful civic engagement and underscores the critical role of accurate information and community involvement in upholding democracy.Guest Bio: Jennifer Roberts, former Mayor of Charlotte, co-leads the North Carolina Network for Free, Fair, and Safe Elections alongside former NC Supreme Court Justice Bob Orr. This cross-partisan initiative, supported by The Carter Center, is dedicated to fostering peaceful political engagement and bolstering confidence in the electoral process. Before her mayoral term, Roberts served four terms as a Mecklenburg County Commissioner and later led the Communities Program on Climate Solutions for ecoAmerica, a national nonprofit. She remains a dedicated advocate for education, equality, inclusion, and environmental protection. Roberts' diverse background includes experience as a high school math teacher and a diplomat for the U.S. State Department, with postings in the Dominican Republic and Mexico. She holds advanced degrees from the University of Toronto and the Johns Hopkins School of International Affairs. Her leadership has earned her numerous accolades, including the Maya Angelou Women Who Lead Award and Equality North Carolina's Ally of the Year.Visit Interfaith America to learn more about the organization and our podcast. Learn more about how you can support your community this election season with Interfaith America's Faith in Elections Playbook. Follow us on Twitter and Instagram to stay up to date with new episodes, interfaith stories, and our programs.

In this episode of Faith in Elections, host Adam Phillips speaks with two Muslim leaders about their civic engagement efforts. First, Dr. Dilara Sayeed of the Muslim Civic Coalition shares her work on combating voter apathy, including passing the Wadee Resolution to address rising hate crimes. She emphasizes the need for resilient, engaged communities.Next, Shariq Ghani from the Minaret Foundation discusses his work in Harris County, Texas, fostering multi-faith collaborations to improve voter access. He highlights the power of interfaith connections in bridging divides and strengthening democracy. Both guests show how solidarity can uphold shared values and counteract divisiveness.  Guest Bio: Dr. Dilara Sayeed serves as the President of the Muslim Civic Coalition. Dilara's story goes from Headstart to Harvard, and through public school systems. She is an award-winning teacher, social impact entrepreneur, and civic justice advocate. In 2021, Dilara was appointed by Governor Pritzker to the IL Commission on Discrimination and Hate Crimes (CDHC). Dilara has served on the Transition team for Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, as well as Advisory Councils for Mayor Lightfoot and Illinois Comptroller Mendoza. She is a board trustee for the Field Museum and Indo-American Democratic Organization.Guest Bio: Shariq Ghani is the Director of Minaret Foundation, an organization focused on developing multi-faith relations to change the world through advocacy in the areas of food insecurity, child welfare, and religious freedom. For the past 11 years, Shariq has regularly spoken at faith centers, conferences, and educational institutions on topics ranging from American Muslim identity to faith-based advocacy and spirituality. In addition to teaching Islam through sermons and lectures, he works with clergy, policymakers, and law enforcement to provide insight into the American-Muslim community. Shariq has a bachelor's in history from the University of Houston and completed his graduate studies in homeland security from the Bush School at Texas A&M. He is currently pursuing his master's in negotiation and conflict resolution with a focus on peacebuilding from Columbia University. Shariq's passion is finding intersections between communities for collaboration and mutual growth and loves to connect with like-minded people over chai or burgers.Visit Interfaith America to learn more about the organization and our podcast. Learn more about how you can support your community this election season with Interfaith America's Faith in Elections Playbook. Follow us on Twitter and Instagram to stay up to date with new episodes, interfaith stories, and our programs.

In this episode of Faith in Elections, Adam Phillips talks with Patricia Ruiz-Cantu, an evangelical leader from Milwaukee, who discusses how her Christian faith inspires her to promote civic engagement within the Latino community. Reflecting on her journey as an immigrant and her conversion from Catholic to Evangelical, she explains challenges Latino voters face, including misinformation. Patricia highlights her initiative, Renaces (You Are Reborn), which focuses on civics education for Latino Evangelicals, and underscores the importance of bringing joy and optimism to election work, even in divisive times. Guest Bio: Patricia Ruiz-Cantu, as a Community Outreach Manager at the City of Milwaukee, has over eight years of experience in developing and implementing innovative programs and initiatives that foster authentic human connections and civic engagement among diverse communities. She collaborates with various stakeholders, including faith leaders, media outlets, non-profit organizations, and elected officials, to build trust, collaboration, and awareness on various issues and opportunities that impact the city and its residents. In addition to her role as a Community Outreach Manager, Patricia also serves as an Election Commissioner and a Certified Coach, Trainer, and Speaker with The John Maxwell Team. These roles allow her to leverage her skills in conflict resolution, workshop facilitation, and leadership development to empower individuals and groups to achieve their goals and create positive change. As a bilingual and bicultural professional in Spanish and English, she has a unique perspective and ability to communicate effectively across cultures and contexts.Find out more about Civics 101 and Renaces  by following Patricia on X @Pruizcantu. The identity of “evangelical” contains a wide range of people from across America and the world. We believe they have an important role to play in America's Diverse Democracy. In collaboration with Christianity Today, Interfaith America has launched a new essay series that equips Christians to live faithfully and neighborly in a world we don't control. Featuring leaders in the evangelical tradition—like John Inazu, Karen Swallow Prior, Matthew Kaemingk, and Russell Moore—this series offers thoughtful and diverse perspectives on how Christians can build bridges across differences in their communities. To read the series and learn more about our work with evangelicals, visit Evangelicals in a Diverse Democracy.Visit Interfaith America to learn more about the organization and our podcast. Learn more about how you can support your community this election season with Interfaith America's Faith in Elections Playbook. Follow us on Twitter and Instagram to stay up to date with new episodes, interfaith stories, and our programs.

In an election season marked by chaos and division, Interfaith America's Faith in Elections podcast cuts through the noise and deepens the conversation, highlighting the remarkable stories of everyday faith leaders who are working to build bridges and uphold democracy.Join hosts Jenan Mohajir and Adam Phillips as they speak with Interfaith America Faith in Elections grantees about how faith convictions motivate their civic engagement and service. The Faith in Elections Podcast is part of the Voices of Interfaith America Podcast network. Episodes will be released each Thursday leading up to the 2024 presidential election. Host Bios: Jenan Mohajir is the Vice President of External Affairs at Interfaith America. Inspired by faith and family to work for change at the intersections of gender, sexuality, race, and religion, Jenan has served in leadership at IA for 15 years where she as has trained hundreds of interfaith leaders from diverse backgrounds to foster a vision and practice of civically engaged interfaith leadership. Jenan completed undergraduate work at DePaul University and is pursuing her MA in religious studies at Chicago Theological Seminary. As a natural storyteller, she performs with 2nd Story, Chicago's premier storytelling company. Jenan proudly lives on the south side of Chicago with her children and loves to collect vintage children's books.Adam Phillips is the Chief Strategy Officer & Chief of Staff at Interfaith America. Adam serves as the senior lead in the Executive Office by managing internal and external inquiries from the President's office and leads the organization's narrative strategy, ensuring the advancement of Interfaith America's mission and vision. Having spent two decades at the intersection of faith and public life, Adam most recently served as a Biden Administration appointee leading Localization and Faith-based efforts at the United States Agency for International Development. Working closely with the White House and Department of State, in his role at USAID Adam oversaw development policy, new and non-traditional partnerships, as well as democracy and diplomacy initiatives in nearly 100 countries. Adam has been a TEDx speaker, his work has also been featured in The Atlantic, CNN, Washington Post, NPR, Huffington Post, Relevant Magazine and the Christian Broadcasting Network's 700 Club.Visit Interfaith America to learn more about the organization and our podcast. Learn more about how you can support your community this election season with Interfaith America's Faith in Elections Playbook. Follow us on Twitter and Instagram to stay up to date with new episodes, interfaith stories, and our programs.

Voices of Interfaith America is your home for stories of bridgebuilding and engaging diversity productively across the country. This podcast will include shows that reflect the varied experiences and complex landscape of our religiously diverse democracy. This feed will still include episodes of Interfaith America with Eboo Patel, but as we expand to include more voices from interfaith America, you will find conversations with bridgebuilders working toward a more pluralistic America. Visit Interfaith America to learn more about the organization and our podcast. Follow us on Twitter and Instagram to stay up to date with new episodes, interfaith stories, and our programs.

Subscribe to get access to the full episode, the episode reading list, and all premium episodes! www.patreon.com/OrdinaryUnhappinessAbby and Patrick are joined by friend of the show and returning guest Sam Adler-Bell! Together, the three process events in the US electoral landscape in the past month, focusing in particular on the selection of J.D.Vance as Donald Trump's running mate, the ascendance of Kamala Harris, and the spectacle of the Democratic Convention. Objects of psychodynamic-flavored punditry include Vance's Daddy Issues, Harris as Phallic Mother, and the significance of one of America's favorite pastimes (Stepmom Porn).Check out Sam's recent piece in The Baffler on Adam Phillips here: https://thebaffler.com/salvos/good-enough-adler-bellThe Know Your Enemy episodes we discuss are here:What's Wrong with J.D. Vance?https://www.patreon.com/posts/whats-wrong-with-109853554René Girard and the Right (w/ John Ganz)https://www.patreon.com/posts/rene-girard-and-99243002A Remedy for Envy? René Girard Reduxhttps://www.patreon.com/posts/remedy-for-envy-99640142A podcast about psychoanalysis, politics, pop culture, and the ways we suffer now. New episodes on Saturdays. Follow us on social media: Linktree: https://linktr.ee/OrdinaryUnhappiness Twitter: @UnhappinessPod Instagram: @OrdinaryUnhappiness Patreon: patreon.com/OrdinaryUnhappiness Theme song: Formal Chicken - Gnossienne No. 1 https://open.spotify.com/album/2MIIYnbyLqriV3vrpUTxxO Provided by Fruits Music

Religious conversion and trauma have very similar structures, but with one important difference. In this episode, Stephen Carter draws on Adam Phillips, Julie Hanks, and Prentis Hemphill to explore what happens when people enter a religion, and what happens when they leave. https://sunstone.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/SLP-180.mp3

Religious conversion and trauma have very similar structures, but with one important difference. In this episode, Stephen Carter draws on Adam Phillips, Julie Hanks, and Prentis Hemphill to explore what happens when people enter a religion, and what happens when they leave.  

https://bit.ly/MotivationDaily_Mindset

Ben Okurum beşinci sezonunun finalini psikoterapist Agâh Aydın konuk oluyor. Ve Deniz Yüce Başarır ile birlikte meslektaşı İngiliz psikanalist Adam Phillips'in Yasak Olmayan Hazlar adlı kitabından yola çıkarak yasaklara, kurallara, hazlara, kısaca hayata dair derinlikli bir sohbete imza atıyor. Phillips'in kendine has üslubunun da bol bol konu edildiği bölüm hayat hakkında düşünmeyi sevenleri mest edecek. Elbette, Yasak Olmayan Hazlar'dan en düşündürücü bölümler eşliğinde.

To give up or not to give up? The question can feel inescapable but the answer is never simple. Giving up our supposed vices is one thing; giving up on life itself is quite another. One form of self-sacrifice feels positive, something to admire and aspire to, while the other is profoundly unsettling, if not actively undesirable. There are always, it turns out, both good and bad sacrifices, but it is not always clear beforehand which is which. We give something up because we believe we can no longer go on as we are. In this sense, giving up is a critical moment--an attempt to make a different future. In On Giving Up (FSG, 2024), the acclaimed psychoanalyst Adam Phillips illuminates both the gaps and the connections between the many ways of giving up and helps us to address the central question: What must we give up in order to feel more alive? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/psychoanalysis

To give up or not to give up? The question can feel inescapable but the answer is never simple. Giving up our supposed vices is one thing; giving up on life itself is quite another. One form of self-sacrifice feels positive, something to admire and aspire to, while the other is profoundly unsettling, if not actively undesirable. There are always, it turns out, both good and bad sacrifices, but it is not always clear beforehand which is which. We give something up because we believe we can no longer go on as we are. In this sense, giving up is a critical moment--an attempt to make a different future. In On Giving Up (FSG, 2024), the acclaimed psychoanalyst Adam Phillips illuminates both the gaps and the connections between the many ways of giving up and helps us to address the central question: What must we give up in order to feel more alive? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

To give up or not to give up? The question can feel inescapable but the answer is never simple. Giving up our supposed vices is one thing; giving up on life itself is quite another. One form of self-sacrifice feels positive, something to admire and aspire to, while the other is profoundly unsettling, if not actively undesirable. There are always, it turns out, both good and bad sacrifices, but it is not always clear beforehand which is which. We give something up because we believe we can no longer go on as we are. In this sense, giving up is a critical moment--an attempt to make a different future. In On Giving Up (FSG, 2024), the acclaimed psychoanalyst Adam Phillips illuminates both the gaps and the connections between the many ways of giving up and helps us to address the central question: What must we give up in order to feel more alive? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/psychology

To give up or not to give up? The question can feel inescapable but the answer is never simple. Giving up our supposed vices is one thing; giving up on life itself is quite another. One form of self-sacrifice feels positive, something to admire and aspire to, while the other is profoundly unsettling, if not actively undesirable. There are always, it turns out, both good and bad sacrifices, but it is not always clear beforehand which is which. We give something up because we believe we can no longer go on as we are. In this sense, giving up is a critical moment--an attempt to make a different future. In On Giving Up (FSG, 2024), the acclaimed psychoanalyst Adam Phillips illuminates both the gaps and the connections between the many ways of giving up and helps us to address the central question: What must we give up in order to feel more alive? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/book-of-the-day

As our nation stands on the precipice of another pivotal presidential debate, we find ourselves at a crossroads of political discourse and civic engagement. In an era marked by deep divisions and partisan bitterness, the concept of civic pluralism serves as a beacon of hope, offering a fresh lens through which to view and participate in our democratic process. Adam Phillips from Interfaith America joins to talk about how this approach challenges us to look beyond the surface-level rhetoric and political maneuvering, inviting us to engage with the debate in a way that honors our diverse identities while fostering unity and resilience. It is time to think again about how embracing the principles of civic pluralism might not only transform our viewing experience but also contribute to healing the very fabric of our democracy.

Boyd finishes the show by going back to his conversation with Adam Phillips about civic pluralism and the upcoming CNN Presidential Debate. We can all listen to this debate differently by listening to how candidates talk about identity, faith, institutions, cooperation, and diversity. By listening differently, we can become more educated citizens and take steps to a brighter future.

Join Boyd Matheson in digging into the latest news of your week. Rep. John Curtis, the newly minted Republican candidate for Utah’s Senate seat, talks with Boyd about what is next for his platform and his goals if he wins the election. Learn what it means to be a civic pluralist during the upcoming CNN Presidential Debate with Adam Phillips. Jennifer Graham digs into how we are having a crisis of crises and what that means in the public health sphere. See what it means to be in coal country and their influential role in this upcoming presidential election with Maxine Joselow and More!

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit wisdomofcrowds.liveYou might have noticed that Wisdom of Crowds got a facelift this week. We touched up our homepage and added two new features: CrowdSource and Provocations (read more about both here). In this spirit of renewal and relaunch, on the podcast we are getting back to our bread and butter with a classic Shadi and Damir episode. This week's episode deals with the virtues of resignation. Is giving up ever the right choice to make, either in politics or in one's personal life? Shadi has been reading a book about “settling” — On Giving Up by Adam Phillips — and he muses on the topic in latest piece in Wisdom of Crowds: “Giving Up is Good for You.” Damir worries that giving up means resignation, a rejection of life, a denial of adventure. He considers Shadi's mention of the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. Does Shadi understand the full implications of Nietzsche's philosophy? Damir wonders. In the bonus section for paid subscribers, the talk turns toward war and geopolitics, where Shadi discusses how wars end in" “settlements” — a form of giving up. Finally, the conversation wraps up with a reevaluation of Damir's personal philosophy, and a look back at last week's podcast episode with Phil Klay.Required Reading:* “Giving Up is Good for You” by Shadi (Wisdom of Crowds).* Adam Phillips, On Giving Up.* Friedrich Nietzsche (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).* Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra.* Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals.* Friedrich Nietzsche, The Joyful Science.* Adyashanti official page (YouTube).* Podcast episode with Phil Klay (Wisdom of Crowds). Wisdom of Crowds is a platform challenging premises and understanding first principles on politics and culture. Join us!

Passage: Isaiah 26:1-4 1 Thessalonians 5:20-22 WATCH THE VIDEO HERE:   To learn more about Adelphi, visit us at: adelphibaptist.com

Robert Boyers founded the quarterly Salmagundi in 1965 and has been its editor in chief ever since. He's the author of 12 books, including most recently Maestros Monsters: Days & Nights with Sontag and Steiner and before that The Tyranny of Virtue: Identity, The Academy and the Hunt for Political Heresies. Besides teaching at Skidmore College, he directs the New York State Summer Writers Institute. Salmagundi rightly prides itself on hosting wide-ranging, inquisitive discussions of major topics involving race, gender, literature, psychology and so much more. This discussion goes in depth on four entries from the magazine. First up: “Talking Race Matters: A Conversation with John McWhorter & Thomas Chatterton Williams” explores the limits of racial essentialism as well as total assimilation that risks denying what is unique about the Black perspective and experience. A second piece is Elizabeth Benedict's essay, “What's the Matter with Sex?” It tackles how far the influence of pornography has gone (astray) as a training ground that leads young men into often degrading behavior to the women they are intimate with, including the use of choking as a form of eroticism. “The Failure of Censorship” by Adam Phillips looks at how our desires endanger us and yet at the same time to deny them denies aspects of ourselves. When is and isn't self-censorship fruitful? Finally, Salmagundi hosted a symposium called “Can the American Meritocracy Get Religion?” Five writers are responding to an editorial by Ross Douthat in the New York Times. All found Doughat's views too narrow or incoherent to be persuasive. Dan Hill, PhD, is the author of ten books and leads Sensory Logic, Inc. To check out his related “Dan Hill's EQ Spotlight” blog, visit this site. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Robert Boyers founded the quarterly Salmagundi in 1965 and has been its editor in chief ever since. He's the author of 12 books, including most recently Maestros Monsters: Days & Nights with Sontag and Steiner and before that The Tyranny of Virtue: Identity, The Academy and the Hunt for Political Heresies. Besides teaching at Skidmore College, he directs the New York State Summer Writers Institute. Salmagundi rightly prides itself on hosting wide-ranging, inquisitive discussions of major topics involving race, gender, literature, psychology and so much more. This discussion goes in depth on four entries from the magazine. First up: “Talking Race Matters: A Conversation with John McWhorter & Thomas Chatterton Williams” explores the limits of racial essentialism as well as total assimilation that risks denying what is unique about the Black perspective and experience. A second piece is Elizabeth Benedict's essay, “What's the Matter with Sex?” It tackles how far the influence of pornography has gone (astray) as a training ground that leads young men into often degrading behavior to the women they are intimate with, including the use of choking as a form of eroticism. “The Failure of Censorship” by Adam Phillips looks at how our desires endanger us and yet at the same time to deny them denies aspects of ourselves. When is and isn't self-censorship fruitful? Finally, Salmagundi hosted a symposium called “Can the American Meritocracy Get Religion?” Five writers are responding to an editorial by Ross Douthat in the New York Times. All found Doughat's views too narrow or incoherent to be persuasive. Dan Hill, PhD, is the author of ten books and leads Sensory Logic, Inc. To check out his related “Dan Hill's EQ Spotlight” blog, visit this site. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/literature

The desire for a second chance provides the engine for many of Shakespeare's plays. In their new book, Second Chances: Shakespeare and Freud, Shakespeare scholar Stephen Greenblatt and psychologist Adam Phillips argue that this fascination with the second chance links Shakespeare with one of his biggest 20th century fans: Sigmund Freud. Shakespeare helped Freud think about second chances—why we desire them so deeply, and why, sometimes, we push them away. Host Barbara Bogaev talks with Greenblatt and Phillips about how reading Freud alongside Shakespeare can help illuminate both writers' insights into human nature. Second Chances: Shakespeare and Freud is available from Yale University Press. From the Shakespeare Unlimited podcast. Published May 21, 2024. © Folger Shakespeare Library. All rights reserved. This episode was produced by Matt Frassica. Garland Scott is the associate producer. It was edited by Gail Kern Paster. Ben Lauer is the web producer. Leonor Fernandez edits our transcripts. We had technical help from Rob Double at London Broadcast and Voice Trax West in Studio City, California. Final mixing services provided by Clean Cuts at Three Seas, Inc.

In this special episode, hosts Medaya Ocher, Kate Wolf, and Eric Newman discuss the case for and against giving up—on life, vices, dreams, creative pursuits, jobs, relationships, exercise, and work. Their conversation is inspired by Adam Phillips's recent book On Giving Up, in which the psychoanalyst observes that “we give things up when we believe we can change; we give up when we believe we can't.” The hosts discuss what is acceptable to give up, their own fears of failure, both fictional and real-life inspirational quitters, and whether Bartleby was onto something when he said he'd prefer not to.

In this special episode, hosts Medaya Ocher, Kate Wolf, and Eric Newman discuss the case for and against giving up—on life, vices, dreams, creative pursuits, jobs, relationships, exercise, and work. Their conversation is inspired by Adam Phillips's recent book On Giving Up, in which the psychoanalyst observes that “we give things up when we believe we can change; we give up when we believe we can't.” The hosts discuss what is acceptable to give up, their own fears of failure, both fictional and real-life inspirational quitters, and whether Bartleby was onto something when he said he'd prefer not to.

We get the message before we're out of training pants – when the going gets tough, look on the bright side, make lemonade out of lemons and just do it. We're gonna consider the exact opposite – the wisdom of giving up and letting go. Because sometimes, the strongest and most courageous thing you can do is walk away. Original Air Date: April 27, 2024 Interviews In This Hour: The power and boundary-breaking of fasting — How do we know when to call it quits? — Escaping the tyranny of certainty Guests: John Oakes, Adam Phillips, Maggie Jackson Never want to miss an episode? Subscribe to the podcast. Want to hear more from us, including extended interviews and favorites from the archive? Subscribe to our newsletter.

Chapters 00:00 The Roots of Odyssey 35:44 Regression and Individualization in Movement Patterns and Training 45:00 The Balance Between Simplicity and Complexity in Training 52:44 The Significance of Uncertainty and Confidence in Coaching 01:08:57 Clear Communication and Certainty in Coaching Decisions 01:19:06 Predictions and Excitement for Upcoming Competitions Where to find Adam: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/adam_odyssey Website: https://www.odysseystrength.ie/ Links to find the boys: Shane Storey Instagram: www.instagram.com/sstorey94 Email: storeystrength@gmail.com Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@sstorey94/ Coaching Application: www.storeystrength.com Lawrence King Instagram: www.instagram.com/_lawrenceking Twitter: https://twitter.com/_lawrenceking

Today's guest is founder and VC Brett Martin who I first started following ten years ago when we were both in the mobile space.Brett is currently Co-Founder of Kumospace and co-founder of Charge Ventures. Kumospace is a venture backed virtual office space platform that provides immersive and interactive virtual spaces for hosting team meetings, and social gatherings. Charge Ventures is a venture capital firm based in New York that invests in pre-seed to seed early stage tech startups.In this episode of the podcast, we discuss Brett's first taste of business as a kid, what lessons he learned about entrepreneurship from sailing 6,000 miles on a 50 year old, 30 foot sailboat which involved dodging water spouts, pirates and drug runners, what it felt like to shut down his first proper startup, and what he looks for in the founders he invests in.Apologies that this is a shorter than normal episode but Brett and I spent some time catching up before we got started so I will have to get him back on the show another time.But saying that, this was a fun episode with someone who has done it all, so please enjoy my conversation with Brett Martin.Brett on Twitter / Charge VC / KumospaceDanielle on Twitter / Instagram / Newsletter / SponsorshipMentioned in this episode:Sonar Post Mortem by Brett MartinScar Tissue by Brett MartinOn Giving Up by Adam Phillips

Great chat with Adam, he gives us a great insight into how he has adapted, since being diagnosed with a Thyroid issue, and how it took him several years to get it under control. We chat about how injury has changed his course of competing and through the versatility of multisport is still able to compete and enjoy agegroup racing.I hope you enjoy this conversation.Thanks for listeningHope you find the value in this. You Can Follow us  on Instagram @amp_1967X : agegroupmultisportpodcastFacebook : AMPGBfind all our episodes on our websiteWebsite is : https://agegroupmultisportpodcast.buzzsprout.com/email: agegroupmultisportpodcast@gmail.comIf you are an agegroup athlete and would like to come on the pod, get in touch. 

‘Our history of giving up – that is to say, our attitude towards it, our obsession with it, our disavowal of its significance – may be a clue to something we should really call our histories and not our selves', wrote Adam Phillips in a 2022 LRB piece, ‘On Giving Up'. Now developed and expanded into a book of the same title, Phillips illuminates both the gaps and the connections between the many ways of giving up, and helps us to address the central question: what must we give up in order to feel more alive? Phillips was joined in conversation by Dame Hermione Lee.Find more events at the Bookshop: lrb.me/eventspodBuy On Giving Up: lrb.me/givinguppod Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

When is giving up not failure, but a way of succeeding at something else? In his new book, which began as a piece for the LRB, the psychoanalyst and critic Adam Phillips explores the ways in which knowing our limitations can be an act of heroism. This episode was recorded at the London Review Bookshop, where Phillips was joined by the biographer and critic Hermione Lee in a conversation about giving up and On Giving Up, his approach to writing and the purpose of psychoanalysis.Find Phillips's 2022 piece On Giving Up and further reading on the episode page: lrb.me/ongivingupFind future events at the Bookshop: lrb.me/eventspod Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Both a renowned psychotherapist and the 'best living essayist writing in English' (John Gray), Adam Phillips joins us to reflect upon what we must give up in order to feel more alive. To give up or not to give up? The question can feel inescapable but the answer is never simple. Giving up our supposed vices is one thing; giving up on life itself is quite another. One form of self-sacrifice feels positive, something to admire and aspire to, while the other is profoundly unsettling, if not actively undesirable. There are always, it turns out, both good and bad sacrifices, but it is not always clear beforehand which is which. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

On this week's Book Club my guest is the writer and psychoanalyst Adam Phillips, whose new book is On Giving Up. He tells me how literature relates to psychoanalysis, why censorship makes life possible, and what Freud got wrong. 

On this week's Book Club my guest is the writer and psychoanalyst Adam Phillips, whose new book is On Giving Up. He tells me how literature relates to psychoanalysis, why censorship makes life possible, and what Freud got wrong. 

Robert McCrum discusses with Ivan six things which should be better known. Robert McCrum is a writer and editor whose most recent book, Shakespearean was published to great acclaim in 2021. Formerly the editor-in-chief of Faber & Faber, and literary editor of the Observer, he is also the author of Wodehouse: A Life (2004), and a classic memoir, My Year Off (1998). From 1980 to 1996, McCrum was editor-in-chief of Faber & Faber, where he published Kazuo Ishiguro, Hanif Kureishi, Milan Kundera, Peter Carey, Danilo Kis, Paul Auster, Marilynne Robinson, Lorrie Moore, Adam Phillips, Mario Vargas Llosa, Jayne Anne Phillips, Orhan Pamuk, and Adam Mars-Jones. At the same time, he wrote seven novels, and co-authored the BBC TV series, The Story Of English, for which he was awarded an Emmy in 1986, followed by a Peabody Prize in 1987. In July 1995, McCrum suffered a serious stroke, a personal crisis he described in My Year Off, a book now regarded as an essential study in the understanding of the condition. He was literary editor of the Observer from 1996 to 2010. Globish (2010) was an international bestseller. In 2024, he will publish The Penalty Kick: The Story of A Game-changer with Notting Hill Editions. The Lost Art of Silence by Sarah Anderson https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/animal-emotions/202312/the-art-and-power-of-connecting-to-the-sounds-of-silence The River Granta https://www.wildlifebcn.org/news/river-granta-gets-wiggle The invention of the penalty kick in football https://epicchq.com/story/william-mccrum-the-irish-inventor-of-the-penalty-kick/ Alfred the Great https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v40/n09/tom-shippey/what-did-he-think-he-was Kindness https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-the-unbearable-lightness-of-being-enthralled-a-generation/ Rossini's Petite Messe Solonelle https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqrzmdevQSI This podcast is powered by ZenCast.fm

Joined this week by Jayshree. Keeping in the spirit of show we went deeply psychedelic, dubby, and tech'd out. Enjoy :)Tune into new broadcasts of Archived Vision, LIVE, every 2nd Wednesday from 10 PM - 12 AM EST / 3 - 5 AM GMT.For more info visit: https://thefaceradio.com/grand-tour///Dig this show? Please consider supporting The Face Radio: http://support.thefaceradio.com Support The Face Radio with PatreonSupport this show http://supporter.acast.com/thefaceradio. Join the family at https://plus.acast.com/s/thefaceradio. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Took a heady start towards something a little deeper, dubbier. New tracks are sprinkled throughout. Enjoy! Tune into new broadcasts of Archived Vision, LIVE, every 2nd Wednesday from 10 PM - 12 AM EST / 3 - 5 AM GMT.For more info visit: https://thefaceradio.com/grand-tour/// Support The Face Radio with PatreonSupport this show http://supporter.acast.com/thefaceradio. Join the family at https://plus.acast.com/s/thefaceradio. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Lot of unreleased from me, Daniel, and the Ricardo reissue. Deeply psychedelic, funky, dubby - the usual. Tune into new broadcasts of Archived Vision, LIVE, every 2nd Wednesday from 10 PM - 12 AM EST / 3 - 5 AM GMT.For more info visit: https://thefaceradio.com/grand-tour///Dig this show? Please consider supporting The Face Radio: http://support.thefaceradio.com Support The Face Radio with PatreonSupport this show http://supporter.acast.com/thefaceradio. Join the family at https://plus.acast.com/s/thefaceradio. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Abby and Patrick welcome writer and academic Grace Lavery to discuss her new book Pleasure and Efficacy: Of Pen Names, Cover Versions, and Other Trans Techniques. They discuss Grace's relationship to psychoanalysis; her uses of Freud and Freudianism for both theoretical and pragmatic political purposes and in service of bodily freedom; her interpretation of Freudian concepts like penis envy and the castration complex; her writing in both Pleasure and Efficacy and her memoir Please Miss on changing sexes as an empirical fact; the stakes of calling things “real” or “authentic” versus dismissing them as fake, try-hard, or otherwise affected; the tensions between queer theory and transgender studies and her notion of “egg theory”; sex, pleasure, desire, and shame; her eminently useful idea of “romances of intractability”; Eve Sedgwick's, Judith Butler's, and Lauren Berlant's later-in-life turns towards transmasculinity; and Grace's work as activist and advocate in both US and UK contexts.Grace's book Pleasure and Efficacy is here: https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691243924/pleasure-and-efficacyHer memoir, Please Miss, is here: https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/grace-lavery/please-miss/9781541620643/?lens=seal-pressThe recent piece of hers we refer to in the Los Angeles Review of Books (LARB), “Gender Criticism Versus Gender Abolition: On Three Recent Books” is here: https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/gender-criticism-versus-gender-abolition-on-three-recent-books-about-gender/Other texts referenced in the episode include:Leo Bersani, Thoughts and ThingsLeo Bersani and Adam Phillips, IntimaciesEve Kosofsky Sedgwick, “White Glasses”Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, “Shame, Theatricality, and Queer Performativity: Henry James's The Art of the Novel”Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, “How to Bring Your Kids Up Gay”Susan Stryker, “My Words to Victor Frankenstein above the Village of Chamounix: Performing Transgender Rage” Susan Stryker, “Transgender Studies: Queer Theory's Evil Twin”Sigmund Freud, “A Note Upon the ‘Mystic Writing Pad'”Freud, “On Humor”Freud, “Analysis Terminable and Interminable”Jacques Derrida, “Freud and the Scene of Writing”D. A. Miller, Place for Us: Essay on the Broadway MusicalJoan Copjec, Read My Desire: Lacan Against the HistoricistsJacques Lacan, The Ethics of Psychoanalysis (Seminar VII)LaPlanche and Pontalis, The Language of PsychoanalysisJanet Malcolm, In the Freud ArchivesHave you noticed that Freud is back? Got questions about psychoanalysis? Or maybe you've traversed the fantasy and lived to tell the tale? Leave us a voicemail! 484 775-0107  A podcast about psychoanalysis, politics, pop culture, and the ways we suffer now. New episodes on Saturdays. Follow us on social media: Linktree: https://linktr.ee/OrdinaryUnhappiness Twitter: @UnhappinessPod Instagram: @OrdinaryUnhappiness Patreon: patreon.com/OrdinaryUnhappiness Theme song: Formal Chicken - Gnossienne No. 1 https://open.spotify.com/album/2MIIYnbyLqriV3vrpUTxxO Provided by Fruits Music

Introducing: The NEW "Angel Babies Show" to the TJS Family - Elsie + AvaLynn! Today I also welcome Adam Phillips to the studio to talk about his SPANISH - TWO CONCERTS - June 10th and 11th at 4pm Where else can you hear a 30 piece orchestra playing Traditional Music with authentic regional instruments? From the flowing arpeggios of the Spanish guitar to the thrilling sounds of the Galician gaita and the exciting rhythms of Andalusia, Spain has a rich history and diverse folk music traditions. You don't want to miss Folk Orchestra Santa Barbara's Spanish concerts as they are sure to be unforgettable performances. INCLUDING: Asturias El Vito Quen Poidera Namorala Muiñeira de Chantada Aires de Pontevedra Lamma Bada and MANY MORE! Adam Phillips, Founder/Music Director Elise & Ava Lynn Buy your tickets at Adam Phillips - folkorchestrasb.com Elise - @elisethuresson On YouTube - @CaliforniaLifeHD Ava Lynn - @avalynnthuresson On YouTube - @avalynnthuresson726

Back and better than ever, Chris returns from holiday to bring you another instalment of The Chris Moyles Show on Radio X Podcast! In a week where we had competition flops and triumphs, we were joined by The Hairy Bikers, Si and Dave, to discuss their new book ‘Eat Well Every Day' as well as the stars of Ted Lasso, Phil Dunster and Kola Bokinni who gave us an insight into the gruelling audition process. We can assure you that no Dom's were harmed in the making of this podcast, as Jiu Jitsu instructor Adam Phillips brought the fire to Dom's 50 at 50 this week. And if that isn't enough, we also had:Pippa in her undiesDom being LATE to the showChris receiving a special Mandalorian gift…Enjoy!The Chris Moyles Show on Radio XWeekdays 6:30-10am