Podcasts about Auguste Comte

Clare Carlisle's biography of George Eliot, The Marriage Question, is one of my favourite modern biographies, so I was really pleased to interview Clare. We talked about George Eliot as a feminist, the imperfections of her “marriage” to George Henry Lewes, what she learned from Spinoza, having sympathy for Casaubon, contradictions in Eliot's narrative method, her use of negatives, psychoanalysis, Middlemarch, and more. We also talked about biographies of philosophers, Kierkegaard, and Somerset Maugham. I was especially pleased by Clare's answer about the reported decline in student attention spans. Overall I thought this was a great discussion. Many thanks to Clare! Full transcript below. Here is an extract from our discussion about Eliot's narrative ideas.Clare: Yes, that's right. The didactic thing, George Eliot is sometimes criticized for this didacticism because what's most effective in the novel is not the narrator coming and telling us we should actually feel sorry for Casaubon and we should sympathize with him. We'd be better people if we sympathize with Casaubon. There's a moralizing lecture about, you should feel sympathy for this unlikable person. What is more effective is the subtle way she portrays this character and, as I say, lets us into his vulnerabilities in some obvious ways, as you say, by pointing things out, but also in some more subtle ways of drawing his character and hinting at, as I say, his vulnerabilities.Henry: Doesn't she know, though, that a lot of readers won't actually be very moved by the subtle things and that she does need to put in a lecture to say, "I should tell you that I am very personally sympathetic to Mr. Casaubon and that if you leave this novel hating him, that's not--"? Isn't that why she does it? Because she knows that a lot of readers will say, "I don't care. He's a baddie."Clare: Yes I don't know, that's a good question.Henry: I'm interested because, in The Natural History of German Life, she goes to all these efforts to say abstract arguments and philosophy and statistics and such, these things don't change the world. Stories change the world. A picture of life from a great artist. Then when she's doing her picture of life from a great artist she constantly butts in with her philosophical abstractions because it's, she can't quite trust that the reader will get it right as it were.Clare: Yes, I suppose that's one way of looking at it. You could say that or maybe does she have enough confidence in her ability to make us feel with these characters. That would be another way of looking at it. Whether her lack of confidence and lack of trust is in the reader or in her own power as an artist is probably an open question.TranscriptHenry: Today I am talking to Clare Carlisle, a philosopher at King's College London and a biographer. I am a big fan of George Eliot's Double Life: The Marriage Question. I've said the title backwards, but I'm sure you'll find the book either way. Clare, welcome.Clare Carlisle: Hi, Henry. Nice to be here.Henry: Is George Eliot a disappointing feminist?Clare: Obviously disappointment is relative to expectations, isn't it? It depends on what we expect of feminism, and in particular, a 19th-century woman. I personally don't find her a disappointing feminist. Other readers have done, and I can understand why that's the case for all sorts of reasons. She took on a male identity in order to be an artist, be a philosopher in a way that she thought was to her advantage, and she's sometimes been criticized for creating heroines who have quite a conventional sort of fulfillment. Not all of them, but Dorothea in Middlemarch, for example, at the end of the novel, we look back on her life as a wife and a mother with some sort of poignancy.Yes, she's been criticized for, in a way, giving her heroines and therefore offering other women a more conventional feminine ideal than the life she managed to create and carve out for herself as obviously a very remarkable thinker and artist. I also think you can read in the novels a really bracing critique of patriarchy, actually, and a very nuanced exploration of power dynamics between men and women, which isn't simplistic. Eliot is aware that women can oppress men, just as men can oppress women. Particularly in Middlemarch, actually, there's an exploration of marital violence that overcomes the more gendered portrayal of it, perhaps in Eliot's own earlier works where, in a couple of her earlier stories, she portrayed abused wives who were victims of their husband's betrayal, violence, and so on.Whereas in Middlemarch, it's interestingly, the women are as controlling, not necessarily in a nasty way, but just that that's the way human beings navigate their relations with each other. It seems to be part of what she's exploring in Middlemarch. No, I don't find her a disappointing feminist. We should be careful about the kind of expectations we, in the 21st century project onto Eliot.Henry: Was George Henry Lewes too controlling?Clare: I think one of the claims of this book is that there was more darkness in that relationship than has been acknowledged by other biographers, let's put it that way. When I set out to write the book, I'd read two or three other biographies of Eliot by this point. One thing that's really striking is this very wonderfully supportive husbands that, in the form of Lewes, George Eliot has, and a very cheerful account of that relationship and how marvelous he was. A real celebration of this relationship where the husband is, in many ways, putting his wife's career before his own, supporting her.Lewes acted as her agent, as her editor informally. He opened her mail for her. He really put himself at the service of her work in ways that are undoubtedly admirable. Actually, when I embarked on writing this book, I just accepted that narrative myself and was interested in this very positive portrayal of the relationship, found it attractive, as other writers have obviously done. Then, as I wrote the book, I was obviously reading more of the primary sources, the letters Eliot was writing and diary entries. I started to just have a bit of a feeling about this relationship, that it was light and dark, it wasn't just light.The ambiguity there was what really interested me, of, how do you draw the line between a husband or a wife who's protective, even sheltering the spouse from things that might upset them and supportive of their career and helpful in practical ways. How do you draw the line between that and someone who's being controlling? I think there were points where Lewes crossed that line. In a way, what's more interesting is, how do you draw that line. How do partners draw that line together? Not only how would we draw the line as spectators on that relationship, obviously only seeing glimpses of the inner life between the two people, but how do the partners themselves both draw those lines and then navigate them?Yes, I do suggest in the book that Lewes could be controlling and in ways that I think Eliot herself felt ambivalent about. I think she partly enjoyed that feeling of being protected. Actually, there was something about the conventional gendered roles of that, that made her feel more feminine and wifely and submissive, In a way, to some extent, I think she bought into that ideal, but also she felt its difficulties and its tensions. I also think for Lewes, this is a man who is himself conditioned by patriarchal norms with the expectation that the husband should be the successful one, the husband should be the provider, the one who's earning the money.He had to navigate a situation. That was the situation when they first got together. When they first got together, he was more successful writer. He was the man of the world who was supporting Eliot, who was more at the beginning of her career to some extent and helping her make connections. He had that role at the beginning. Then, within a few years, it had shifted and suddenly he had this celebrated best-selling novelist on his hands, which was, even though he supported her success, partly for his own financial interests, it wasn't necessarily what he'd bargained for when he got into the relationship.I think we can also see Lewes navigating the difficulties of that role, of being, to some extent, maybe even disempowered in that relationship and possibly reacting to that vulnerability with some controlling behavior. It's maybe something we also see in the Dorothea-Casaubon relationship where they get together. Not that I think that at all Casaubon was modeled on Lewes, not at all, but something of the dynamic there where they get together and the young woman is in awe of this learned man and she's quite subservient to him and looking up to him and wanting him to help her make her way in the world and teach her things.Then it turns out that his insecurity about his own work starts to come through. He reacts, and the marriage brings out his own insecurity about his work. Then he becomes quite controlling of Dorothea, perhaps again as a reaction to his own sense of vulnerability and insecurity. The point of my interpretation is not to portray Lewes as some villain, but rather to see these dynamics and as I say, ambivalences, ambiguities that play themselves out in couples, between couples.Henry: I came away from the book feeling like it was a great study of talent management in a way, and that the both of them were very lucky to find someone who was so well-matched to their particular sorts of talents. There are very few literary marriages where that is the case, or where that is successfully the case. The other one, the closest parallel I came up with was the Woolfs. Leonard is often said he's too controlling, which I find a very unsympathetic reading of a man who looked after a woman who nearly died. I think he was doing what he felt she required. In a way, I agree, Lewes clearly steps over the line several times. In a way, he was doing what she required to become George Eliot, as it were.Clare: Yes, absolutely.Henry: Which is quite remarkable in a way.Clare: Yes. I don't think Mary Ann Evans would have become George Eliot without that partnership with Lewes. I think that's quite clear. That's not because he did the work, but just that there was something about that, the partnership between them, that enabled that creativity…Henry: He knew all the people and he knew the literary society and all the editors, and therefore he knew how to take her into that world without it overwhelming her, giving her crippling headaches, sending her into a depression.Clare: Yes.Henry: In a way, I came away more impressed with them from the traditional, isn't it angelic and blah, blah, blah.Clare: Oh, that's good.Henry: What did George Eliot learn from Spinoza?Clare: I think she learned an awful lot from Spinoza. She translated Spinoza in the 1850s. She translated Spinoza's Ethics, which is Spinoza's philosophical masterpiece. That's really the last major project that Eliot did before she started to write fiction. It has, I think, quite an important place in her career. It's there at that pivotal point, just before she becomes an artist, as she puts it, as a fiction writer. Because she didn't just read The Ethics, but she translated it, she read it very, very closely, and I think was really quite deeply formed by a particular Spinozist ethical vision.Spinoza thinks that human beings are not self-sufficient. He puts that in very metaphysical terms. A more traditional philosophical view is to say that individual things are substances. I'm a substance, you're a substance. What it means to be a substance is to be self-sufficient, independent. For example, I would be a substance, but my feeling of happiness on this sunny morning would be a more accidental feature of my being.Henry: Sure.Clare: Something that depends on my substance, and then these other features come and go. They're passing, they're just modes of substance, like a passing mood or whatever, or some kind of characteristic I might have. That's the more traditional view, whereas Spinoza said that there's only one substance, and that's God or nature, which is just this infinite totality. We're all modes of that one substance. That means that we don't have ontological independence, self-sufficiency. We're more like a wave on the ocean that's passing through. One ethical consequence of that way of thinking is that we are interconnected.We're all interconnected. We're not substances that then become connected and related to other substances, rather we emerge as beings through this, our place in this wider whole. That interconnectedness of all things and the idea that individuals are really constituted by their relations is, I think, a Spinoza's insight that George Eliot drew on very deeply and dramatized in her fiction. I think it's there all through her fiction, but it becomes quite explicit in Middlemarch where she talks about, she has this master metaphor of the web.Henry: The web. Right.Clare: In Middlemarch, where everything is part of a web. You put pressure on a bit of it and something changes in another part of the web. That interconnectedness can be understood on multiple levels. Biologically, the idea that tissues are formed in this organic holistic way, rather than we're not composed of parts, like machines, but we're these organic holes. There's a biological idea of the web, which she explores. Also, the economic system of exchange that holds a community together. Then I suppose, perhaps most interestingly, the more emotional and moral features of the web, the way one person's life is bound up with and shaped by their encounters with all the other lives that it comes into contact with.In a way, it's a way of thinking that really, it questions any idea of self-sufficiency, but it also questions traditional ideas of what it is to be an individual. You could see a counterpart to this way of thinking in a prominent 19th-century view of history, which sees history as made by heroic men, basically. There's this book by Carlyle, Thomas Carlyle, called The Heroic in History, or something like that.Henry: Sure. On heroes and the heroic, yes.Clare: Yes. That's a really great example of this way of thinking about history as made by heroes. Emerson wrote this book called Representative Men. These books were published, I think, in the early 1850s. Representative Men. Again, he identifies these certain men, these heroic figures, which represent history in a way. Then a final example of this is Auguste Comte's Positivist Calendar, which, he's a humanist, secularist thinker who wants to basically recreate culture and replace our calendar with this lunar calendar, which, anyway, it's a different calendar, has 13 months.Each month is named after a great man. There's Shakespeare, and there's Dante, and there's-- I don't know, I can't remember. Anyway, there's this parade of heroic men. Napoleon. Anyway, that's the view of history that Eliot grew up with. She was reading, she was really influenced by Carlisle and Emerson and Comte. In that landscape, she is creating this alternative Spinozist vision of what an exemplar can be like and who gets to be an exemplar. Dorothea was a really interesting exemplar because she's unhistoric. At the very end of Middlemarch, she describes Dorothea's unhistoric life that comes to rest in an unvisited tomb.She's obscure. She's not visible on the world stage. She's forgotten once she dies. She's obscure. She's ordinary. She's a provincial woman, upper middle-class provincial woman, who makes some bad choices. She has high ideals but ends up living a life that from the outside is not really an extraordinary life at all. Also, she is constituted by her relations with others in both directions. Her own life is really shaped by her milieu, by her relationships with the people. Also, at the end of the novel, Eliot leaves us with a vision of the way Dorothea's life has touched other lives and in ways that can't be calculated, can't really be recognized. Yet, she has these effects that are diffused.She uses this word, diffusion or diffuseness. The diffuseness of the effects of Dorothea's life, which seep into the world. Of course, she's a woman. She's not a great hero in this Carlyle or Emerson sense. In all these ways, I think this is a very different way of thinking about individuality, but also history and the way the world is made, that history and the world is made by, in this more Spinozist kind of way, rather than by these heroic representative men who stand on the world stage. That's not Spinoza's, that's Eliot's original thinking. She's taking a Spinozist ontology, a Spinozist metaphysics, but really she's creating her own vision with that, that's, of course, located in that 19th-century context.Henry: How sympathetic should we be to Mr. Casaubon?Clare: I feel very sympathetic to Mr. Casaubon because he is so vulnerable. He's a really very vulnerable person. Of course, in the novel, we are encouraged to look at it from Dorothea's point of view, and so when we look at it from Dorothea's point of view, Casaubon is a bad thing. The best way to think about it is the view of Dorothea's sister Celia, her younger sister, who is a very clear-eyed observer, who knows that Dorothea is making a terrible mistake in marrying this man. She's quite disdainful of Casaubon's, well, his unattractive looks.He's only about 40, but he's portrayed as this dried-up, pale-faced scholar, academic, who is incapable of genuine emotional connection with another person, which is quite tragic, really. The hints are that he's not able to have a sexual relationship. He's so buttoned up and repressed, in a way. When we look at it from Dorothea's perspective, we say, "No, he's terrible, he's bad for you, he's not going to be good for you," which of course is right. I think Eliot herself had a lot of sympathy for Casaubon. There's an anecdote which said that when someone asked who Casaubon was based on, she pointed to herself.I think she saw something of herself in him. On an emotional level, I think he's just a fascinating character, isn't he, in a way, from an aesthetic point of view? The point is not do we like Casaubon or do we not like him? I think we are encouraged to feel sympathy with him, even as, on the one, it's so clever because we're taken along, we're encouraged to feel as Celia feels, where we dislike him, we don't sympathize with him. Then Eliot is also showing us how that view is quite limited, I think, because we do occasionally see the world from Casaubon's point of view and see how fearful Casaubon is.Henry: She's also explicit and didactic about the need to sympathize with him, right? It's often in asides, but at one point, she gives over most of a chapter to saying, "Poor Mr. Casaubon. He didn't think he'd end up like this." Things have actually gone very badly for him as well.Clare: Yes, that's right. The didactic thing, George Eliot is sometimes criticized for this didacticism because what's most effective in the novel is not the narrator coming and telling us we should actually feel sorry for Casaubon and we should sympathize with him. We'd be better people if we sympathize with Casaubon. There's a moralizing lecture about, you should feel sympathy for this unlikable person. What is more effective is the subtle way she portrays this character and, as I say, lets us into his vulnerabilities in some obvious ways, as you say, by pointing things out, but also in some more subtle ways of drawing his character and hinting at, as I say, his vulnerabilities.Henry: Doesn't she know, though, that a lot of readers won't actually be very moved by the subtle things and that she does need to put in a lecture to say, "I should tell you that I am very personally sympathetic to Mr. Casaubon and that if you leave this novel hating him, that's not--"? Isn't that why she does it? Because she knows that a lot of readers will say, "I don't care. He's a baddie."Clare: Yes I don't know, that's a good question.Henry: I'm interested because, in The Natural History of German Life, she goes to all these efforts to say abstract arguments and philosophy and statistics and such, these things don't change the world. Stories change the world. A picture of life from a great artist. Then when she's doing her picture of life from a great artist she constantly butts in with her philosophical abstractions because it's, she can't quite trust that the reader will get it right as it were.Clare: Yes, I suppose that's one way of looking at it. You could say that or maybe does she have enough confidence in her ability to make us feel with these characters. That would be another way of looking at it. Whether her lack of confidence and lack of trust is in the reader or in her own power as an artist is probably an open question.Henry: There's a good book by Debra Gettelman about the way that novelists like Eliot knew what readers expected because they were all reading so many cheap romance novels and circulating library novels. There are a lot of negations and arguments with the reader to say, "I know what you want this story to do and I know how you want this character to turn out, but I'm not going to do that. You must go with me with what I'm doing.Clare: Yes. You mean this new book that's come out called Imagining Otherwise?Henry: That's right, yes.Clare: I've actually not read it yet, I've ordered it, but funnily enough, as you said at the beginning, I'm a philosopher so I'm not trained at all as a reader of literary texts or as a literary scholar by any means, and so I perhaps foolishly embarked on this book on George Eliot thinking, "Oh, next I'm going to write a book about George Eliot." Anyway, I ended up going to a couple of conferences on George Eliot, which was interestingly like stepping into a different world. The academic world of literary studies is really different from the world of academic philosophy, interestingly.It's run by women for a start. You go to a conference and it's very female-dominated. There's all these very eminent senior women or at least at this conference I went to there was these distinguished women who were running the show. Then there were a few men in that mix, which is the inverse of often what it can be like in a philosophy conference, which is still quite a male-dominated discipline. The etiquette is different. Philosophers like to criticize each other's arguments. That's the way we show love is to criticize and take down another philosopher's argument.Whereas the academics at this George Eliot conference were much more into acknowledging what they'd learned from other people's work and referencing. Anyway, it's really interestingly different. Debra Gettelman was at this conference.Henry: Oh, great.Clare: She had a book on Middlemarch. I think it was 2019 because it was the bicentenary of Eliot's birth, that's why there was this big conference. Debra, who I'd never met before or heard of, as I just didn't really know this world, gave this amazing talk on Middlemarch and on these negations in Middlemarch. It really influenced me, it really inspired me. The way she did these close readings of the sentences, this is what literary scholars are trained to do, but I haven't had that training and the close reading of the sentences, which didn't just yield interesting insights into the way George Eliot uses language but yielded this really interesting philosophical work where Eliot is using forms of the sentence to explore ontological questions about negation and possibility and modality.This was just so fascinating and really, it was a small paper in one of those parallel sessions. It wasn't one of the big presentations at the conference, but it was that talk that most inspired me at the conference. It's a lot of the insights that I got from Debra Gettelman I ended up drawing on in my own chapter on Middlemarch. I situated it a bit more in the history of philosophy and thinking about negation as a theme.Henry: This is where you link it to Hegel.Clare: Yes, to Hegel, exactly. I was so pleased to see that the book is out because I think I must have gone up to her after the talk and said, "Oh, it's really amazing." Was like, "Oh, thank you." I was like, "Is it published? Can I cite it?" She said, "No. I'm working on this project." It seemed like she felt like it was going to be a long time in the making. Then a few weeks ago, I saw a review of the book in the TLS. I thought, "Oh, amazing, the book is out. It just sounds brilliant." I can't wait to read that book. Yes, she talks about Eliot alongside, I think, Dickens and another.Henry: And Jane Austen.Clare: Jane Austen, amazing. Yes. I think it's to do with, as you say, writing in response to readerly expectation and forming readerly expectations. Partly thanks to Debra Gettelman, I can see how Eliot does that. It'd be really interesting to learn how she sees Jane Austen and Dickens also doing that.Henry: It's a brilliant book. You're in for a treat.Clare: Yes, I'm sure it is. That doesn't surprise me at all.Henry: Now, you say more than once in your book, that Eliot anticipates some of the insights of psychotherapy.Clare: Psychoanalysis.Henry: Yes. What do you think she would have made of Freud or of our general therapy culture? I think you're right, but she has very different aims and understandings of these things. What would she make of it now?Clare: It seems that Freud was probably influenced by Eliot. That's a historical question. He certainly read and admired Eliot. I suspect, yes, was influenced by some of her insights, which in turn, she's drawing on other stuff. What do you have in mind? Your question suggests that you think she might have disapproved of therapy culture.Henry: I think novelists in general are quite ambivalent about psychoanalysis and therapy. Yes.Clare: For what reason?Henry: If you read someone like Iris Murdoch, who's quite Eliotic in many ways, she would say, "Do these therapists ever actually help anyone?"Clare: Ah.Henry: A lot of her characters are sent on these slightly dizzying journeys. They're often given advice from therapists or priests or philosophers, and obviously, Murdoch Is a philosopher. The advice from the therapists and the philosophers always ends these characters up in appalling situations. It's art and literature. As you were saying before, a more diffusive understanding and a way of integrating yourself with other things rather than looking back into your head and dwelling on it.Clare: Of course. Yes.Henry: I see more continuity between Eliot and that kind of thinking. I wonder if you felt that the talking cure that you identified at the end of Middlemarch is quite sound common sense and no-nonsense. It's not lie on the couch and tell me how you feel, is it?Clare: I don't know. That's one way to look at it, I suppose. Another way to look at it would be to see Eliot and Freud is located in this broadly Socratic tradition of one, the idea that if you understand yourself better, then that is a route to a certain qualified kind of happiness or fulfillment or liberation. The best kind of human life there could be is one where we gain insight into our own natures. We bring to light what is hidden from us, whether those are desires that are hidden away in the shadows and they're actually motivating our behavior, but we don't realize it, and so we are therefore enslaved to them.That's a very old idea that you find in ancient philosophy. Then the question is, by what methods do we bring these things to light? Is it through Socratic questioning? Is it through art? Eliot's art is an art that I think encourages us to see ourselves in the characters. As we come to understand the characters, and in particular to go back to what I said before about Spinozism, to see their embeddedness and their interconnectedness in these wider webs, but also in a sense of that embeddedness in psychic forces that they're not fully aware of. Part of what you could argue is being exposed there, and this would be a Spinozist insight, is the delusion of free will.The idea that we act freely with these autonomous agents who have access to and control over our desires, and we pick the thing that's in our interest and we act on that. That's a view that I think Spinoza is very critical. He famously denies free will. He says we're determined, we just don't understand how we're determined. When we understand better how we're determined, then perhaps paradoxically we actually do become relatively empowered through our understanding. I think there's something of that in Eliot too, and arguably there's something of that in Freud as well. I know you weren't actually so much asking about Freud's theory and practice, and more about a therapy culture.Henry: All of it.Clare: You're also asking about that. As I say, the difference would be the method for accomplishing this process of a kind of enlightenment. Of course, Freud's techniques medicalizes that project basically. It's the patient and the doctor in dialogue, and depends a lot on the skills of the doctor, doesn't it? How successful, and who is also a human being, who is also another human being, who isn't of course outside of the web, but is themselves in it, and ideally has themselves already undergone this process of making themselves more transparent to their own understanding, but of course, is going to be liable to their own blind spots, and so on.Henry: Which of her novels do you love the most? Just on a personal level, it doesn't have to be which one you think is the most impressive or whatever.Clare: I'm trying to think how to answer that question. I was thinking if I had to reread one of them next week, which one would I choose? If I was going on holiday and I wanted a beach read for pure enjoyment, which of the novels would I pick up? Probably Middlemarch. I think it's probably the most enjoyable, the most fun to read of her novels, basically.Henry: Sure.Clare: There'd be other reasons for picking other books. I really think Daniel Deronda is amazing because of what she's trying to do in that book. Its ambition, it doesn't always succeed in giving us the reading experience that is the most enjoyable. In terms of just the staggering philosophical and artistic achievement, what she's attempting to do, and what she does to a large extent achieve in that book, I think is just incredible. As a friend of Eliot, I have a real love for Daniel Deronda because I just think that what an amazing thing she did in writing that book. Then I've got a soft spot for Silas Marner, which is short and sweet.Henry: I think I'd take The Mill on the Floss. That's my favorite.Clare: Oh, would you?Henry: I love that book.Clare: That also did pop into my mind as another contender. Yes, because it's so personal in a way, The Mill on the Floss. It's personal to her, it's also personal to me in that, it's the first book by Eliot I read because I studied it for A-Level. I remember thinking when we were at the beginning of that two-year period when I'd chosen my English literature A-Level and we got the list of texts we were going to read, I remember seeing The Mill on the Floss and thinking, "Oh God, that sounds so boring." The title, something about the title, it just sounded awful. I remember being a bit disappointed that it wasn't a Jane Austen or something more fun.I thought, "Oh, The Mill on the Floss." Then I don't have a very strong memory of the book, but I remember thinking, actually, it was better than I expected. I did think, actually, it wasn't as awful and boring as I thought it would be. It's a personal book to Eliot. I think that exploring the life of a mind of a young woman who has no access to proper education, very limited access to art and culture, she's stuck in this little village near a provincial town full of narrow-minded conservative people. That's Eliot's experience herself. It was a bit my experience, too, as, again, not that I even would have seen it this way at the time, but a girl with intellectual appetites and not finding those appetites very easily satisfied in, again, a provincial, ordinary family and the world and so on.Henry: What sort of reader were you at school?Clare: What sort of reader?Henry: Were you reading lots of Plato, lots of novels?Clare: No. I'm always really surprised when I meet people who say things like they were reading Kierkegaard and Plato when they were 15 or 16. No, not at all. No, I loved reading, so I just read lots and lots of novels. I loved Jane Eyre. That was probably one of the first proper novels, as with many people, that I remember reading that when I was about 12 and partly feeling quite proud of myself for having read this grown-up book, but also really loving the book. I reread that probably several times before I was 25. Jane Austen and just reading.Then also I used to go to the library, just completely gripped by some boredom and restlessness and finding something to read. I read a lot and scanning the shelves and picking things out. That way I read more contemporary fiction. Just things like, I don't know, Julian Barnes or, Armistead Maupin, or just finding stuff on the shelves of the library that looked interesting, or Anita Brookner or Somerset Maugham. I really love Somerset Maugham.Henry: Which ones do you like?Clare: I remember reading, I think I read The Razor's Edge first.Henry: That's a great book.Clare: Yes, and just knowing nothing about it, just picking it off the shelf and thinking, "Oh, this looks interesting." I've always liked a nice short, small paperback. That would always appeal. Then once I found a book I liked, I'd then obviously read other stuff by that writer. I then read, so The Razor's Edge and-- Oh, I can't remember.Henry: The Moon and Sixpence, maybe?Clare: Yes, The Moon and Sixpence, and-Henry: Painted Veils?Clare: -Human Bondage.Henry: Of Human Bondage, right.Clare: Human Bondage, which is, actually, he took the title from Spinoza's Ethics. That's the title. Cluelessly, as a teenager, I was like, "Ooh, this book is interesting." Actually, when I look back, I can see that those writers, like Maugham, for example, he was really interested in philosophy. He was really interested in art and philosophy, and travel, and culture, and religion, all the things I am actually interested in. I wouldn't have known that that was why I loved the book. I just liked the book and found it gripping. It spoke to me, and I wanted to just read more other stuff like that.I was the first person in my family to go to university, so we didn't have a lot of books in the house. We had one bookcase. There were a few decent things in there along with the Jeffrey Archers in there. I read everything on that bookshelf. I read the Jeffrey Archers, I read the True Crime, I read the In Cold Blood, just this somewhat random-- I think there was probably a couple of George Eliots on there. A few classics, I would, again, grip by boredom on a Sunday afternoon, just stare at this shelf and think, "Oh, is there anything?" Maybe I'll end up with a Thomas Hardy or something. It was quite limited. I didn't really know anything about philosophy. I didn't think of doing philosophy at university, for example. I actually decided to do history.I went to Cambridge to do history. Then, after a couple of weeks, just happened to meet someone who was doing philosophy. I was like, "Oh, that's what I want to do." I only recognized it when I saw it. I hadn't really seen it because I went to the local state school, it wasn't full of teachers who knew about philosophy and stuff like that.Henry: You graduated in theology and philosophy, is that right?Clare: Yes. Cambridge, the degrees are in two parts. I did Part 1, theology, and then I did Part 2, philosophy. I graduated in philosophy, but I studied theology in my first year at Cambridge.Henry: What are your favorite Victorian biographies?Clare: You mean biographies of Victorians?Henry: Of Victorians, by Victorians, whatever.Clare: I don't really read many biographies.Henry: Oh, really?Clare: [laughs] The first biography I wrote was a biography of Kierkegaard. I remember thinking, when I started to write the book, "I'd better read some biographies." I always tend to read fiction. I'm not a big reader of history, which is so ironic. I don't know what possessed me to go and study history at university. These are not books I read for pleasure. I suppose I am quite hedonistic in my choice of reading, I like to read for pleasure.Henry: Sure. Of course.Clare: I don't tend to read nonfiction. Obviously, I do sometimes read nonfiction for pleasure, but it's not the thing I'm most drawn to. Anyway. I remember asking my editor, I probably didn't mention that I didn't know very much about biography, but I did ask him to recommend some. I'd already got the book contract. I said, "What do you think is a really good biography that I should read?" He recommended, I think, who is it who wrote The Life of Gibbon? Really famous biography of Gibbon.Henry: I don't know.Clare: That one. I read it. It is really good. My mind is going blank. I read many biographies of George Eliot before I wrote mine.Henry: They're not all wonderful, are they?Clare: I really liked Catherine Hughes's book because it brought her down from her pedestal.Henry: Exactly. Yes.Clare: Talking about hedonism, I would read anything that Catherine Hughes writes just for enjoyment because she's such a good writer. She's a very intellectual woman, but she's also very entertaining. She writes to entertain, which I like and appreciate as a reader. There's a couple of big archival biographies of George Eliot by Gordon Haight and by Rosemary Ashton, for example, which are both just invaluable. One of the great things about that kind of book is that it frees you to write a different kind of biography that can be more interpretive and more selective. Once those kinds of books have been published, there's no point doing another one. You can do something more creative, potentially, or more partial.I really like Catherine Hughes's. She was good at seeing through Eliot sometimes, and making fun of her, even though it's still a very respectful book. There's also this brilliant book about Eliot by Rosemary Bodenheimer called The Real Life of Mary Ann Evans. It's a biographical book, but it's written through the letters. She sees Eliot's life through her letters. Again, it's really good at seeing through Eliot. What Eliot says is not always what she means. She can be quite defensive and boastful. These are things that really come out in her letters. Anyway, that's a brilliant book, which again, really helped me to read Eliot critically. Not unsympathetically, but critically, because I tend to fall in love with thinkers that I'm reading. I'm not instinctively critical. I want to just show how amazing they are, but of course, you also need to be critical. Those books were--Henry: Or realistic.Clare: Yes, realistic and just like, "This is a human being," and having a sense of humor about it as well. That's what's great about Catherine Hughes's book, is that she's got a really good sense of humor. That makes for a fun reading experience.Henry: Why do you think more philosophers don't write biographies? It's an unphilosophical activity, isn't it?Clare: That's a very interesting question. Just a week or so ago, I was talking to Clare Mac Cumhaill I'm not quite sure how you pronounce her name, but anyway, so there's--Henry: Oh, who did the four women in Oxford?Clare: Yes. Exactly.Henry: That was a great book.Clare: Yes. Clare MacCumhaill co-wrote this book with Rachael Wiseman. They're both philosophers. They wrote this group biography of Iris Murdoch, Elizabeth Anscombe, Philippa Foot, and Mary Midgley. I happened to be having dinner with a group of philosophers and sitting opposite her. Had never met her before. It was just a delight to talk to another philosopher who'd written biography. We both felt that there was a real philosophical potential in biography, that thinking about a shape of a human life, what it is to know another person, the connection between a person's life and their philosophy. Even to put it that way implies that philosophy is something that isn't part of life, that you've got philosophy over here and you've got life over there. Then you think about the connection between them.That, when you think about it, is quite a questionable way of looking at philosophy as if it's somehow separate from life or detachment life. We had a really interesting conversation about this. There's Ray Monk's brilliant biography of Wittgenstein, The Duty of Genius. He's another philosopher who's written biography, and then went on to reflect, interestingly, on the relationship between philosophy and biography.I think on the one hand, I'd want to question the idea that biography and philosophy are two different things or that a person's life and their thought are two separate questions. On the other hand, we've got these two different literary forms. One of them is a narrative form of writing, and one of them- I don't know what the technical term for it would be- but a more systematic writing where with systematic writing, it's not pinned to a location or a time, and the structure of the text is conceptual rather than narrative. It's not ordered according to events and chronology, and things happening, you've just got a more analytic style of writing.Those two styles of writing are very, very different ways of writing. They're two different literary forms. Contemporary academic philosophers tend to write, almost always-- probably are pretty much forced to write in the systematic analytic style because as soon as you would write a narrative, the critique will be, "Well, that's not philosophy. That's history," or "That's biography," or, "That's anecdote." You might get little bits of narrative in some thought experiment, but by definition, the thought experiment is never pinned to a particular time, place, or context. "Let's imagine a man standing on a bridge. There's a fat man tied to the railway line [crosstalk]." Those are like little narratives, but they're not pinned. There is a sequencing, so I suppose they are narratives. Anyway, as you can tell, they're quite abstracted little narratives.That interests me. Why is it that narrative is seen as unphilosophical? Particularly when you think about the history of philosophy, and we think about Plato's dialogues, which tend to have a narrative form, and the philosophical conversation is often situated within a narrative. The Phaedo, for example, at the beginning of the book, Socrates is sitting in prison, and he's about to drink his poisoned hemlock. He's awaiting execution. His friends, students, and disciples are gathered around him. They're talking about death and how Socrates feels about dying. Then, at the end of the book, he dies, and his friends are upset about it.Think about, I know, Descartes' Meditations, where we begin in the philosopher's study, and he's describing--Henry: With the fire.Clare: He's by the fire, but he's also saying, "I've reached a point in my life where I thought, actually, it's time to question some assumptions." He's sitting by the fire, but he's also locating the scene in his own life trajectory. He's reached a certain point in life. Of course, that may be a rhetorical device. Some readers might want to say, "Well, that's mere ornamentation. We extract the arguments from that. That's where the philosophy is." I think it's interesting to think about why philosophers might choose narrative as a form.Spinoza, certainly not in the Ethics, which is about as un-narrative as you can get, but in some of his other, he experimented with an earlier version of the Ethics, which is actually like Descartes' meditation. He begins by saying, "After experience had taught me to question all the values I'd been taught to pursue, I started to wonder whether there was some other genuine good that was eternal," and so on. He then goes on to narrate his experiments with a different kind of life, giving up certain things and pursuing other things.Then you come to George Eliot. I think these are philosophical books.Henry: Yes.Clare: The challenge lies in saying, "Well, how are they philosophical?" Are they philosophical because there are certain ideas in the books that you could pick out and say, "Oh, here, she's critiquing utilitarianism. These are her claims." You can do that with Eliot's books. There are arguments embedded in the books. I wouldn't want to say that that's where their philosophical interest is exhausted by the fact that you can extract non-narrative arguments from them, but rather there's also something philosophical in her exploration of what a human life is like and how choices get made and how those choices, whether they're free or unfree, shape a life, shape other lives. What human happiness can we realistically hope for? What does a good life look like? What does a bad life look like? Why is the virtue of humility important?These are also, I think, philosophical themes that can perhaps only be treated in a long-form, i.e., in a narrative that doesn't just set a particular scene from a person's life, but that follows the trajectory of a life. That was a very long answer to your question.Henry: No, it was a good answer. I like it.Clare: Just to come back to what you said about biography. When I wrote my first biography on Kierkegaard, I really enjoyed working in this medium of narrative for the first time. I like writing. I'd enjoyed writing my earlier books which were in that more analytic conceptual style where the structure was determined by themes and by concepts rather than by any chronology. I happily worked in that way. I had to learn how to do it. I had to learn how to write. How do you write a narrative?To come back to the Metaphysical Animals, the group biography, writing a narrative about one person's life is complicated enough, but writing a narrative of four lives, it's a real-- from a technical point of view-- Even if you only have one life, lives are not linear. If you think about a particular period in your subject's life, people have lots of different things going on at once that have different timeframes. You're going through a certain period in your relationship, you're working on a book, someone close to you dies, you're reading Hegel. All that stuff is going on. The narrative is not going to be, "Well, on Tuesday this happened, and then on Wednesday--" You can't use pure chronology to structure a narrative. It's not just one thing following another.It's not like, "Well, first I'll talk about the relationship," which is an issue that was maybe stretching over a three-month period. Then in this one week, she was reading Hegel and making these notes that were really important. Then, in the background to this is Carlisle's view of history. You've got these different temporal periods that are all bearing on a single narrative. The challenge to create a narrative from all that, that's difficult, as any biographer knows. To do that with four subjects at once is-- Anyway, they did an amazing job in that book.Henry: It never gets boring, that book.Clare: No. I guess the problem with a biography is often you're stuck with this one person through the whole--Henry: I think the problem with a biography of philosophers is that it can get very boring. They kept the interest for four thinkers. I thought that was very impressive, really.Clare: Yes, absolutely. Yes. There's a really nice balance between the philosophy and the-- I like to hear about Philippa Foot's taste in cushions. Maybe some readers would say, "Oh, no, that's frivolous." It's not the view I would take. For me, it's those apparently frivolous details that really help you to connect with a person. They will deliver a sense of the person that nothing else will. There's no substitute for that.In my book about Kierkegaard, it was reviewed by Terry Eagleton in the London Review of Books. It was generally quite a positive review. He was a bit sneering about the fact that it had what he calls "domestic flourishes" in the book. I'd mentioned that Kierkegaard's favorite flower was the lily of the valley. He's like, "Huh." He saw these as frivolities, whereas for me, the fact that Kierkegaard had a favorite flower tells us something about the kind of man he was.Henry: Absolutely.Clare: Actually, his favorite flower had all sorts of symbolism attached to it, Kierkegaard, it had 10 different layers of meaning. It's never straightforward. There's interesting value judgments that get made. There's partly the view that anything biographical is not philosophical. It is in some way frivolous or incidental. That would be perhaps a very austere, purest philosophical on a certain conception of philosophy view.Then you might also have views about what is and isn't interesting, what is and isn't significant. Actually, that's a really interesting question. What is significant about a person's life, and what isn't? Actually, to come back to Eliot, that's a question she is, I think, absolutely preoccupied with, most of all in Middlemarch and in Daniel Deronda. This question about what is trivial and what is significant. Dorothea is frustrated because she feels that her life is trivial. She thinks that Casaubon is preoccupied with really significant questions, the key to all mythologies, and so on.Henry: [chuckles]Clare: There's really a deep irony there because that view of what's significant is really challenged in the novel. Casaubon's project comes to seem really futile, petty, and insignificant. In Daniel Deronda, you've got this amazing question where she shows her heroine, Gwendolyn, who's this selfish 20-year-old girl who's pursuing her own self-interest in a pretty narrow way, about flirting and thinking about her own romantic prospects.Henry: Her income.Clare: She's got this inner world, which is the average preoccupation of a silly 20-year-old girl.Henry: Yes. [laughs]Clare: Then Eliot's narrator asks, "Is there a slenderer, more insignificant thread in human history than this consciousness of a girl who's preoccupied with how to make her own life pleasant?" The question she's asking is-- Well, I think she wants to tell us that slender thread of the girl's consciousness is part of the universe, basically. It's integral. It belongs to a great drama of the struggle between good and evil, which is this mythical, cosmic, religious, archetypal drama that gets played out on the scale of the universe, but also, in this silly girl's consciousness.I think she's got to a point where she was very explicitly thematizing that distinction between the significant and the insignificant and playing with that distinction. It comes back to Dorothea's unhistoric life. It's unhistoric, it's insignificant. Yet, by the end of Middlemarch, by the time we get to that description of Dorothea's unhistoric life, this life has become important to us. We care about Dorothea and how her life turned out. It has this grandeur to it that I think Eliot exposes. It's not the grandeur of historic importance, it's some other human grandeur that I think she wants to find in the silly girls as much as in the great men.Henry: I always find remarks like that quite extraordinary. One of the things I want a biography to tell me is, "How did they come to believe these things?" and, "How did they get the work done?" The flowers that he likes, that's part of that, right? It's like Bertrand Russell going off on his bicycle all the time. That's part of how it all happened. I remember Elizabeth Anscombe in the book about the four philosophers, this question of, "How does she do it all when she's got these six children?" There's this wonderful image of her standing in the doorway to her house smoking. The six children are tumbling around everywhere. The whole place is filthy. I think they don't own a Hoover or she doesn't use it. You just get this wonderful sense of, "This is how she gets it done."Clare: That's how you do it.Henry: Yes. The idea that this is some minor domestic trivial; no, this is very important to understanding Elizabeth Anscombe, right?Clare: Yes, of course.Henry: I want all of this.Clare: Yes. One of the things I really like about her is that she unashamedly brings that domesticity into her philosophical work. She'll use examples like, "I go to buy some potatoes from the grocer's." She'll use that example, whereas that's not the thing that-- Oxford dons don't need to buy any potatoes because they have these quasi-monastic lives where they get cooked for and cleaned for. I like the way she chooses those. Of course, she's not a housewife, but she chooses these housewifely examples to illustrate her philosophy.I don't know enough about Anscombe, but I can imagine that that's a deliberate choice. That's a choice she's making. There's so many different examples she could have thought of. She's choosing that example, which is an example, it shows a woman doing philosophy, basically. Of course, men can buy potatoes too, but in that culture, the buying of the potatoes would be the woman's work.Henry: Yes. She wasn't going to run into AJ Ayre at the grocer's.Clare: Probably not, no.Henry: No. Are you religious in any sense?Clare: I think I am in some sense. Yes, "religious," I think it's a really problematic concept. I've written a bit about this concept of religion and what it might mean. I wrote a book on Spinoza called Spinoza's Religion. Part of what I learned through writing the book was that in order to decide whether or not Spinoza was religious, we have to rethink the very concept of religion, or we have to see that that's what Spinoza was doing.I don't know. Some people are straightforwardly religious and I guess could answer that question, say, "Oh yes, I've always been a Christian," or whatever. My answer is a yes and no answer, where I didn't have a religious upbringing, and I don't have a strong religious affiliation. Sorry, I'm being very evasive.Henry: What do you think of the idea that we're about to live through or we are living through a religious revival? More people going to church, more young people interested in it. Do you see that, or do you think that's a blip?Clare: That's probably a question for the social scientists, isn't it? It just totally depends where you are and what community you're--Henry: Your students, you are not seeing students who are suddenly more religious?Clare: Well, no, but my students are students who've chosen to do philosophy. Some of them are religious and some of them are not. It will be too small a sample to be able to diagnose. I can say that my students are much more likely to be questioning. Many of them are questioning their gender, thinking about how to inhabit gender roles differently.That's something I perceive as a change from 20 years ago, just in the way that my students will dress and present themselves. That's a discernible difference. I can remark on that, but I can't remark on whether they're more religious.Just actually just been teaching a course on philosophy of religion at King's. Some students in the course of having discussions would mention that they were Muslim, Christian, or really into contemplative practices and meditation. Some of the students shared those interests. Others would say, "Oh, well, I'm an atheist, so this is--" There's just a range-Henry: A full range.Clare: -of different religious backgrounds and different interests. There's always been that range. I don't know whether there's an increased interest in religion among those students in particular, but I guess, yes, maybe on a national or global level, statistically-- I don't know. You tell me.Henry: What do you think about all these reports that undergraduates today-- "They have no attention span, they can't read a book, everything is TikTok," do you see this or are you just seeing like, "No, my students are fine actually. This is obviously happening somewhere else"?Clare: Again, it's difficult to say because I see them when they're in their classes, I see them in their seminars, I see them in the lectures. I don't know what their attention spans are like in their--Henry: Some of the other people I've interviewed will say things like, "I'll set reading, and they won't do it, even though it's just not very much reading,"-Clare: Oh, I see. Oh, yes.Henry: -or, "They're on the phone in the--" You know what I mean?Clare: Yes.Henry: The whole experience from 10, 20 years ago, these are just different.Clare: I'm also more distracted by my phone than I was 20 years ago. I didn't have a phone 20 years ago.Henry: Sure.Clare: Having a phone and being on the internet is constantly disrupting my reading and my writing. That's something that I think many of us battle with a bit. I'm sure most of us are addicted to our phones. I wouldn't draw a distinction between myself and my students in that respect. I've been really impressed by my students, pleasantly surprised by the fact they've done their reading because it can be difficult to do reading, I think.Henry: You're not one of these people who says, "Oh students today, it's really very different than it was 20 years ago. You can't get them to do anything. The whole thing is--" Some people are apocalyptic about-- Actually, you're saying no, your students are good?Clare: I like my students. Whether they do the reading or not, I'm not going to sit here and complain about them.Henry: No, sure, sure. I think that's good. What are you working on next?Clare: I've just written a book. It came out of a series of lectures I gave on life writing and philosophy, actually. Connected to what we were talking about earlier. Having written the biographies, I started to reflect a bit more on biography and how it may or may not be a philosophical enterprise, and questions about the shape of a life and what one life can transmit to another life. Something about the devotional labor of the biographer when you're living with this person and you're-- It's devotional, but it's also potentially exploitative because often you're using your subjects, of course, without their consent because they're dead. You're presenting their life to public view and you're selling books, so it's devotional and exploitative. I think that's an interesting pairing.Anyway, so I gave these lectures last year in St Andrews and they're going to be published in September.Henry: Great.Clare: I've finished those really.Henry: That's what's coming.Clare: That's what's coming. Then I've just been writing again about Kierkegaard, actually. I haven't really worked on Kierkegaard for quite a few years. As often happens with these things, I got invited to speak on Kierkegaard and death at a conference in New York in November. My initial thought was like, "Oh, I wish it was Spinoza, I don't want to--" I think I got to the point where I'd worked a lot on Kierkegaard and wanted to do other things. I was a bit like, "Oh, if only I was doing Spinoza, that would be more up my street." I wanted to go to the conference, so I said yes to this invitation. I was really glad I did because I went back and read what Kierkegaard has written about death, which is very interesting because Kierkegaard's this quintessentially death-fixated philosopher, that's his reputation. It's his reputation, he's really about death. His name means churchyard. He's doomy and gloomy. There's the caricature.Then, to actually look at what he says about death and how he approaches the subject, which I'd forgotten or hadn't even read closely in the first place, those particular texts. That turned out to be really interesting, so I'm writing-- It's not a book or anything, it's just an article.Henry: You're not going to do a George Eliot and produce a novel?Clare: No. I'm not a novelist or a writer of fiction. I don't think I have enough imagination to create characters. What I love about biography is that you get given the characters and you get given the plots. Then, of course, it is a creative task to then turn that into a narrative, as I said before. The kinds of biography I like to write are quite creative, they're not just purely about facts. I think facts can be quite boring. Well, they become interesting in the context of questions about meaning interpretations by themselves. Again, probably why I was right to give up on the history degree. For me, facts are not where my heart is.That amount of creativity I think suits me well, but to create a world as you do when you're a novelist and create characters and plots, and so, that doesn't come naturally to me. I guess I like thinking about philosophical questions through real-life stories. It's one way for philosophy to be connected to real life. Philosophy can also be connected to life through fiction, of course, but it's not my own thing. I like to read other people's fiction. I'm not so bothered about reading other biographies.Henry: No. No, no.[laughter]Clare: I'll write the biographies, and I'll read the fiction.Henry: That's probably the best way. Clare Carlisle, author of The Marriage Question, thank you very much.Clare: Oh, thanks, Henry. It's been very fun to talk to you.Henry: Yes. It was a real pleasure. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.commonreader.co.uk/subscribe

Adam Forrest Kay is the author of Escape From Shadow Physics, a rip-roaring tour through the history of physics that suggests the quantum world might be a lot less legible than anyone realizes. Much of his work is informed by the logic of Hydrodynamic Quantum Analogs, which are classical systems whose behavior can be described by same mathematics that's used for quantum mechanics. Kay makes the case that if a classical system, made of materials and substances, can be described by the same statistical mathematics, that it's possible the quantum intuition that reality dissolves into a sea of probabilities and wave functions is just straight up wrong. We explore how the mechanics of droplets bouncing on surfaces recapitulates the mathematics of quantum mechanics, what it means for a classical system to behave like a quantum one, how pilot wave theory fits into the story, and why this isn't front page news for every science magazine in the world. MAKE HISTORY WITH US THIS SUMMER:https://demystifysci.com/demysticon-2025PATREON https://www.patreon.com/c/demystifysciPARADIGM DRIFThttps://demystifysci.com/paradigm-drift-show(00:00) Go!(00:06:20) Adam Kay's Journey(00:10:17) The Complexity of Innovation (00:12:26) Hydrodynamic Quantum Analogies(00:20:20) Philosophy and Positivism in Physics(00:23:21) Skepticism in Physics (00:24:35) Transition in Scientific Thought(00:26:10) Positivism and Knowledge(00:28:40) Auguste Comte's Positivism and its Paradoxes(00:34:50) Historical Context from Philosophy to Physics(00:41:10) The Clash in Intellectual Circles(00:46:00) Continued Influence of Early Physicists(00:47:02) Historical Scientific Perspectives(00:49:07) The Philosophy of Science and Positivism(00:51:50) Einstein's Influence on Physical Theories(00:56:05) Einstein vs. Quantum Mechanics(01:00:02) Parallels Between Thermodynamics and Quantum Mechanics(01:07:00) Reevaluating Physical Paradigms(01:12:07) Evolution of Physical Theories(01:14:09) Modern Reflections and Quantum Theory(01:18:07) Book Review and Chapter Structure(01:19:04) Introduction to Pilot Wave Theory(01:25:35) Hydrodynamic Quantum Analogies(01:35:08) Interpretation of Positive Atomism(01:36:46) Uncertainty Principle and Quantum Mechanics(01:39:28) Sound, Sampling, and Uncertainty in Physics(01:44:41) The Role of Fourier Analysis in Various Domains(01:49:10) Quantum Mechanics and Reality's Mystical Interpretation(01:54:09) Physics and Its Intellectual Dominance(01:58:55) Intersection of Physics and Metaphysics(02:01:10) Mysticism in Physics(02:05:27) The Sokal Hoax and Scientific Discourse(02:09:10) Importance of Diverse Viewpoints(02:14:23) Writing and Future Endeavors#quantummechanics, #philosophyofscience, #einstein, #bohr, #quantumphysics, #pilotwave, #positivism, #quantumreality, #scienceandphilosophy, #sciencehistory, #waveparticleduality, #quantumtheory, #physicscommunity #philosophypodcast, #sciencepodcast, #longformpodcast ABOUS US: Anastasia completed her PhD studying bioelectricity at Columbia University. When not talking to brilliant people or making movies, she spends her time painting, reading, and guiding backcountry excursions. Shilo also did his PhD at Columbia studying the elastic properties of molecular water. When he's not in the film studio, he's exploring sound in music. They are both freelance professors at various universities. SOCIAL: - Discord: https://discord.gg/MJzKT8CQub- Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/DemystifySci- Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/DemystifySci/- Twitter: https://twitter.com/DemystifySciMUSIC: -Shilo Delay: https://g.co/kgs/oty671

Keith discusses the impact of baby boomers on the housing market, noting that contrary to popular belief, many boomers are choosing to age in place. He also addresses the negative effects of gambling, particularly sports gambling, on young men, including financial ruin and increased bankruptcies. 54% of baby boomers state that they will never sell their homes.  People aged 55+ own more than half of U.S. homes. The overall population growth in the US has grown at its fastest rate since 2001, reaching over 340 million. Millennials and Gen Z, the largest generations, are driving future housing demand.  Resources: GRE Free Investment Coaching:GREmarketplace.com/Coach Show Notes: GetRichEducation.com/541 For access to properties or free help with a GRE Investment Coach, start here: GREmarketplace.com Get mortgage loans for investment property: RidgeLendingGroup.com or call 855-74-RIDGE  or e-mail: info@RidgeLendingGroup.com Invest with Freedom Family Investments.  You get paid first: Text FAMILY to 66866 Will you please leave a review for the show? I'd be grateful. Search “how to leave an Apple Podcasts review”  For advertising inquiries, visit: GetRichEducation.com/ad Best Financial Education: GetRichEducation.com Get our wealth-building newsletter free— text ‘GRE' to 66866 Our YouTube Channel: www.youtube.com/c/GetRichEducation Follow us on Instagram: @getricheducation Complete episode transcript:   Automatically Transcribed With Otter.ai    Keith Weinhold  0:01   Welcome to GRE. I'm your host, Keith Weinhold. All the baby boomers are about to sell off their homes and downsize, unleashing a glut of supply onto the market, and housing prices crash. Is there cogency to that theory or not? I give you a definitive answer, the Trump bump, then later, a pernicious vice is destroying more people's lives today, especially young men and almost no one is talking about this. It's leading to lower credit scores, more bankruptcies and even more suicides today on get rich education   since 2014 the powerful get rich education podcast has created more passive income for people than nearly any other show in the world. This show teaches you how to earn strong returns from passive real estate investing in the best markets without losing your time being a flipper or landlord. Show Host Keith Weinhold writes for both Forbes and Rich Dad advisors and delivers a new show every week since 2014 there's been millions of listener downloads of 188 world nations. He has a list show guests and key top selling personal finance author Robert Kiyosaki, get rich education can be heard on every podcast platform, plus it has its own dedicated Apple and Android listener phone apps build wealth on the go with the get rich education podcast. Sign up now for the get rich education podcast or visit get rich education.com.   Corey Coates  1:25   You're listening to the show that has created more financial freedom than nearly any show in the world. This is get rich education.   Keith Weinhold  1:41   Welcome to GRE from Hyannis, Massachusetts to Hiram, Utah and across 188 nations worldwide. I'm Keith Weinhold, and you are inside get rich education episode 541 just another slack jawed and snaggletoothed podcaster here now a popular, I suppose, media narrative that's been out there for a long time is this premise that US housing prices are going to crash hard because all the aging baby boomers are going to sell their homes, and Boomers are the biggest generation in all of American history. This is just going to magnify the price collapse. It means far more home sellers than buyers. So soon enough, sellers will have to keep cutting prices. Everyone's going to undercut everybody to compete with all of these for sale homes. So as a result, everybody's property values are going to collapse today. Let's look at how bad it will get. Should you get ahead of this and sell it all now and then? I'll even tell you when this popular narrative will supposedly happen with boomers selling en masse, or won't it happen at all. That's what we're looking at, the term silver tsunami. You've probably heard that thrown around in the real estate world. It actually refers to pent up housing stock that older homeowners will eventually choose to sell, which would have that effect of flooding the market with all this new inventory. All right. Now let's define what we're talking about here. Baby Boomers are the generation born just after World War Two, between 1946 and 64 that makes them between the ages of 61 and 79 this year. Okay, so basically, these people are in their 60s and 70s. That's their age. My parents are baby boomers. President Trump is at the upper age limit for a boomer, but they're not all as old as you think. I mean the youngest baby boomers include Michelle Obama, Sandra Bullock and Rob Lowe. So not all boomers are like super old, but see, it is a big generation of over 76 million people. So whatever they do really moves the economy. And maybe you've heard it been said, My gosh, what if we have more dyers than buyers? But now a more nascent trend is that you hear about more and more boomers and people older than boomers not selling their home instead wanting to age in place. And that just means they want to stay in their home and not go to a nursing home or assisted living. And that was recently quantified in a survey that Housing Wire reported on it found that 54% of baby boomers say that they'll never sell their homes, some of them passing homes along as inheritance and see often that's because their home is paid off and assisted living care costs are through. To the roof, more than half of boomers don't have any mortgage at all. All right, so we've established that boomers aren't as old as most people think, and then a lot of them aren't planning to sell. But still, let's look for trouble here, because boomers are a huge group, and some portion of them are going to sell is they age, even if a lot of them say that they won't. How about the almost half of boomers with a mortgage? You know what? Here's the thing, if they downsized, like older people have traditionally done. I mean, my grandparents downsized long ago. But do you know what would happen if boomers downsized? Today? For most, their monthly mortgage payment would actually go up if they downsized. That's because of today's higher mortgage rates and home prices. And see, that's a financial reality that keeps them in place. They're never going to downsize. All right, so a lot of boomers are just not going to sell. But still, this wave of selling boomers crashing the housing market, this has been a popular narrative for, I don't know, maybe more than a decade. Now there's been a lot of smoke, so then where is the fire. That's another way to think about this. So there's got to be more to this. And there is, in fact, people age 55 plus, own more than half of the homes in the US. Did you know that? All right? Well, if we pull back from boomers, and let's just take a look at all homeowners of every age, people are staying in their homes longer, whether they're age 30 or 50 or 80, Americans now stay in the same home about 12 years. That is twice as long as 2005 Well, what that means is that homes don't come onto the market and people cannot buy what's not for sale. And then, of course, you've got the well documented interest rate lock in effect. That's a contributor here to people of all ages with 4% mortgages, they are reluctant to sell. And now what we're talking about here are demographics. Remember that quote, demography is destiny, the three word quote from 1800s era French philosopher Auguste Comte, and that's because it's completely predictable. If you're 32 years old today, in 10 years, you'll be 42 totally predictable. All right, if demographics could possibly crash housing crisis, let's step back and see what's going on with overall US, population growth. You know what? It just grew at its fastest rate since 2001 about a full 1% growth last year, yeah, we broke the 340 million population mark for the first time ever. And now, what about the portion that our immigrants, and what if a substantial amount of them get deported? I mean, after Trump settled into the White House for his second term, deportations began almost immediately. Is there enough population growth to buy from the boomers that do sell their homes? Well, if mortgage rates come down into the low fives, then maybe more boomers will sell and bring some more resale inventory onto the market. See, you need a good chunk, though, of buyers to come in from somewhere in order to support future housing prices. Well, where are those buyers going to be? Well, some people still don't realize that the largest generation in American history is, in fact, not baby boomers, it's millennials. They became the biggest group more than five years ago. In fact, Statista tells us that Gen Z isn't far behind them either. Yeah, Gen Z is almost as big as millennials as a group coming right behind them. And of course, this varies a little bit. Demographers parse the generations somewhat differently, but here's what the rise of the biggest generation means, millennials. They're aged 29 to 44 now, and there are over 70 million of them, and then almost as big the next group right behind them, Gen Z. They're ages 13 to 28 they alone number about 70 million themselves, even if you just completely leave the surge in immigration out of the picture and all the additional housing demand that immigration brings. So we're mainly just looking at the domestic side alone here. So. What's happened is that there were 4 million plus births per year from 1990 to 2010 providing a tailwind for housing demand through 2035, 2045, or later. Yeah, we had more births during many of those years than we did in the peak of the baby boom, which was 1957 like I've mentioned on the show before, the average age of a first time homebuyer is now a record high of 38 years old, per the NAR it's really taken a long time for some people to stop playing the video games and moving out of their parents basement. Okay, well, the peak birth year for the US was 2007 I just told you it was elevated between 1990 and 2010 but 2007 was that peak, alright? So take that peak and add 38 years to it, and you know what? The first time homebuyer demand is just going to continue to build, build, build, and not even reach its peak. Then until 2045 or so, the peak birth year 2007 plus 38 years, that is where the crush of future demand is coming from because that person born in 2007 on average, they're not even going to buy their first home until well into the 2040s   In fact, the number of Americans turning 35 every single year is High, and it just keeps increasing. It's over 4 million now, already up 25% since 2011 and this number of Americans turning 35 is going to keep rising for another decade or two. In fact, this year, it's going to approach 5 million Americans turning 35 new record territory coming. And I keep bringing this up because 35 is a key age, because by that time, almost everyone has moved out of their parents home, and so that's the time where people either need to rent or own themselves, pushing up both rents and prices, and that's why this wave of demand and pent up demand is just gonna keep coming. And by the way, those stats that I gave you there, they're all sourced from the US Census Bureau. I mean, this is exactly where the housing demand just keeps coming from. It's a big factor about why prices keep going up. The demand just keeps piling on, even though affordability worsened, the demand just keeps coming. And it's just going to keep on coming well in to the 2040s now it could very well ebb substantially by, say, the middle of the 2050s but we'll see, and that is still three decades away. And remember, all of this doesn't even include the additional population growth from immigration and how many non deportees that is going to add to the housing demand on top of this, and then, if that's not enough, there is even more future housing demand expected to come from the declining number of occupants per household. Yes, the reduced household size that Stokes housing demand. I touched on this with you a little before on a prior show. But let me go deeper as we continue to corrode this more dyers than buyers. Theory, as we break this down, people have smaller families today. I think everybody knows that back in 1960 there were 3.3 occupants per household. Today, it's just two and a half. And to give you a simple example of how this itself keeps stoking the housing demand, just say that there's a village of 100 people with three occupants per household, they would need 33 and 1/3 homes over time, when that drops to two occupants per household, that's the direction we're going now that same village needs 50 homes just in order to accommodate the shift in household structure. Well, 50 homes is 50% more than 33 and a third, well, that means 50% more homes are needed, and that's even in a scenario where the population stays the same. Yet it's not staying the same, it's rising, and the population is really rising fast for that key household form. Population age range of 35 to 38 years old. Fewer Americans are living together. I expect the housing market to continue shifting toward smaller household counts. One person households will keep rising. I expect that to be one of the most impactful housing trends of this entire 21st century, and it's also really helping fuel a loneliness epidemic, which is another subject unto itself. Well, the three main drivers of this rise in single person households is that first people are delaying those major life events compared to previous generations. They're attending school longer. They're marrying later. They're buying homes later. They're having children later. And as these events are postponed, the time some young adults spend living alone or without children increases. They're playing video games longer as well. The second driver of these single person households is falling. Birth rates when people have children, many are having fewer than previous generations, reducing the average household size. That's pretty obvious. And then third the population composition is getting older. And older, people tend to live with fewer people. If life expectancy rises, this component of the trend would only intensify. Yes, the whole Brian Johnson thing, he is the health influencer that says we now have alive, the first generation that's going to live forever due to advances in longevity in technology. I mean, my gosh, if he is right, what would that do to housing demand? I mean, and it would also push up our average age even more. Gosh, yet, at the same time that all this demand keeps pushing up. America already has a well publicized overall housing shortage of several million housing units. You already know that story well, construction has picked up a little, but not enough to keep up with demand. In fact, American housing supply is still about 30% below pre pandemic levels. So suffice to say, let me give you a satisfying definitive answer here, when are selling boomers going to crash housing prices? It is highly unlikely that that can even happen at all. In fact, you see fewer stories about this than you used to. More people have come to realize that it is just not happening. And looking at us demographics over the next few cycles, a lot more people will need homes demand continuing to exceed supply. This is why home prices should just keep rising from here. In fact, I have been an active single family rental property investor here myself, single family is where perhaps the greatest shortage is and the greatest demand is at the same time I am owning something that people are definitely going to need more of. Remember, demography is destiny, and they're going to pay more and more for it. When mortgage rates fall, it's probably going to bring in even more buying activity, and now all of this continued upward, long term, future price momentum for housing, of course, that all existed before Donald John Trump step into the White House to start his second term last month. I think the Trump factor, or Trump bump, you know what often gets somewhat exaggerated for what it can do to the economy and housing prices, right? I mean, I've talked to you before, it's about the decisions that you make more so than decisions that a politician makes, but Trump is doing some things on a pretty seismic level these nascent immigrant deportations, that obviously can increase the cost of labor you're exporting away your low cost labor with immigrant deportations. I mean, that is inflation tariffs, though some tariffs have been negotiated away for the time being, that's more inflation. So deportations mean wage increases. That's more inflation. Increased wages mean increased rents. Trump talks lower taxes. Lower taxes can then mean higher rent payments. Proposals to eliminate. Made taxes on tips over time and Social Security, that means that Americans and retirees are gonna have more disposable income. More income means higher rent collections, fewer delinquencies, and potentially rising home prices as affordability improves. That's a lot of the good news. It's not all rosy news. You better look out for high tax states salt adjustments that state and local income tax and a deduction cap could harm their property values. We're talking about places like California, New York and New Jersey, the 2017 Trump tax cuts and Jobs Act that gave real estate investors some really juicy benefits, like 20% pass through deduction for LLCs and bonus depreciation on rental properties and lower corporate tax rates too. Combined this stuff, it all keeps more money in your pocket and allows for bigger deals with better cash flow.    We're talking about Trump bump factors on the real estate market here, other proposals on the table, other things like tax breaks for domestic production that could boost us construction, leading to more badly needed housing supply that could lower building costs and investment opportunities in niche in growth markets. Remember opportunity zones, and then what about targeting wealthy investors? We'll see what happens, but Trump's plan removes tax breaks for hedge funds and billionaire sports owners. But could real estate investors get hurt a little on that side too? Maybe look for changes to the 1031 or depreciation strategies. But you know, the 1031 exchange has been around for over 100 years. I would be surprised if it went away completely, and yes, though they have been postponed, if 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada do go into place and the countries retaliate, as they've been shown to do, it would add point seven 6% to US inflation and subtract 410 of a percent from US GDP growth. Aren't those two projections Interesting? Yeah, those estimates were compiled by the Yale budget lab. So adding about three quarters of a percentage point to the overall inflation rate with these tariffs. I mean everything we're talking about the price of your housing or your car tires or your tomatoes and romaine lettuce. I mean, that effect could take money out of people's pockets. Yes, we know that Trump wants to bring down interest rates, but I don't know how he's going to do that. I mean, as you know, more inflation correlates with higher rates, not lower ones. See, you just can't get it all. You just can't have it all. And of course, mortgage rates are not historically high. They've simply been normalized after years of being artificially low. Rates are normal. So normalized is really a term that I like to use. So really, to help summarize what I've shared with you here in the first half of the show, a housing price crash induced by a boomer sell off is not a thing. In fact, almost Oppositely, demographics in this pent up demand should raise up future home prices, and to a lesser extent, a Trump bump can as well. Yes, gosh, Trump just has an insatiable fascination for tariffs. It is truly amazing, and it has more stick to itiveness than say, Mark Zuckerberg, recent fascination with masculine energy and gold chains, that's for sure.   Hey, before we get into the pernicious vice that's destroying more people's lives today, especially young men and almost no one is talking about this, it's leading to lower credit scores, more bankruptcies and even more suicides. First, I've got some cool things to tell you. About two weeks ago here on the show event, host Robert Helms of the real estate guys and I invited you to join us on the terrific Investor Summit at sea, that cruise on the Caribbean. Besides the two of us, there are a number of other great faculty members. Robert Kiyosaki recently announced that he's going to be joining us on the faculty as well. So you'll get to meet and learn from Robert Kiyosaki, and if you happen to be a new listener, he is the top selling personal finance author of all time the. Rich Dad, Poor Dad, author, and he's been our guest here on the GRE podcast four times. Now, I hope to meet you, the listener, in person on the summit at sea in the Caribbean this June, starting out of Miami. Gosh, what an outstanding time that is. It's not a low cost event, however, the minimum cabin in interior cabin is $5,900 and they are more expensive from there if you get nicer accommodations. But all the details are there on GRE podcast episode 539 two weeks ago. I really hope you'll join us and then I can meet you in person.   Earlier this month, Trump established a US sovereign wealth fund, and when he did, I congratulated our frequent contributor here, macro economist Richard Duncan, because Richard championed the establishment of that fund for years. He presented to Congress about it, and Richard was the first ever GRE guest with us back here in 2014 on the Panama coffee farm investing that we've discussed here on the show, Villanova University reached out to them, and they're now collaborating together. It's something I find kind of cool, as a Pennsylvania native and one of my tightest best friends is also a Villanova alum, as for future episodes coming up on the show. Here, imagine if you had a property loan, yet you didn't have to make any payments, and if you did make payments on your loan, then every penny of that payment goes to principal, not to interest. Wouldn't that be incredible? Well, such a thing does exist, and it's not new or experimental or avant garde. People just don't know about this vehicle. We're going to discuss that right here on next week's show, along with some other vital mortgage topics. There are three ways to connect with our education at GRE you're listening to one of them right now, our flagship podcast. Also check out our get rich education YouTube channel, because that is different content than this show. That's the second way, and that show is also on other video first, platforms like get rich education on rumble, and finally, you'll have it all, all three when you get our weekly Don't quit your Daydream newsletter if you don't already get it free now, while it's on your mind, simply text GRE 266, 86, more. Next. I'm Keith Weinhold. You're listening to get rich education.    Hey, you can get your mortgage loans at the same place where I get mine, at Ridge lending group NMLS 420056, they provided our listeners with more loans than any provider in the entire nation because they specialize in income properties, they help you build a long term plan for growing your real estate empire with leverage. You can start your pre qualification and chat with President Caeli Ridge personally. Start Now while it's on your mind at Ridge lendinggroup.com that's Ridge lendinggroup.com    Oh geez, the initial average bank account pays less than 1% on your savings, so your bank is getting rich off of you. You've got to earn way more, or else you're losing your hard earned cash to inflation. Let the liquidity fund help you put your money to work with minimum risk, your cash generates up to a 10% return and compounds year in and year out. Instead of earning less than 1% in your bank account, the minimum investment is just 25k you keep getting paid until you decide you want your money back. Their decade plus track record proves they've always paid their investors 100% in full and on time. And you know how I'd know, because I'm an investor in this myself, earn 10% like me and GRE listeners are. Text family to 66866, to learn about freedom. Family investments, liquidity fund on your journey to financial freedom through passive income. Text family to 66866.   Robert Kiyosaki  29:31   this is our rich dad Poor Dad. Author Robert Kiyosaki, listen to get rich education with Keith Weinhold and Don't Quit Your Daydream.   Keith Weinhold  29:50   Welcome back to get rich Education. I'm your host. Keith Weinhold, every once in a while, there's an investing adjacent activity that becomes. Is pronounced or become such a trend that it just can't be ignored, and you need to know about it. I recently presented on how gambling is financially derailing so many people today, especially young men and sports gambling and what makes California and Texas special here, the two most populous states, by the way, you'll see, once they legalize this, it's gonna get worse. There are two states where it's not legal yet now investing in gambling. They are two distinctly different activities. Investing is different from gambling. When you invest, you're purchasing a stake in an asset that has value in an effort to generate profit. But gambling doesn't involve taking ownership of anything of value. Instead, betters are predicting the outcome of an event gambling. It's really not a side hustle. I mean, people are constantly losing their families and businesses over this. This will be all new material here on the show as usual, except for a short snippet that includes super CPA Tom Wheelwright. This is about 10 minutes in length. Shout out to the media team here at GRE on the production side. And then after this, I have more to tell you about real estate.    Speaker 1  31:30   America is in the midst of an historic surge in legalized gambling.   Keith Weinhold  31:37   This is the worst thing that people are now doing with their time and money today, it's not losing it to inflation, it's not playing video games. It's being a slack jawed gambling degenerate. We are in the midst of an historic surge in legalized gambling, and the devastation on gamblers, especially young men is a lot worse than you think. I've also got a giant ominous warning for you that seasoned gamblers don't even know about when I bring in my CPA for just a minute here today on the seriously punishing tax implications that should scare anybody out of gambling.    Hi, I'm Keith Weinhold, get rich education, founder, Forbes real estate council member, best selling, author, and long time real estate investor. Almost 60% of 18 to 24 year olds have placed at least one sports bet now that's per the NCAA, and that has surged so fast. I mean, just less than a decade ago, major pro sports leagues shunned gambling, disassociating with it because it was illegal in most places. The big turning point was 2018 that's when the Supreme Court ended a decades long ban on commercialized sports betting. 38 states and DC have now legalized it most with minimum age requirements set at 21 and the two biggest platforms are DraftKings and fam duel. They've got about 70% of the market. But look, you can do this if you're under 21 on platforms like prize picks and flip they offer betting like experiences. They operate under fantasy sports or sweepstakes, and having these apps on your phone that just brings the gambling right to you. It keeps it in your face and addictive. Now it's like you're sitting in a casino when you're on your living room so far, or in your bed or even in the bathroom, there is no escape. Two thirds of Americans live in a state where they can access it on their phones. And look how young some of these gamblers are, what they have to say. And then who's showing up in these gamblers Anonymous meetings   Speaker 1  33:56   today's world is the 16, 1718, year olds, 1921, year olds that get addicted years ago, before, unlike casinos, if we had a person coming in and they're 24 years old, it was rare. All right, now the norm, the real norm, it's kids coming in at 17 years old. That's the norm.    Keith Weinhold  34:16   Well, one big reason why it's such a problem is, look, you can't hide it, so that therefore others can't tell if you're gambling, because you're not, you know, shooting it into your veins, or you're not acting drunk, or you're not smoking anything. See, you can gamble without exhibiting a physical change, so therefore others don't know that you need help. And it is all over the place. I mean, gambling ads air on TV over 60,000 times a year. Celebrities endorse gambling. I mean, some teams put gambling ads right on the field. Brick and mortar sports books are even built inside some stadiums now, Caesars and bet MGM. There are two other big platforms that you might see out there, but I mean, in their commercials, yeah, they can put that one 800 gambler help number on screen and tell you things like, gamble within your limits. But look, here's the thing these platforms, they're not going to cut you off if you continue to lose and they profit. In fact, if you win disproportionately big time after time, and these platforms can kind of tell that you're too smart. You know what they do, like a casino that identifies a card shark in Vegas, they're either gonna curtail your activity or just totally cut you off, alright? So then, by definition, if you have an account in good standing at FanDuel or DraftKings, and you bet a lot, and they keep letting you play well, then you have just signaled to the entire world that you don't know what you're doing, and you are going to lose big, or you already have. I mean, that is baked into the cake. That's how the system works. So therefore these companies are basically mining America to find anyone stupid enough to keep placing these sports bets. Companies are profiting from this, and then states are too. I mean, they've collected billions in tax revenue and FanDuel and DraftKings, see, they're publicly traded companies, so this means that they have shareholders, and those shareholders, they want to see profit and growth. I recently asked decorated CPA and mega popular tax author Tom Wheelwright about tax rates on gambling for just a quick three minutes here. I mean, you won't believe how punishing This is.    Can you tell us about sports gambling taxes and how it's treated   Tom Wheelwright  36:43   yeah. So remember, all income is taxable. So that includes gambling winnings. They are taxable. In fact, you'll get a 1099 just like you would if you rendered services, you know, you'd get a 1099 right? Or you have interest income, you get 1099 you get 1099 from gambling. What you actually have to show is that you actually have gambling losses. So you have to track those gambling losses to show the IRS that you've got gambling losses. But your gambling losses can never be more than your gambling winnings. In other words, you don't you never get to generate a tax loss on gambling. So that means is, is that if you win $10,000 during the year, and you can prove that you lost $8,000 during the year, you're gonna be taxed on $2,000 but if you can't prove the 8000 you're gonna be taxed on 10,000 Yeah,   Keith Weinhold  37:39   so you the gambler have the burden of tracking this, and I guess tracking your losses. I'm not a gambler. How would one track their losses?   Tom Wheelwright  37:47   Oh, I would keep a detailed ledger. Personally, I'd probably have a separate bank account just for gambling. Gosh, that's the way I would do it. I'm not a gambler either. So by the way, it's also a good way to budget your gambling so they, you know, get in trouble, right? So just set up a separate bank account, put whatever money you say, I'm comfortable with this money, I'm going to gamble with this money, put in that bank account, and then you have a ledger that shows the money that went in and the money you lost, the money you won, and don't do anything but gambling in that bank account.   Keith Weinhold  38:18   Hey, that separate account's a great way to hide it from your spouse, not that I'm suggesting.   Tom Wheelwright  38:25   Well, interesting. You went there.   Keith Weinhold  38:29   I'm not a gambler at all. Can't even believe I was thinking that far ahead. What are the gambling tax rates like? They're ordinary   Tom Wheelwright  38:35   income tax rates. So gambling winnings are just ordinary income they're they're the same as your wages. They don't have social security taxes their income, just like any other kind of income, nothing special, okay?   Keith Weinhold  38:47   And this all applies to whether it's sports gambling or general gambling, like lotteries and sweepstakes.    Tom Wheelwright  38:53   Just remember, all incomes taxable unless the government says it isn't all income, okay? And then there's some types of income that are taxed at special rates, like capital gains, but gambling has no special rate, so it's just your ordinary income rates.   Keith Weinhold  39:09   Gosh, to me, it seems like it's, it's hard to break even with gambling over time, and then when you take the tax adjusted earnings that you get from it, you know, over the long term, you know, I just don't think Harris and Bally's Casino is really incentivized to inform gamblers on how punitive this can be with ordinary income tax rates applied to gambling winnings.   Tom Wheelwright  39:30   No, but they will send you your 1090, 9g I guarantee that.   Keith Weinhold  39:34    So can you imagine tracking all that and then paying all that in tax, and this is even if you're on the winning side and then keeping a separate bank account as well. And note that Tom and I were talking federal. There. It gets even worse. Some state laws are punishing, like New York, which has a 51% tax rate on mobile sports wagering bank. Up 28% since states have legalized this and credit scores have dropped now, California and Texas are the two big states, and they still haven't legalized sports gambling. They're the two big ones, and when they do, that's when you'll see more bankruptcy and more people, especially young men in financial ruin. I mean gamblers, Anonymous meetings are filled with people hooked on betting and on stock options trading too, and you know, Worse still, among addiction disorders, gambling has a comparatively high suicide attempt rate. And you know, understand that, while both involve risk, investing in gambling are two different things. When you invest, you're purchasing a stake in an asset that has value in an effort to generate profit. But gambling doesn't involve taking ownership of anything with value. Instead, betters are predicting the outcome of an event. Now, I gambled as a teen on sports, and back then, it was just a friend and I, we would each lay a $20 bill on top of the television at the start of like a Mets versus Phillies baseball game, and then it sure made the game more interesting to watch. There wasn't any sort of app to make it easy, suck me in and make it a recurrent practice. I haven't gambled since. Now that you're aware of the gravity of the problem, the best thing you can do for yourself is to delete those apps off your phone. Because look, I mean every gambler that had their lies flipped over and turned catastrophic at one time, they told themselves, you know, I'm doing this, but it's under control. I mean, everybody once said that the best thing you can do is delete FanDuel DraftKings and any other apps like that off of your phone right now and vow to never do it again. I hope you like that. You know, it's sort of interesting and introspective to me that I would produce a piece of media like this because I am a sports fan. I watched more of the NFL this past season than I have in a while. You know, I'm in a phase of my life, or I'm a pretty productive person, doing research and interviewing guests and producing GRE media. But you know, I justified watching more sports lately because there's room for an entertainment bucket in everyone's life. That's how I feel. And you know, I don't really watch movies. Most movies I watch feel like a waste of my time when I'm done after two hours, because I'm usually disappointed in it. If I ever watch movies, I gotta watch movies on the plane, because even if it was lousy, I got somewhere in the process. So in any case, now, if gambling is controlled, well, then it might be debatable about whether or not it's a vice, like, say you go to Vegas and have your $250 spending limit or whatever.    But just remember, every gambling degenerate once told themselves and everybody that they know that they've got it under control, but yeah, often they didn't around here, we champion owning real estate directly yourself, that is something that is in your control. So we're not talking about REITs, Real Estate Investment Trusts. That's just a publicly owned company and a group of them. It's not real estate tokenization. That means owning digital fractional shares of a property or a real estate investment. I mean direct whole ownership also means it's not a syndication now that might be worth doing, though, that means that you're pooling other investors money. It's not direct whole investing. If you are investing in someone else's syndication, meaning that you're a limited partner and direct real estate investing, it means not being a flipper or a wholesaler. Again, those things might be worth doing, but they're really time consuming, and they're not tax advantaged either. But when you own rental real estate directly yourself, you don't even need to be a landlord. If you choose not to you, then will not be that point of contact for your tenants when others manage it. And yes, because of the five ways that you're paid, you can make the case that real estate has hegemony over other assets, and for the demographic reasons and the inflationary reasons, like the ones that I told you about earlier today, real estate appears poised to continue as the. Hegemon. In fact, recently, so many global hedge funds have dumped every stock that they have, except for the real estate stocks. I shared that article with you in our newsletter recently. That's largely a tariff response. Let me tell you about real properties on GRE marketplace right now that are ripe for owning directly. I mean direct ownership. That's also the easiest to understand. You are paid rent by a tenant that lives there, often through your property manager, and unlike the out of control sports gambler, this is very much in your control. A brand new build single family rental in Columbiana, Alabama, that's just south of Birmingham. Rent is $1,925 the price is $269,900 over 1600 square feet, four, bed, two bath. Now with the new build, expect low maintenance costs. Is currently vacant, get an interest rate of six and three quarters percent with a 25% down payment on this new build, single family rental in Alabama. Then another sample here. This is interesting. The rent on this old build Davenport Iowa duplex is $1,900 which is about the same rent as the Alabama single family rental I just described. But yet the price for this Davenport duplex is just $183,000 Davenport is part of America's Quad Cities with a combined population of about half a million with both duplex sides. It's a combined square footage of almost 2700 square feet, five, bed, two, bath. They're on Brown Street in Davenport, and now, as favorable as those $1,900 combined duplex rents are, since this property is vintage, in fact, it's over 100 years old, you better check closely on the renovations that were made to the property and have plenty set aside for any maintenance and repairs as well, with a 25% down payment, expect an interest rate of just six and one quarter percent. And there are more financing details there. And of course, rates are always changing. The last one I'll mention is this new build, another duplex, this one in Inverness, Florida. This is really interesting too. And now, what do you think when you think of Florida, real estate? Does climate change come to mind? For some people, it does. For some it doesn't, maybe even rising sea levels over the long term. Well, Inverness, Florida is 15 to 20 miles inland, and it's 50 feet above sea level. How about high insurance rates? Does that come to mind with Florida? Well, they're not so high on new build properties, since they're built to today's stringent hurricane standards. Is Florida temporarily over built, even though the nation, in aggregate is under built? Yes, some Florida markets are overbuilt, and that's how you could potentially snag a deal and get this with 25% down, you can get an interest rate as low as four and three quarter percent, yes, and that's showing with zero buyer paid discount points, the combined rent from both sides of this new build Inverness duplex is estimated at $2,830 of course, often you need to estimate a rent range or make an estimate on the projected rent for new builds, because often they're not occupied yet, since they were just built, sales price of just a touch under 420k on the Inverness duplex, and as just one of the five ways you're paid the cash on cash return is projected at 5% yes, your return goes up into the positive cash flow zone when your mortgage rate is as low as four and three quarters percent. I mean, that is really attractive. It also comes with a year of free property management. So there you go, a new build single family rental in Alabama, an old duplex in Davenport, Iowa, and a new build duplex with just killer incentives in Inverness, Florida, and that's just the sampling of real estate pays five ways type of properties. We either help you get started or continue on your path to financial freedom and help you do that. With our completely free investment coaching, we work with you to help you with these properties or others like them or none at all, if it's not in your best interest to invest now at GRE marketplace.com All you need to do to get started from GRE marketplace.com is click on the coaching area and you can get on the calendar for a free strategy session until next week, I'm your host, Keith Weinhold, don't quit your Daydream.   Speaker 2  50:35   Nothing on this show should be considered specific personal or professional advice. Please consult an appropriate tax, legal, real estate, financial or business professional for individualized advice. Opinions of guests are their own. Information is not guaranteed. All investment strategies have the potential for profit or loss. The host is operating on behalf of get rich Education LLC, exclusively, Chris,   Keith Weinhold  51:03   The preceding program was brought to you by your home for wealth, building, getricheducation.com  

El 19 de enero de 1798 nació en Montpellier, Francia, el filósofo y escritor Auguste Comte, formulador del positivismo, doctrina fundamental para la sociología.

Peu de one man shows sont proposés dans les salles de spectacle de l'agglomération dijonnaise. Mais depuis deux ans, le jeune humoriste Thiébaud Derozier a lancé « la récréation stand up », des soirées qui sont proposées dans différents bars de Dijon. Ces soirées sont une opportunité pour de jeunes humoristes en herbe de monter sur scène et de se faire connaitre.Une soirée est proposée ce lundi 9 septembre au bar « The Duke », rue Auguste Comte. Ecoutez ci-dessous notre interview de Thiébaud Derozier :

TLM - SQ2U EQ4 - En 1835, el filósofo francés Auguste Comte afirmó que nadie sabría nunca de qué estaban hechas las estrellas. «Concebimos la posibilidad de determinar sus formas, sus distancias, sus tamaños y sus movimientos», escribió, «pero nunca tendremos manera de estudiar su composición química o su estructura mineralógica, y menos aún la naturaleza de los cuerpos organizados que vivan en su superficie». Los descubrimientos realizados desde entonces dejarían a Comte sin palabras. Hoy sabemos que el universo es mucho más grande y extraño de lo que nadie sospechaba. Escucha el episodio completo en la app de iVoox, o descubre todo el catálogo de iVoox Originals

Uma conversa sobre o precursor da Sociologia.

Positivismo de Auguste Comte --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/pedro-mendes-ju00fanior/message

This episode of 'The New Abnormal' podcast features Maarten Leyts, the Founder of Trendwolves and an expert on translating trends into products, strategies campaigns and future brand value. He's also the author of ‘Generation ZAlpha – Connecting with the Next Micro-Generation'. Maarten believes that generational thinking, when used correctly, provides a solid framework for successful marketing and product innovation. We therefore discuss his research into issues such as the pandemic as a catalyst of change, brain development in the digital age, diversity & inclusion, the Metaverse, and data privacy. It's not every day that, when discussing marketing, you get to reference individuals such as the French philosopher Auguste Comte, the 19th Century Earl of Shaftesbury, along with those working at the World Federation of Advertisers and for the European Parliament…

The nineteenth century French philosopher Auguste Comte once wrote, “Demography is destiny.” If that's true, then a global demographic trend is hurtling the world toward the appointed destiny of this age.

In F.A. Hayek's book The Counter-Revolution of Science, he explains the significance of two French thinkers, Henri de Saint Simon and Auguste Comte, who, by applying the language and methods of the natural sciences to social phenomenon, are responsible for the dramatic rise of socialism, totalitarianism, and the idea of the technocratic state. Even though these names have largely been forgotten to history, their ideas were wildly popular during the 19th century and merged with Hegelianism in Germany, leading to the works of Marx and Engles. In passing, Hayek refers to two prominent 19th century Biblical scholars, David Fredrich Strauss and Ernst Renan, both of whom were influenced by Saint-Simonian ideas. Both of these scholars were deeply influential in the development of modern Biblical scholarship, and both had ties to the nationalist and statist movements that swept Europe during this time. Strauss was the most influential member of the Tubingen School in Germany, which set the parameters for modern Biblical scholarship, and Renan had an outsized influence in France. I outline as a preliminary theory the significance of these two figures being attached to Saint-Simonian ideas and how that has quite possibly shaped the presuppositions of all modern Biblical scholarship down to this day. I also explain how Albert Schweitzer correctly sets both of their work in the context of Hegelianism but missed the Hegelian merger with Saint-Simonianism.  We need a Biblical scholar who can take these ideas further, and I plan on addressing this interesting insight in more detail in later shows.   Media Referenced:The Counter-Revolution of Science, F.A. HayekThe Quest for the Historical Jesus, Albert SchweitzerApproaches to Paul, Magnus Zetterholmhttps://libertarianchristians.com/episode/first-three-quests-historical-jesus-reimarus-wright/https://libertarianchristians.com/episode/next-quest-historical-jesus/https://libertarianchristians.com/episode/ep-90-the-counter-revolution-of-science-by-f-a-hayek/ The Protestant Libertarian Podcast is a project of the Libertarian Christian Institute and a part of the Christians For Liberty Network. The Libertarian Christian Institute can be found at www.libertarianchristians.com. Questions, comments, suggestions? Please reach out to me at theprotestantlibertarian@gmail.com.  You can also follow the podcast on Twitter: @prolibertypod. For more about the show, you can go to theprotestantlibertarianpodcast.com. If you like the show and want to support it, you can! Check out the Protestant Libertarian Podcast page at https://www.buymeacoffee.com/theplpodcast. Also, please consider giving me a star rating and leaving me a review, it really helps expand the shows profile! Thanks! 

In this episode I review the main arguments of F.A. Hayek's 1952 book ‘The Counter-Revolution of Science', in which he outlines the rise of socialist and totalitarian thought in the early 19th century. Hayek's main point in this brilliant and insightful book is that the methods and language of the natural sciences were illegitimately applied to the study of society and created the conditions under which French thinkers began to believe that history, politics, and economics operated under natural laws that could be discovered and then applied to society by central planners. He explores how the work of Henri de Saint-Simon and Auguste Comte in the early 19th century laid the foundation for modern authoritarian thinking, how these ideas spread to Germany and fused with Hegelianism, and their abiding influence on all branches of social studies, including economics and theology. He explores the historical context of these thinkers and demonstrates the many philosophical flaws and idiosyncrasies in their work. This book is technical, illuminating, relevant, and well-worth the read. Media Referenced:The Counter-Revolution of Science, F.A. HayekEpisode on Marxism: https://libertarianchristians.com/episode/marxism-social-political-creed/Episode on The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: https://libertarianchristians.com/episode/what-does-it-mean-to-believe-science/ The Protestant Libertarian Podcast is a project of the Libertarian Christian Institute and a part of the Christians For Liberty Network. The Libertarian Christian Institute can be found at www.libertarianchristians.com. Questions, comments, suggestions? Please reach out to me at theprotestantlibertarian@gmail.com.  You can also follow the podcast on Twitter: @prolibertypod. For more about the show, you can go to theprotestantlibertarianpodcast.com. If you like the show and want to support it, you can! Check out the Protestant Libertarian Podcast page at https://www.buymeacoffee.com/theplpodcast. Also, please consider giving me a star rating and leaving me a review, it really helps expand the shows profile! Thanks!

Welcome to our exploration of the fascinating world of humanism and secularism, and their profound influence on society. We will look at the history of humanism and secularism, from Auguste Comte to the Humanist Manifesto, and the International Humanist and Ethical Union. We will also discuss the challenges faced by humanism and the recognition of secular humanism as a valid belief system. Join us on this journey to discover the power of humanism and secularism. source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

durée : 00:55:50 - Les Nuits de France Culture - Comment une devise tronquée du philosophe français Auguste Comte (Ordre et Progrès) s'est-elle retrouvée sur le drapeau brésilien ? C'est la question qui sert de point de départ au débat de "La Fabrique de l'histoire" autour des malentendus dans les transferts culturels de pays tellement éloignés. - invités : Olivier Compagnon Historien, professeur d'histoire contemporaine à l'Université Sorbonne-Nouvelle et directeur du Centre de recherche et de documentation des Amériques (CNRS/Paris 3); Bruno Karsenti; Sébastien Rozeaux Historien, maître de conférences à l'université Toulouse Jean Jaurès, spécialiste de l'histoire de l'Europe et de l'Amérique latine

================================================== ==SUSCRIBETEhttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNpffyr-7_zP1x1lS89ByaQ?sub_confirmation=1================================================== == DEVOCIÓN MATUTINA PARA JÓVENES 2023“CARÁCTER”Narrado por: Daniel RamosDesde: Connecticut, Estados UnidosUna cortesía de DR'Ministries y Canaan Seventh-Day Adventist Church  18 DE ABRIL                                                                                              LA TAXONOMÍA DE CRISTO «Aunque andamos en la carne, no militamos según la carne.» 2 Cor. 10:3 Auguste Comte dijo: «El amor como principio, el orden como base y el progreso como fin.» Este autor influyó tanto en la sociedad que el positivismo impregno el pensamiento científico y todo se llenó de etiquetas. Es curioso, un mundo tan precisamente clasificado y tan desordenado moralmente.En la iglesia de Corinto, todo y todos tienen su etiqueta: los de Afrodita (sensualistas), Hera (matrimonialistas) o Dionisio (espitas); los de Apolo (curanderos), Asclepio (médicos), o Poseidón (marineros); los de la carne, los del caos y los judaizantes. Muchas clasificaciones, pero ningún orden. Poco a poco, Pablo orienta sobre las prioridades de Dios, sobre la preeminencia del amor genuino, el espacio y tiempo de los dones. Proponga que todas las cosas se hagan con sentido común, de manera correcta y reflexionando moralmente. add que deben existir, además, pautas que acerquen a la verdad y alejen de la confusión. La única etiqueta es «cristiano» y el único modelo es Cristo.Cristo no habla en su taxonomía de liberales o conservadores, sensualistas o normativistas, históricos o aggiornados. Jesús clasifica a la humanidad en trigo-ovejas (creyentes) o cizaña-cabras (no creyentes). Un creyente, por naturaleza, es decente y, por definición, es ordenado. Un creyente promueve la honestidad porque en lo correcto hay crecimiento y equilibrio; a su vez, potencia el orden porque vivimos en un mundo en el que los valores están alterados. De ahí que se aconseje: «Deben realizar una obra que requiere mucho tacto, siendo que han sido llamados a combatir en la iglesia la desunión, el rencor, la envidia y los celos, y necesitan trabajar con el espíritu de Cristo para poner las cosas en orden. Deben darse fieles amonestaciones, el pecado debe ser reprendido, lo torcido, enderezado, no solamente por la obra del ministro desde el púlpito, sino también por medio de la obra personal. El corazón descarriado podrá desaprobar el mensaje, juzgando incorrectamente y criticando al siervo de Dios. Recuerde este entonces que "la sabiduría que es de lo alto, primeramente, es pura, después pacífica, modesta, benigna, llena de misericordia y de buenos frutos, no juzgadora, no fingida. Y el fruto de justicia se siembra en paz para aquellos que hacen paz" (Santiago 3:17-18].» (Elena G. White, Los hechos de los Apóstoles, p. 420). Y tú eres un creyente. Recuerda: la única etiqueta es «cristiano» y el único modelo es Cristo.Nos podríamos permitir cierta rectificación de la frase de Comte y afirmar: «El Amor como principio, el Orden como base y la Redención como fin».

Topics covered include The Edge of Knowledge (his forthcoming book on time, space, matter, life, and consciousness), science as a form of play, humor, Richard Feynman, Noam Chomsky, the hierarchy of the sciences (Auguste Comte), the natural versus social sciences, applied versus basic research, interdisciplinarity, philosophy, wokeism across disciplines, and personal regrets (if any). Order a copy of Lawrence's latest book The Edge of Knowledge here: https://www.amazon.com/Edge-Knowledge-Unsolved-Mysteries-Cosmos/dp/1637588569 _______________________________________ If you appreciate my work and would like to support it: https://subscribestar.com/the-saad-truth https://patreon.com/GadSaad https://paypal.me/GadSaad _______________________________________ This clip was posted earlier today (April 13, 2023) on my YouTube channel as THE SAAD TRUTH_1539: https://youtu.be/RwWMC3nK1Go _______________________________________ My forthcoming book The Saad Truth about Happiness: 8 Secrets for Leading the Good Life is now available for pre-order: https://www.amazon.com/Saad-Truth-about-Happiness-Secrets/dp/1684512603 _______________________________________ Please visit my website gadsaad.com, and sign up for alerts. If you appreciate my content, click on the "Support My Work" button. I count on my fans to support my efforts. You can donate via Patreon, PayPal, and/or SubscribeStar. _______________________________________ Dr. Gad Saad is a professor, evolutionary behavioral scientist, and author who pioneered the use of evolutionary psychology in marketing and consumer behavior. In addition to his scientific work, Dr. Saad is a leading public intellectual who often writes and speaks about idea pathogens that are destroying logic, science, reason, and common sense. _______________________________________    

Você já ouviu falar sobre Augusto Comte, um dos grandes nomes da filosofia e sociologia do século XIX? Se não, então precisa conhecer o novo episódio do FILOSOPOP, o podcast que desvenda os grandes pensadores e movimentos da filosofia. Neste episódio, vamos com o professor João Saraiva mergulhar na vida e obra de Comte, conhecer suas ideias revolucionárias e entender a sua influência na história da ciência e da filosofia. Não perca essa oportunidade de expandir seus horizontes e descobrir mais sobre a nossa sociedade e seu desenvolvimento ao longo do tempo. Então não fique aí parado, ouça já o FILOSOPOP, o podcast que te ensina que a filosofia pode ser bem popular!

In this long-delayed episode (due to work on The Age of Nihilism, available at store.ancientfaith.com/the-age-of-nihilism-christendom-from-the-great-war-to-the-culture-wars), Father John presents the historical origins of liberalism as a modern secular ideology. Atheistic philosophers like Auguste Comte and John Stuart Mill provided the philosophical basis for hope in a secular "kingdom of posterity."

Der französische Philosoph Auguste Comte (1798–1857) ist heute am ehesten als Begründer des Positivismus und der wissenschaftlichen Soziologie bekannt. Auf einen weiteren, vor allem für säkulare Humanisten fruchtbaren Aspekt seines Schaffens weist Helmut Fink in dieser Folge der Hör-Kolume »Freigeist« hin. Comtes Ziel war die Entwicklung einer verbindlichen Weltanschauung, die mit wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnissen verträglich ist Der Beitrag Freigeist (59) • Auguste Comte und die Religion der Humanität • Hör-Kolumne von Helmut Fink erschien zuerst auf Kortizes-Podcast.

Nacen: 1798, Auguste Comte. 1803, Sarah Helen Whitman. 1839, Paul Cézanne. 1868, Gustav Meyrink. 1943, Janis Joplin. 1955, Simon Rattle. Conducido por Joel Almaguer Una producción de Sala Prisma Podcast. 2023.

A palavra altruísmo surge com o pensador Auguste Comte, sociólogo do século XIX, e traz um conceito muito aproximado a ideia dos clássicos de que o Ser Humano é bom. Nessa perspectiva, ser altruísta é se aproximar da própria condição humana, e nada melhor do que o momento do Natal para que cada indivíduo reconheça o seu melhor e possa presentear a todos que estão ao seu entorno. Participantes: Jerusa Garay e Danilo Gomes Trilha sonora: Handel – Música Aquática, suíte nº 1 em Fá Maior, HWV 348

durée : 00:40:00 - Les Nuits de France Culture - par : Albane Penaranda - Michelle Perrot aborde la place des femmes dans l'écriture à travers le cas de George Sand, illustrant les difficultés des femmes à franchir la barrière des lettres, ou à être peintres ou musiciennes dans un monde que les hommes veulent dominer. Première diffusion les 17 et 18 mars 2005Ainsi les femmes ont une âme ; mais ont-elles un esprit ? "Oui", dit François Poullain de La Barre, un des premiers à affirmer l'égalité des sexes au XVIIe siècle. "Oui, dit Descartes, l'esprit n'a pas de sexe". Mais les femmes sont-elles susceptibles de créer ? "Non", dit-on assez généralement. Les grecs font du "pneuma" - le souffle créateur - la seule propriété de l'homme. Auguste Comte voit les femmes seulement capables de reproduire, comme Freud qui leur confèrent néanmoins l'invention du tressage et du tissage. Certains donnent à cette déficience un fondement biologique : un cerveau plus petit, plus léger. On dote généralement les femmes d'autres qualités : intuition, générosité. Elles sont médiums, muses, copistes, interprètes... sans plus. Écrire, penser, peindre, sculpter, composer de la musique ; tout cela n'était pas pour ces "imitatrices".Épisode 14 : Femmes et création : écrireMais revenons à la plus classique des frontières : l'écriture. Écrire pour les femmes ne fut pas chose facile ; leur écriture restait cantonnée au domaine privé : le courrier familial ou la comptabilité de la petite entreprise. Dans le concert de ceux qui n'aiment pas les femmes qui écrivent ; les conservateurs comme Joseph de Maistre, les libéraux comme Tocqueville, les républicains comme Michelet ou Zola. À propos de George Sand, certains aimaient à dire qu'elle avait "un clitoris gros comme nos verges", cultivant la misogynie graveleuse. George Sand nous servira d'exemple de la position toujours frontalière - même dans son cas - d'une femme écrivain. D'abord, par sa détermination. Elle avait, au couvent, la rage d'écrire et elle réalisa son ambition, contre l'avis des siens et notamment de sa belle-mère. Ensuite, par son choix d'un pseudonyme masculin. Notez que "George" ne comporte pas de "s" : est-ce un signe de volonté d'androgynie ? Cela est difficile à dire. Elle endosse sa masculinité - du moins dans sa vie professionnelle - et, chose rare, fait de son pseudonyme son patronyme.Épisode 15 : La vie d'artistePeindre, sculpter, composer de la musique, créer de l'art fut encore plus difficile qu'écrire. À cela, des raisons de fond : l'image et la musique sont des formes de création du monde. La musique surtout, langage des dieux. Les femmes y sont impropres. Comment pourraient-elles participer à cette mise en musique du monde, elles peuvent tout juste interpréter, être cantatrices par exemple. Elles peuvent peindre pour les leurs, créer des bouquets de fleurs, jouer au piano. Mais cette initiation à un usage privé de l'art ne devait mener ni a une profession, ni à la création. Tout juste en cas de besoin, une femme pouvait-elle donner des leçons de dessins ou de piano, fabriquer des objets ou copier des chefs-d'ouvres dans les galeries ou musées. Ces musées dont Baudelaire disait qu'ils étaient les seuls endroits convenables pour une femme.Par Michelle Perrot - Réalisation Pierrette Perrono

We further our discussion about The Psychology of Totalitarianism, by Mattias Desmet. It his book, Desmet talks about how in a totalitarian society, religion is replaced by science, and how experts and technocrats become the new priesthood. People caught up in the totalitarian mass formation eagerly subordinate their free will to that of the expert class. On this, he writes: “Totalitarianism is the belief that human intellect can be the guiding principle in life and society. It aims to create a utopian, artificial society lead by technocrats or experts who, based on their technical knowledge, will ensure that the machine of society runs flawlessly. In this view, the individual is completely subordinated to the collective, reduced to being a cog in the machine of society (see, for example, Bertrand Russell in The Impact of Science on Society.) The ideal of a technocratic society was inherent to the Enlightenment tradition, especially in its positivist branch. Positivist thinkers like Henri de Saint-Simon and Auguste Comte expressed their fanatical belief in a humanistic-technocratic society in which scientists and technocrats would take the place of the popes and priests. Not God, but human Reason should be glorified. This is the way to a utopian society without war or conflict, a Realm of Freedom.” Even while people take to the streets in China to protest their governments draconian zero-COVID measures, people in the West celebrate and welcome never ending COVID measures restricting personal freedom. In the East the Chinese, conditioned from birth to follow authority, shout for President Xi Jinping's resignation. In the West, Dr Fauci enjoys notoriety as he retires from public life, having led many to give up their fundamental freedoms. In one place, the sway of mass formation has reached its limit. In another, those caught up in a mass formation cling to it. Many of those same people on the left caught up in the mass formation based on COVID-19 fears, is simultaneously caught up in another-- centered around climate-change alarmism. Not just people, but entire countries have subordinated themselves to the gods of climate-change. The twin masters of climate-change and COVID alarmism have hurled countries headlong into self-destructive behavior. National leaders have subjected their citizens to the real possibility of freezing and hunger, largely based on the say of experts and technocrats who've convinced them to self-immolate their nations' farming and energy sectors. Totalitarian systems call on their members to defer reason and judgment in crucial areas to an expert class. Those swept up in the mass formation are convinced to place their faith not in God or religion, but experts and science. Just like with religion, this new machine messiah demands sacrifice and a subordination of will to itself. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/jp-mac/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/jp-mac/support

Le mot altruisme fut proposé par Auguste Comte qui voulait trouver une morale sans Dieu. Les avantages de l'altruisme et de l'empathie sont évidents. Ces qualités sont si bien considérées et ancrées dans les sociétés laïques et religieuses qu'il semble presque hérétique de suggérer qu'elles peuvent être nuisibles. Toutefois, comme la plupart des bonnes choses, l'altruisme peut être déformé ou porté à un extrême malsain. Dans l'ouvrage Pathological Altruism, quelques scientifiques dont David Sloan Wilson présentent un certain nombre de thèses qui explorent une série d'effets néfastes de l'altruisme et de l'empathie. Les pathologies de l'empathie, par exemple, peuvent déclencher la dépression ainsi que l'épuisement professionnel observé chez les professionnels de la santé. L'altruisme des patients souffrant d'anomalies alimentaires constitue un aspect important de ces troubles. L'hyperempathie – un excès de préoccupation pour ce que les autres pensent et ce qu'ils ressentent – contribue à expliquer des concepts populaires mais mal définis comme la codépendance. En fait, l'altruisme pathologique, sous la forme d'une attention malsaine portée aux autres au détriment de ses propres besoins, peut sous-tendre certains troubles de la personnalité. Les pathologies de l'altruisme et de l'empathie ne sont pas seulement à l'origine de problèmes de santé, mais aussi d'un ensemble disparate des caractéristiques les plus troublantes de l'humanité, notamment les génocides, les attentats suicides, les partis pris politiques moralisateurs et les programmes philanthropiques et sociaux inefficaces qui finissent par aggraver les situations qu'ils sont censés aider. RAGE Site : rage-culture.com Tipeee: fr.tipeee.com/rage Twitter : twitter.com/RageCultureMag Discord : discord.gg/GXeSJ7XuNS Instagram : www.instagram.com/rage_cult/?hl=fr Telegram : t.me/rage_culture Facebook : www.facebook.com/RageCultureMag

Welcome to Episode One Hundred Forty-Seven of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the only complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we'll walk you through the ancient Epicurean texts, and we'll discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where you will find a discussion thread for each of our podcast episodes and many other topics. We're now in the process of a series of podcasts intended to provide a general overview of Epicurean philosophy based on the organizational structure employed by Norman DeWitt in his book "Epicurus and His Philosophy."This week we discuss a series of Points and Counterpoints which Norman DeWitt describes as "True Opinions / False Opinions" about Epicurus:True Opinions - False OpinionsEpicurus' Place In Greek Philosophy:True: Epicurus came immediately after Plato (idealism; absolutism) and Pyrrho (the skeptic). Platonism and Skepticism were among Epicurus' chief abominations.False: Epicurus taught in response to Stoicism. (False because Epicurean philosophy was fully developed before Zeno began teaching Stoicism.)Epicurus' Attitude Toward Learning:True: Epicurus was well educated and a trained thinker.False: Epicurus was an ignoramus and an enemy of all culture.Epicurus' Goal For Himself And His Work:True: Epicurus was not only a philosopher but a moral reformer rebelling against his teachers.False: Epicurus was nothing more than a copycat who was ungrateful to his teachers.Epicurus' Place in Greek Scientific Thought:True: Epicurus was returning to the Ionian tradition of thought which had been interrupted by Socrates and Plato. Epicurus was an Anti-Platonist and a penetrating critic of Platonism.False: Epicurean scientific thought simply copied Democritus.Epicurus' Role As a Systematizer:True: As with Herbert Spencer or Auguste Comte, Epicurus was attempting a synthesis and critique of all prior philosophical thought.False: Epicurus was a sloppy and unorganized thinker whose system-building is not worth attention.Epicurus' Dogmatism:True: Epicurus' strength was that he promulgated a dogmatic philosophy, actuated by a passion for inquiry to find certainty, and a detestation of skepticism, which he imputed even to Plato.False: Epicurus' demerit was that he promulgated a dogmatic philosophy, because he renounced inquiry.Epicurus' View of Truth:True: Epicurus exalted Nature as the norm of truth, revolting against Plato, who had preached “reason” as the norm and considered “Reason” to have a divine existence of its own. Epicurus studied and taught the nature and use of sensations, and the role in determining that which we consider to be true.False: Epicurus was an empiricist in the modern sense, declaring sensation to be the only source of knowledge and all sensations to be “true.”Epicurus' Method For Determining Truth:True: Epicurus taught reasoning chiefly by deduction. For example, atoms cannot be observed directly; their existence and properties must be determined by deduction, and the principles thereby deduced serve as standards for assessing truth. In this Epicurus was adopting the procedures of Euclid and partying company with both Plato and the Ionian scientists.False: Epicurus was a strict empiricist and taught reasoning mainly by induction.Epicurus' As A Man of ActionTrue: Epicurus was the first missionary philosophy. Epicurus was by disposition combative and he was by natural gifts a leader, organizer, and campaigner.False: Epicurus was effeminate and a moral invalid; a passivist who taught retirement from and non-engagement with the world.Epicurus' View of Self-InterestTrue: Epicureanism was the first world philosophy, acceptable to both Greek and barbarian. Epicurus taught that we should make friends wherever possible.False: Epicurus was a totally egoistic hedonist ruled solely by a narrow view of his own self-interest.Epicurus Is Of Little Relevance to the Development of ChristianityTrue: Epicurus reoriented emphasis from political virtues to social virtues, and developed a wider viewpoint applicable to all humanity.False: Epicurus was an enemy of all religion and there is no trace of his influence in the “New Testament.”

Cette semaine, nous discutons un texte que j'ai écrit pour mon CAS en philosophie et management.Le voici:Mon collègue de cours Bruno a lâché une bombe conceptuelle dans mon cerveau quand il a sous-entendu que certaines organisations prônaient l'autonomie pour ne pas avoir à prendre leurs responsabilités.Cela ne m'était jamais apparu sous ce jour. Pour moi, l'appel à l'autonomie correspond au chemin vers l'autodétermination de Deci et Ryan qui permet, grâce à une internalisation des facteurs de motivation, d'éviter la dépendance : je n'ai plus besoin des félicitations de ma cheffe parce que je trouve mon job utile. Je m'aperçois en écrivant ces lignes que j'ai posé la dépendance comme étantnégative. Pourquoi ? Je crois que j'ai, sans le vouloir, suivi le mode pensée libéral, devenu si omniprésent qu'il en devient une seconde nature : l'Homme est rationnel et individualiste ; c'est en construisant son propre bonheur qu'il construira une société heureuse.Ce présupposé philosophique, hérité de Jeremy Bentham, est tenace.  Pourtant, la psychologie et les neurosciences modernes montrent que nos perceptions, siège de l'acquisition des données de l'ordinateur rationnel libéral, ne fonctionnent pas de manière neutre et nourrissent notre cerveau d'informations qui correspondent aux schémas mentaux déjà enregistrés. Pire : une très large majorité du fonctionnement calculatoire du cerveau a lieu en-dessous du seuil de la conscience. Homo rationalis n'a donc jamais existé.Et homo individualensis, alors ? Rien, ne semble-t-il, n'a encore mis fin à cette illusion-là. Malgré les apports de la sociologie depuis Auguste Comte en 1839 déjà, le mythe d'un être individualiste, centré sur son propre bonheur plutôt que sur l'obéissance à un ou l'autre dieu, continue de dominer la pensée moderne. Comme si, à la sortie de l'ère obscurantiste imposée par l'Église catholique, nous avions jeté le bébé du lien nécessaire entre humains avec l'eau bénite du bain chrétien.Dans une entreprise du 21ème siècle, ce débat en apparence théorique pose portant un problème épineux : de quel type de culture une organisation a-t-elle besoin ? De celle qui commence par le travail sur soi, la responsabilité individuelle envers et contre tout, donc qui permet un confort organisationnel proche du laisser-faire libéral, ou au contraire de celle qui promeut le travail sur l'organisation d'abord, et sur les personnes ensuite ?En 2022, la réponse me semble claire : les programmes de formation sont centrés sur les compétences individuelles et les objectifs individuels sont la règle dans bien des entreprises, alors que le travail sur le fonctionnement et la qualité des conversations beaucoup plus rare.Homo individualensis a donc encore de beaux jours devant lui . Accès gratuit à toutes nos ressources: www.coapta.ch/campusAccès aux archives du podcast: www.coapta.ch/podcast© COAPTA SàrlTous les épisodes disponibles sur www.coapta.ch/podcast ou sur votre plateforme préférée (Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts); cherchez "Leadershift" ou "Vincent Musolino"

durée : 00:55:50 - Les Nuits de France Culture - Comment une devise tronquée du philosophe français Auguste Comte (Ordre et Progrès) s'est-elle retrouvée sur le drapeau brésilien ? C'est la question qui sert de point de départ au débat de "La Fabrique de l'histoire" autour des malentendus dans les transferts culturels de pays tellement éloignés. - invités : Olivier Compagnon Historien, professeur d'histoire contemporaine à l'Université Sorbonne-Nouvelle et directeur du Centre de recherche et de documentation des Amériques (CNRS/Paris 3); Bruno Karsenti; Sébastien Rozeaux

Dans Les voix de la liberté. Les écrivains engagés au XIXe siècle (Seuil, 2000), l'historien Michel Winock conclut le chapitre qu'il consacre à Auguste Comte en ces termes : « Etrange destinée que cette œuvre irriguant des terrains aussi contraires que ceux du nationalisme et du républicanisme radical. Concilier l'Ordre et le Progrès ne va pas de soi (…) »1. Cette difficile articulation semble ne rien avoir perdu de son actualité. La science politique a tendance à attribuer, schématiquement, deux ensembles de valeurs aux pôles structurant la vie politique occidentale depuis la fin du XVIIIe siècle : d'un côté, l'ordre, la tradition, le respect des hiérarchies établies et des structures héritées, qui seraient l'apanage de la droite ; de l'autre, le progrès social, l'expression de l'individualité, le libéralisme en matière de mœurs, qui s'inscriraient dans le champ de la gauche. Pourtant, l'immense majorité des personnes politisées qu'il m'ait été donné de rencontrer se sentent obligées d'adhérer à une sorte de « forfait idéologique ». S'identifier à la droite contraindrait à épouser toutes les causes ou les idéaux associés à cette inclination. On devrait ainsi, d'un même mouvement, défendre le principe d'identité, lutter pour assurer la continuité de notre civilisation, porter haut les traditions pluriséculaires de notre peuple, rejeter sans ménagement l'immigration et la secte répugnante qu'elle charrie ou encore abhorrer la perspective du Grand Remplacement tout en consentant au conservatisme social et moral ou à la frilosité, en matière d'évolution technologique. Les tenants de cette conception de la politique prétendent faire montre de cohérence idéologique. J'affirme, pour ma part, qu'il est possible de se réclamer d'une droite férocement occidentaliste, très attachée aux traditions et à l'idée de hiérarchie en ne sacrifiant rien au progrès moral, social et technique. Mieux ! Je considère que ce dernier constitue l'une des principales expressions de l'occidentalité. RAGE Site : rage-culture.com/ Tipeee: fr.tipeee.com/rage Twitter : twitter.com/RageCultureMag Discord : discord.gg/GXeSJ7XuNS Instagram : www.instagram.com/rage_cult/?hl=fr Telegram : t.me/rage_culture Facebook : www.facebook.com/RageCultureMag

Agradece a este podcast tantas horas de entretenimiento y disfruta de episodios exclusivos como éste. ¡Apóyale en iVoox! SQ2UEQ4 - En 1835, el filósofo francés Auguste Comte afirmó que nadie sabría nunca de qué estaban hechas las estrellas. «Concebimos la posibilidad de determinar sus formas, sus distancias, sus tamaños y sus movimientos», escribió, «pero nunca tendremos manera de estudiar su composición química o su estructura mineralógica, y menos aún la naturaleza de los cuerpos organizados que vivan en su superficie». Los descubrimientos realizados desde entonces dejarían a Comte sin palabras. Escucha el episodio completo en la app de iVoox, o descubre todo el catálogo de iVoox Originals

Sự sáng tạo, là một trong những năng lực tâm lý đặc biệt nhất của con người. Về cơ bản, đó là sự nảy sinh của những ý tưởng mới, và cách ta nắm bắt và triển khai chúng. Trong góc nhìn của Auguste Comte, những ý tưởng của con người, là yếu tố quan trọng hàng đầu giúp thúc đẩy sự tiến bộ và phát triển của xã hội loài người. Vậy những ý tưởng, từ đâu mà ra? Và làm sao để chúng ta có thể nuôi dưỡng và phát triển được năng lực sáng tạo này của mình?

Obrigado por ouvir! Nesse podcast, destaco a chegada do pensamento positivista através de Auguste Comte, fundador da Lei dos Três Estados!

Video dell'episodio --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/corgiov/message

Richard Congreve, Positivist Politics, the Victorian Press, and the British Empire (Palgrave MacMillan, 2021) is about the life and times of Richard Congreve. This polemicist was the first thinker to gain instant infamy for publishing cogent critiques of imperialism in Victorian Britain. As the foremost British acolyte of Auguste Comte, Congreve sought to employ the philosopher's new science of sociology to dismantle the British Empire. With an aim to realise in its place Comte's global vision of utopian socialist republican city-states, the former Oxford don and ex-Anglican minister launched his Church of Humanity in 1859. Over the next forty years, Congreve engaged in some of the most pressing foreign and domestic controversies of his day, despite facing fierce personal attacks in the Victorian press. Congreve made overlooked contributions to the history of science, political economy, and secular ethics. In this book Matthew Wilson argues that Congreve's polemics, ‘in the name of Humanity', served as the devotional practices of his Positivist church. Cresa Pugh is a PhD Candidate in sociology and social policy at Harvard University. For more information see scholar.harvard.edu/cresa and follow her on Twitter @CresaPugh. 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

Richard Congreve, Positivist Politics, the Victorian Press, and the British Empire (Palgrave MacMillan, 2021) is about the life and times of Richard Congreve. This polemicist was the first thinker to gain instant infamy for publishing cogent critiques of imperialism in Victorian Britain. As the foremost British acolyte of Auguste Comte, Congreve sought to employ the philosopher's new science of sociology to dismantle the British Empire. With an aim to realise in its place Comte's global vision of utopian socialist republican city-states, the former Oxford don and ex-Anglican minister launched his Church of Humanity in 1859. Over the next forty years, Congreve engaged in some of the most pressing foreign and domestic controversies of his day, despite facing fierce personal attacks in the Victorian press. Congreve made overlooked contributions to the history of science, political economy, and secular ethics. In this book Matthew Wilson argues that Congreve's polemics, ‘in the name of Humanity', served as the devotional practices of his Positivist church. Cresa Pugh is a PhD Candidate in sociology and social policy at Harvard University. For more information see scholar.harvard.edu/cresa and follow her on Twitter @CresaPugh. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

Richard Congreve, Positivist Politics, the Victorian Press, and the British Empire (Palgrave MacMillan, 2021) is about the life and times of Richard Congreve. This polemicist was the first thinker to gain instant infamy for publishing cogent critiques of imperialism in Victorian Britain. As the foremost British acolyte of Auguste Comte, Congreve sought to employ the philosopher's new science of sociology to dismantle the British Empire. With an aim to realise in its place Comte's global vision of utopian socialist republican city-states, the former Oxford don and ex-Anglican minister launched his Church of Humanity in 1859. Over the next forty years, Congreve engaged in some of the most pressing foreign and domestic controversies of his day, despite facing fierce personal attacks in the Victorian press. Congreve made overlooked contributions to the history of science, political economy, and secular ethics. In this book Matthew Wilson argues that Congreve's polemics, ‘in the name of Humanity', served as the devotional practices of his Positivist church. Cresa Pugh is a PhD Candidate in sociology and social policy at Harvard University. For more information see scholar.harvard.edu/cresa and follow her on Twitter @CresaPugh. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/biography

Richard Congreve, Positivist Politics, the Victorian Press, and the British Empire (Palgrave MacMillan, 2021) is about the life and times of Richard Congreve. This polemicist was the first thinker to gain instant infamy for publishing cogent critiques of imperialism in Victorian Britain. As the foremost British acolyte of Auguste Comte, Congreve sought to employ the philosopher's new science of sociology to dismantle the British Empire. With an aim to realise in its place Comte's global vision of utopian socialist republican city-states, the former Oxford don and ex-Anglican minister launched his Church of Humanity in 1859. Over the next forty years, Congreve engaged in some of the most pressing foreign and domestic controversies of his day, despite facing fierce personal attacks in the Victorian press. Congreve made overlooked contributions to the history of science, political economy, and secular ethics. In this book Matthew Wilson argues that Congreve's polemics, ‘in the name of Humanity', served as the devotional practices of his Positivist church. Cresa Pugh is a PhD Candidate in sociology and social policy at Harvard University. For more information see scholar.harvard.edu/cresa and follow her on Twitter @CresaPugh. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

Richard Congreve, Positivist Politics, the Victorian Press, and the British Empire (Palgrave MacMillan, 2021) is about the life and times of Richard Congreve. This polemicist was the first thinker to gain instant infamy for publishing cogent critiques of imperialism in Victorian Britain. As the foremost British acolyte of Auguste Comte, Congreve sought to employ the philosopher's new science of sociology to dismantle the British Empire. With an aim to realise in its place Comte's global vision of utopian socialist republican city-states, the former Oxford don and ex-Anglican minister launched his Church of Humanity in 1859. Over the next forty years, Congreve engaged in some of the most pressing foreign and domestic controversies of his day, despite facing fierce personal attacks in the Victorian press. Congreve made overlooked contributions to the history of science, political economy, and secular ethics. In this book Matthew Wilson argues that Congreve's polemics, ‘in the name of Humanity', served as the devotional practices of his Positivist church. Cresa Pugh is a PhD Candidate in sociology and social policy at Harvard University. For more information see scholar.harvard.edu/cresa and follow her on Twitter @CresaPugh. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/british-studies

No episódio de hoje, abordaremos cinco pontos imprescindíveis para entender o positivismo de Auguste Comte, importante filósofo francês.

La grande legge dei tre stadi: lo Stato teologico o fittizio lo Stato metafisico o astratto, lo Stato scientifico o positivo. La fisica sociale. Statica sociale e Dinamica sociale. Funzione della tradizione. L'esperimento in sociologia.

Considéré comme l'intellectuel qui a inspiré toute la pensée réactionnaire, Louis de Bonald est réputé comme un penseur rétrograde et moralisateur. Né en 1754 et mort en 1840, on le dissocie rarement de son contemporain Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821). Louis de Bonald n'est pas seulement philosophe. Maire de Millau à l'aube de la Révolution, il suit une carrière politique active durant toute la première moitié du XIXème siècle et expose son analyse du monde qui va dans de nombreux journaux. Était-il vraiment le nostalgique que l'on décrit ? De quelle monarchie souhaite-t-il le rétablissement ? Sa pensée est-elle plus philosophique qu'idéologique ? Comment le moraliste conjugue-t-il ses idéaux philosophique et sa carrière politique ? Mari-Gwenn Carichon reçoit l'historien Flavien Bertrand de Balanda. L'invité : Flavien Bertrand de Balanda est chercheur à l'École Pratique des Hautes Études et chercheur associé au centre d'histoire du XIXème siècle. Louis de Bonald, Philosophe et homme politique (1754-1840) est le fruit de sa thèse de doctorat soutenue en 2016 et qui a reçu le prix du Jury de la Fondation Napoléon 2021 et le prix de thèse de la maison Auguste Comte.

We consider the ideology of Auguste Comte, considered the founder of sociology. Plus, what it means for the Lord to conquer the world.

se tratan las dos primeras novelas de michel houellebecq, Amliación del Campo de Batalla y Las Partículas Elementales, la influencia de Auguste Comte y las ideas del autor sobre la influencia de Mayo del 68 en el mundo actual.

In this episode, we will explore what the word “normal” means by looking at Canguilhem's work, and then discuss the relationship between health and disease. What is it to be, and/or to feel normal? Footnotes + food for thought... François Broussais (1772 –1838) Auguste Comte (1798 – 1857) George Canguilhem (1904 – 1995) Donna Billick Hosted by Jeanne Proust Produced & Scored by Johnny Nicholson Visuals by Pedro Gomes

In this episode, we will explore what the word “normal” means by looking at Canguilhem's work, and then discuss the relationship between health and disease. What is it to be, and/or to feel normal? Footnotes + food for thought... François Broussais (1772 –1838) Auguste Comte (1798 – 1857) George Canguilhem (1904 – 1995) Donna Billick Hosted by Jeanne Proust Produced & Scored by Johnny Nicholson Visuals by Pedro Gomes

In this episode you'll learn what the French philosopher and eccentric, Auguste Comte can teach us about the relationship between faith, humanity, and humility. You'll also hear what the bestselling author A.J. Jacobs has learned about gratitude and luck via his many personal quests for knowledge and self-improvement. This episode is part two in a three part series on HUMILITY. #thehappierhour TheHappierHour.org/podcast/comte Facebook.com/TheHappierHour Twitter.com/MissMMcCarthy Instagram.com/MissMMcCarthy

El momento click (Aha! moment) Temporada 3 13/11/2018 El tiempo click. Importante. Ese momento en el que se da un salto de nivel y algo cambia en el cerebro pero también en la realidad. Debe estar sincronizado. Hay un tiempo necesario para saltar de nivel. Se necesitan 5 factores 1. Experiencia. 10.000h. 2. Eliminar limitaciones mentales. Seguridad. Creer en uno. Ej. El dinero no da la felicidad. ¡Lo que no la da es no tenerlo! Ej. Pensar que es muy caro. ¡Puedes ayudar a muchas personas! Requiere ayuda externa de otra persona o personas. Mentor, libros, podcast, vídeo, frases, redes sociales... En un campo de fútbol pagas 10 veces más por un refresco que en un supermercado porque merece la pena. O un iphone se paga diseño, prestigio... O en otro país el agua es más cara. O en el desierto es más caro. Calmar la sed no tiene precio. Incluso que sea más barato no tiene sentido. 3. COMUNICACION. Saber vender y comunicar. No puedes decir a una persona que te compre sin conocerte. 4. Tu público objetivo debe estar preparado también. La comunicación ayuda. Se debe dar a conocer el beneficio y en ese punto el dinero ya no es limitación. Conozco gente que no llega a fin de mes pero ahorran para ver un partido Real Madrid Vs Barcelona o para comprarse un bolso. 5. ¡Hay que insistir! Los 9 impactos. Puedes estar en el momento pero por no persuadir e insistir pensar que aún no y perder tiempo y oportunidades. Resumen: Experiencia. cambio mentalidad propio. Cambio de comunicación. Todo requiere tiempo y estar sincronizado. Si una de las 3 falla no se se conseguirá pasar de nivel ni vender o alcanzar el objetivo. ¿Recuerdas en clase de matemáticas cuando no entendías nada y hacías muchos ejercicios hasta que de repente lo entendías? Experiencia. Ayuda del profesor. Tiempo necesario para que el cerebro cambie a otro nivel. Sorprenderse, extrañarse, es comenzar a entender. José Ortega y Gasset (1883-1955) Filósofo y ensayista español. Para entender una ciencia es necesario conocer su historia. Auguste Comte (1798-1857) Filósofo francés. Frases: http://www.proverbia.net/ Sígueme en Youtube: https://www.borjagiron.com/youtube Crear podcast como este en https://www.triunfacontublog.com/curso/crear-podcast/ Sobre el podcast El podcast “1 minuto podcast” se emite cada martes a las 7am de Madrid (España) y pretende dar consejos y trucos fáciles de aplicar para gente con iniciativa que quiera mejorar su vida y vivir de lo que le gusta. Sobre Borja Girón Ayudo a gente con iniciativa a cumplir sus sueños. En Periscope cada día. Podcast SEO PARA BLOGGERS y 1 minuto Podcast Más sobre mi en http://www.borjagiron.com/quien-soy/ MIS CURSOS https://www.triunfacontublog.com MIS LIBROS http://www.borjagiron.com/persuasion http://www.borjagiron.com/libros Dejar reseña en Apple Podcast: https://www.borjagiron.com/internet/como-escribir-resena-itunes-podcast-4-pasos/

Today's Flash Back Friday comes from Episode 67 with James Jaeger, from January 2012. Jason Hartman interviews film producer, James Jaeger, regarding the new documentary, “The Spoiler.” James discusses the philosophical underpinnings of our society over the last 100 years, dividing it into two categories: Libertarian Conservative Era and the Progressive Era. Jason and James tackle the question, how can so many people be fooled into this latter system, one of big government and Keynesian economics, for decade after decade, and no matter which political party is in power, they still apply the same philosophies, the same economics? Visit: www.HolisticSurvival.com. James talks about how he and his partners found the conclusion to be powerful philosophers, most especially three major philosophers, Jean-Jaques Rousseau, Auguste Comte, and Karl Marx, to be the influence. These and other philosophers laid the groundwork of these eras and slowly indoctrinated people through the decades. “They basically undermined the whole viewpoint of the individualist, strong, free economic society that we had going from the birth of the nation,” says James. Comte's influence was the greater good, or altruism. Rousseau wrote the book, Social Contract, (democracy.) Karl Marx twisted Comte's greater good to be for the greater good of the State (communism). We have been brought slowly through the years into an increasingly welfare – warfare, totalitarian-type civilization with centralized planning, etc. Jason and James also discuss outsourcing, fractional reserve, taxes, GDP, illegal labor, and many other topics that are a result of the culmination of philosophers and political thinkers through the years. The film, “Spoiler,” offers an explanation of why no third political party has been successful since 1860, and discusses a platform that is based on the political strategies of Nelson Hultberg that could bring a win to a third party and end the current two-party system. James Jaeger is a Telly Award-winning filmmaker, having produced such documentaries as “Fiat Empire,” which featured Rep. Ron Paul and Dr. Edwin Vieira, and “Original Intent,” which featured Ted Baehr, Pat Buchanan, G. Edward Griffin, Ron Paul, and Edwin Vieira. The new “Spoiler” documentary features some of these same experts, among many others, such as Jack Rooney, John Williams, and Chuck Baldwin. James is the founder of Matrixx Productions. James founded the production company to continue goals set forth by Lee Garmes, Academy Artists, Inc., and the Independent Screen Producers Association, of which James is a founding member. James graduated from The Haverford School and The Cinema Institute. He also majored in Sociology at the University of Pennsylvania and graduated summa cum laude in filmmaking at Los Angeles City College. He worked personally with Award winning cinematographer-director-producer, Lee Garmes, who became one of James' most important mentors. James holds a management degree from Celebrity Centre in Hollywood and has written and published five books and a 98-volume training manual on motion picture production and operations. James is also a pioneer in broadband distribution of motion pictures over the Internet and a founder of Pay-Per-View.com.

For the first of two interviews on the subject of Technocracy and the Smart Grid, we are again joined by theologian Dr. Martin Erdmann, former Professor of Philosophy at North Greenville University and Director of the Verax Institute in Greer, South Carolina. In this interview, Dr. Erdmann introduces the technocratic movement of 1930s' America under Howard Scott and M. King Hubbert, and traces its intellectual roots to the positivistic, anti-supernaturalist and utopian ideas of the 18th/19th-Century French philosophers Henri Saint-Simon and Auguste Comte. But, explains, Dr. Erdmann, Technocracy is far from dead; bewitched by its ideals of a fair, efficient and ecological economy, and now emancipated by the wonders of smart technology, the utopian dreamers of our day are gradually resurrecting Technocracy, and quietly ushering in an Orwellian nightmare of global, totalitarian control. (For show notes, please visit TheMindRenewed.com)

Melvyn Bragg and guests Rosemary Ashton, Dinah Birch and Valentine Cunningham discuss George Eliot's novel Silas Marner.Published in 1861, Silas Marner is by far Eliot's shortest and seemingly simplest work. Yet beneath the fairytale-like structure, of all her novels it offers the most focused expression of Eliot's moral view. Influenced by the deconstruction of Christianity pioneered by leading European thinkers including Auguste Comte and Ludwig Feuerbach, Silas Marner is a highly sophisticated attempt to translate the symbolism of religion into purely human terms.The novel tells the story of Silas, a weaver who is thrown out of his religious community after being falsely charged with theft. Silas is embittered and exists only for his work and his precious hoard of money - until that money is stolen, and an abandoned child wanders into his house.By the end of her lifetime, George Eliot was the most powerful female intellectual in the country. Her extraordinary range of publications encompassed novels, poetry, literary criticism, scientific and religious texts. But beneath her fierce intellecualism was the deep convinction that for society to continue, humans must connect with their fellow humans. And it is this idea that forms the core of her writing.Rosemary Ashton is Quain Professor of English Language and Literature at University College, London; Dinah Birch is Professor of English at Liverpool University; And Valentine Cunningham is Professor of English Language and Literature at Corpus Christi, University of Oxford.

Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss altruism. The term altruism was coined by the 19th century sociologist Auguste Comte and is derived from the Latin “alteri” or "the others”. It describes an unselfish attention to the needs of others. Comte declared that man had a moral duty to “serve humanity, whose we are entirely.” The idea of altruism is central to the main religions: Jesus declared “you shall love your neighbour as yourself” and Mohammed said “none of you truly believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself”. Buddhism too advocates “seeking for others the happiness one desires for oneself.”Philosophers throughout time have debated whether such benevolence towards others is rooted in our natural inclinations or is a virtue we must impose on our nature through duty, religious or otherwise. Then in 1859 Darwin's ideas about competition and natural selection exploded onto the scene. His theories outlined in the Origin of Species painted a world “red in tooth and claw” as every organism struggles for ascendancy.So how does this square with altruism? If both mankind and the natural world are selfishly seeking to promote their own survival and advancement, how can we explain being kind to others, sometimes at our own expense? How have philosophical ideas about altruism responded to evolutionary theory? And paradoxically, is it possible that altruism can, in fact, be selfish?With Miranda Fricker, Senior Lecturer in the School of Philosophy at Birkbeck, University of London; Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist and the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University; John Dupré, Professor of Philosophy of Science at Exeter University and director of Egenis, the ESRC Centre for Genomics in Society.