Podcast appearances and mentions of Brian Leiter

******Support the channel****** Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thedissenter PayPal: paypal.me/thedissenter PayPal Subscription 1 Dollar: https://tinyurl.com/yb3acuuy PayPal Subscription 3 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ybn6bg9l PayPal Subscription 5 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ycmr9gpz PayPal Subscription 10 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y9r3fc9m PayPal Subscription 20 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y95uvkao   ******Follow me on****** Website: https://www.thedissenter.net/ The Dissenter Goodreads list: https://shorturl.at/7BMoB Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thedissenteryt/ Twitter: https://x.com/TheDissenterYT   This show is sponsored by Enlites, Learning & Development done differently. Check the website here: http://enlites.com/   Dr. Brian Leiter is Karl N. Llewellyn Professor of Jurisprudence at the University of Chicago Law School and founder and Director of Chicago's Center for Law, Philosophy and Human Values. His teaching and research interests are in moral, political, and legal philosophy, in both the Anglophone and Continental European traditions, and the law of evidence. Dr. Jaime Edwards is a Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago, where he teaches political philosophy. They are authors of Marx.   In this episode, we focus on Marx. We start by talking a bit about Marx's background and intellectual development. We then go through some of his main ideas, including historical materialism; class, class struggle, and class consciousness; the positive and negative aspects of capitalism; communism; human nature and the good life; alienation; and culture and ideology. We also talk about Marx's legacy and influence, and discuss the Frankfurt School, Feminist Marxism, and aspects of Marxism that are still worth considering. -- A HUGE THANK YOU TO MY PATRONS/SUPPORTERS: PER HELGE LARSEN, JERRY MULLER, BERNARDO SEIXAS, ADAM KESSEL, MATTHEW WHITINGBIRD, ARNAUD WOLFF, TIM HOLLOSY, HENRIK AHLENIUS, FILIP FORS CONNOLLY, ROBERT WINDHAGER, RUI INACIO, ZOOP, MARCO NEVES, COLIN HOLBROOK, PHIL KAVANAGH, SAMUEL ANDREEFF, FRANCIS FORDE, TIAGO NUNES, FERGAL CUSSEN, HAL HERZOG, NUNO MACHADO, JONATHAN LEIBRANT, JOÃO LINHARES, STANTON T, SAMUEL CORREA, ERIK HAINES, MARK SMITH, JOÃO EIRA, TOM HUMMEL, SARDUS FRANCE, DAVID SLOAN WILSON, YACILA DEZA-ARAUJO, ROMAIN ROCH, DIEGO LONDOÑO CORREA, YANICK PUNTER, CHARLOTTE BLEASE, NICOLE BARBARO, ADAM HUNT, PAWEL OSTASZEWSKI, NELLEKE BAK, GUY MADISON, GARY G HELLMANN, SAIMA AFZAL, ADRIAN JAEGGI, PAULO TOLENTINO, JOÃO BARBOSA, JULIAN PRICE, EDWARD HALL, HEDIN BRØNNER, DOUGLAS FRY, FRANCA BORTOLOTTI, GABRIEL PONS CORTÈS, URSULA LITZCKE, SCOTT, ZACHARY FISH, TIM DUFFY, SUNNY SMITH, JON WISMAN, WILLIAM BUCKNER, PAUL-GEORGE ARNAUD, LUKE GLOWACKI, GEORGIOS THEOPHANOUS, CHRIS WILLIAMSON, PETER WOLOSZYN, DAVID WILLIAMS, DIOGO COSTA, ALEX CHAU, AMAURI MARTÍNEZ, CORALIE CHEVALLIER, BANGALORE ATHEISTS, LARRY D. LEE JR., OLD HERRINGBONE, MICHAEL BAILEY, DAN SPERBER, ROBERT GRESSIS, IGOR N, JEFF MCMAHAN, JAKE ZUEHL, BARNABAS RADICS, MARK CAMPBELL, TOMAS DAUBNER, LUKE NISSEN, KIMBERLY JOHNSON, JESSICA NOWICKI, LINDA BRANDIN, GEORGE CHORIATIS, VALENTIN STEINMANN, PER KRAULIS, ALEXANDER HUBBARD, BR, MASOUD ALIMOHAMMADI, JONAS HERTNER, URSULA GOODENOUGH, DAVID PINSOF, SEAN NELSON, MIKE LAVIGNE, JOS KNECHT, LUCY, MANVIR SINGH, PETRA WEIMANN, CAROLA FEEST, STARRY, MAURO JÚNIOR, 航 豊川, TONY BARRETT, BENJAMIN GELBART, NIKOLAI VISHNEVSKY, STEVEN GANGESTAD, AND TED FARRIS! A SPECIAL THANKS TO MY PRODUCERS, YZAR WEHBE, JIM FRANK, ŁUKASZ STAFINIAK, TOM VANEGDOM, BERNARD HUGUENEY, CURTIS DIXON, BENEDIKT MUELLER, THOMAS TRUMBLE, KATHRINE AND PATRICK TOBIN, JONCARLO MONTENEGRO, AL NICK ORTIZ, NICK GOLDEN, AND CHRISTINE GLASS! AND TO MY EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS, MATTHEW LAVENDER, SERGIU CODREANU, BOGDAN KANIVETS, ROSEY, AND GREGORY HASTINGS!

Patreon: https://bit.ly/3v8OhY7 Brian Leiter is Karl N. Llewellyn Professor of Jurisprudence at the University of Chicago Law School, founder and Director of Chicago's Center for Law, Philosophy & Human Values, and is best known in the philosophical world for his work on Nietzsche and legal philosophy. He is the founding editor of the Routledge Philosophers book series, Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Law, and Philosophical Gourmet Report, which is the canonical—as well as extremely helpful and illuminating—ranking of philosophy departments and PhD programs in the English-speaking world. He also maintains the world's most popular philosophy blog, Leiter Reports. Brian was also a guest on episode 97, where he and Robinson discussed Karl Marx, ideology, and historical materialism, but in this episode they talk about Friedrich Nietzsche's moral psychology and his criticism of morality. Among the topics they discuss are The Genealogy of Morals, The Gay Science, moral realism and anti-realism, moral psychology, and Nietzsche's thoughts on free will. Brian's latest book is Moral Psychology with Nietzsche (Oxford, 2021). Brian's Website: https://www.brianleiter.net Brian's Twitter: https://twitter.com/BrianLeiter Leiter Reports: https://leiterreports.typepad.com Moral Psychology with Nietzsche: https://a.co/d/3dJZBeZ OUTLINE 00:00 In This Episode… 00:04 Introduction 02:14 Who Was Friedrich Nietzsche? 10:50 Naturalism in Nietzsche's Moral Psychology 20:24 Nietzsche and the Death of God 28:36 Nietzsche and Moral Anti-Realism 40:32 Did Nietzsche Believe in Free Will? 47:43  Nietzsche and the Genealogy of Morals 01:11:50 The Main Takeaways from Nietzsche's Moral Philosophy Robinson's Website: http://robinsonerhardt.com Robinson Erhardt researches symbolic logic and the foundations of mathematics at Stanford University. Join him in conversations with philosophers, scientists, weightlifters, artists, and everyone in-between.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/robinson-erhardt/support

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Nietzsche's Morality in Plain English, published by Arjun Panickssery on December 4, 2023 on LessWrong. In 1924, Clarence Darrow's eight-hour plea for Leopold and Loeb blamed the universities and scholars of Nietzsche (who died in 1900) for their influence on Leopold: He became enamored of the philosophy of Nietzsche. Your honor, I have read almost everything that Nietzsche ever wrote. A man of wonderful intellect; the most original philosophy of the last century. A man who had made a deeper imprint on philosophy than any other man within a hundred years, whether right or wrong. More books have been written about him than probably all the rest of the philosophers in a hundred years. Nietzsche is popularly associated with Nazism and even before this with "the superman … free from scruple" that Darrow describes, but he was also popular among the left-anarchists and the Left generally. Meanwhile, Tyler Cowen reports that "if you meet an intellectual non-Leftist, increasingly they are Nietzschean" (whatever that means). Common sense demands that some of these people are misreading him. Pinning down a moral theory that we can engage faces some initial hurdles: Nietzsche's views changed over time. His works appear to make contradictory claims. His writing is notoriously poetic and obscure. Huge volumes of notes left behind after his 1889 mental collapse were compiled into The Will to Power and the Nachlass notes. It's unclear how to consider these since he wanted his notes destroyed after his death. I favor Brian Leiter's approach and conclusions in Nietzsche on Morality. He offers practical solutions: identifying his works starting from Daybreak (1881) as "mature work," working to extract philosophical content from even his esoteric output, and avoiding claims that depend on unpublished notes, in part just because they're low-quality. Nietzsche's overarching project is the "revaluation of all values": a critique of herd morality (which he typically just refers to as "morality") on the grounds that it's hostile to the flourishing of the best type of person. First his broad outlook. Philosophically, he supports a methodological naturalism where philosophy aspires to be continuous with natural or social scientific inquiry. Metaethically he's an anti-realist about value and would ultimately admit to defending his evaluative taste. His psychological views can be strikingly modern. He argues that our beliefs are formed from the struggle of unconscious drives which compete in our mind so that our conscious life is merely epiphenomenal. He advances what Leiter calls a "doctrine of types" where everyone is some type of guy and the type of guy you are determines the kind of life you can lead, and that you'll hold whatever philosophical or moral beliefs will favor your interests. He doesn't hold any extreme "determinist" position but is broadly fatalistic about how your type-facts circumscribe and set limits on the kind of person you'll be and the beliefs you'll hold, within which you can be influenced by your environment and values. From here we can proceed to herd morality, the general class of theories associated with normal morality. Nietzsche criticizes three of its descriptive claims (quoting exactly from Leiter): Free will: Human agents possess a will capable of free and autonomous choice. Transparency of the self: The self is sufficiently transparent that agents' actions can be distinguished on the basis of their respective motives. Similarity: Human agents are sufficiently similar that one moral code is appropriate for all. In line with Nietzsche's theory of psychology, these empirical beliefs are held in support of herd morality's normative beliefs: free will is needed to hold people accountable for their actions and transparency of the self is needed to hold people accoun...

Link to original articleWelcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Nietzsche's Morality in Plain English, published by Arjun Panickssery on December 4, 2023 on LessWrong. In 1924, Clarence Darrow's eight-hour plea for Leopold and Loeb blamed the universities and scholars of Nietzsche (who died in 1900) for their influence on Leopold: He became enamored of the philosophy of Nietzsche. Your honor, I have read almost everything that Nietzsche ever wrote. A man of wonderful intellect; the most original philosophy of the last century. A man who had made a deeper imprint on philosophy than any other man within a hundred years, whether right or wrong. More books have been written about him than probably all the rest of the philosophers in a hundred years. Nietzsche is popularly associated with Nazism and even before this with "the superman … free from scruple" that Darrow describes, but he was also popular among the left-anarchists and the Left generally. Meanwhile, Tyler Cowen reports that "if you meet an intellectual non-Leftist, increasingly they are Nietzschean" (whatever that means). Common sense demands that some of these people are misreading him. Pinning down a moral theory that we can engage faces some initial hurdles: Nietzsche's views changed over time. His works appear to make contradictory claims. His writing is notoriously poetic and obscure. Huge volumes of notes left behind after his 1889 mental collapse were compiled into The Will to Power and the Nachlass notes. It's unclear how to consider these since he wanted his notes destroyed after his death. I favor Brian Leiter's approach and conclusions in Nietzsche on Morality. He offers practical solutions: identifying his works starting from Daybreak (1881) as "mature work," working to extract philosophical content from even his esoteric output, and avoiding claims that depend on unpublished notes, in part just because they're low-quality. Nietzsche's overarching project is the "revaluation of all values": a critique of herd morality (which he typically just refers to as "morality") on the grounds that it's hostile to the flourishing of the best type of person. First his broad outlook. Philosophically, he supports a methodological naturalism where philosophy aspires to be continuous with natural or social scientific inquiry. Metaethically he's an anti-realist about value and would ultimately admit to defending his evaluative taste. His psychological views can be strikingly modern. He argues that our beliefs are formed from the struggle of unconscious drives which compete in our mind so that our conscious life is merely epiphenomenal. He advances what Leiter calls a "doctrine of types" where everyone is some type of guy and the type of guy you are determines the kind of life you can lead, and that you'll hold whatever philosophical or moral beliefs will favor your interests. He doesn't hold any extreme "determinist" position but is broadly fatalistic about how your type-facts circumscribe and set limits on the kind of person you'll be and the beliefs you'll hold, within which you can be influenced by your environment and values. From here we can proceed to herd morality, the general class of theories associated with normal morality. Nietzsche criticizes three of its descriptive claims (quoting exactly from Leiter): Free will: Human agents possess a will capable of free and autonomous choice. Transparency of the self: The self is sufficiently transparent that agents' actions can be distinguished on the basis of their respective motives. Similarity: Human agents are sufficiently similar that one moral code is appropriate for all. In line with Nietzsche's theory of psychology, these empirical beliefs are held in support of herd morality's normative beliefs: free will is needed to hold people accountable for their actions and transparency of the self is needed to hold people accoun...

Brian Leiter is Karl N. Llewellyn Professor of Jurisprudence at the University of Chicago Law School, founder and Director of Chicago's Center for Law, Philosophy & Human Values, and is best known in the philosophical world for his work on Nietzsche and legal philosophy. He is the founding editor of the Routledge Philosophers book series, Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Law, and Philosophical Gourmet Report, which is the canonical—as well as extremely helpful and illuminating—ranking of philosophy departments and PhD programs in the English-speaking world. He also maintains the world's most popular philosophy blog, Leiter Reports. In this episode, Robinson and Brian discuss Karl Marx and a current book he is co-writing with Jaime Edwards for the Routledge Philosophers book series. Among the topics they discuss are Historical Materialism, ideology, Marx's critique of capitalism, and exploitation. Brian's latest book is Moral Psychology with Nietzsche (Oxford, 2021). Brian's Website: https://www.brianleiter.net Brian's Twitter: https://twitter.com/BrianLeiter Leiter Reports: https://leiterreports.typepad.com Moral Psychology with Nietzsche: https://a.co/d/3dJZBeZ OUTLINE 00:00 In This Episode… 00:50 Introduction 06:38 Brian's Interest in Marx 13:22 Historical Materialism 33:06 Big Business and Diversity 40:16 Ideology 58:04 Is Historical Materialism True? 01:01:45 Exploitation 01:11:38 Is Brian a Marxist? --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/robinson-erhardt/support

Should Judges decide if and when women are entitled to abort their pregnancies? Should this choice be left up to congress? If abortion is immoral, should it be illegal? Presenters: Mark Oppenheimer and Jason Werbeloff Editor and Producer: Jimmy Mullen Brain in a Vat bookshop (Shopify): https://smarturl.it/BrainShop Brain in a Vat bookshop (Amazon): https://smarturl.it/BrainAmazonShop Contact us: Mark.Oppenheimer[at]gmail and Jwerbe[at]gmail www.markoppenheimer.co.za

00:30 The hermeneutics of suspicion with Brian Leiter, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuIKfuz3YNU 03:00 U.S. Public Health Agencies Aren't ‘Following the Science,' Officials Say, https://www.commonsense.news/p/us-public-health-agencies-arent-following 10:00 A Trump Backer's Downfall as the Target of a Jan. 6 Conspiracy Theory, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/13/us/politics/jan-6-conspiracy-theory-ray-epps.html 24:00 Who's your mob? https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/jul/03/mystery-road-origin-review-jay-swan-is-back-and-as-great-as-ever 27:30 Gavin Newsom running for president 45:50 Paul Gottfried says the South won't defend itself 47:30 Anti-abortion as a public expression of things you can't publicly express 50:15 KMG on whither conservatism? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37zHv1ZaO3k&ab_channel=TheKMGShow 53:30 Blake Masters running for U.S. Senate from Arizona 1:15:00 Criticism & Online Gurus, Chris Kavanagh, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_6cLQuBZlM 1:21:00 Biden & Ukraine 1:22:00 The hermeneutics of suspicion with Brian Leiter 1:30:00 Conservative Claims of Cultural Oppression: The Nature and Origins of Conservaphobia, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=144168 1:50:00 Lex Fridman & Jonathan Haidt: The Techno Monk & The Social Scientist, https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/lex-fridman-jonathan-haidt-the-techno-monk-the-social-scientist https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SF-veering-toward-another-public-health-crisis-17302953.php Steve Sailer: https://www.takimag.com/article/the-right-read/ Conservaphobia: https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=144168 REVIEW: The Star Chamber of Stanford: On the Secret Trial and Invisible Persecution of a Stanford Law Fellow, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=143937 Stanford Star Chamber, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=143824 Reaction to Stanford Star Chamber, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=143994 https://ronyguldmann.com/ My Best Work: https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=143746 Mind, Modernity, Madness: The Impact of Culture on Human Experience, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=143670 Professor of Apocalypse: The Many Lives of Jacob Taubes, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=143590 http://vouchnationalism.com https://postkahanism.substack.com/p/the-failure-and-importance-of-kahanism?s=r Join this channel to get access to perks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSFVD7Xfhn7sJY8LAIQmH8Q/join https://odysee.com/@LukeFordLive, https://lbry.tv/@LukeFord, https://rumble.com/lukeford https://dlive.tv/lukefordlivestreams Listener Call In #: 1-310-997-4596 Superchat: https://entropystream.live/app/lukefordlive Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/lukeford/ Soundcloud MP3s: https://soundcloud.com/luke-ford-666431593 Code of Conduct: https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=125692 https://www.patreon.com/lukeford http://lukeford.net Email me: lukeisback@gmail.com or DM me on Twitter.com/lukeford Support the show | https://www.streamlabs.com/lukeford, https://patreon.com/lukeford, https://PayPal.Me/lukeisback Facebook: http://facebook.com/lukecford Feel free to clip my videos. It's nice when you link back to the original.

Professor Brian Leiter stops by Supreme Myths to talk about the Supreme Court, abortion, legal realism, retired Judge Posner and much more.

One of the fifty most influential living philosophers, a “self-promoting charlatan” (Brian Leiter), and the orchestrator of an “online orgy of stupidity” (Ray Brassier). In Skirmishes: With Friends, Enemies, and Neutrals (Punctum Books, 2020), Graham Harman responds with flair and wit to some of his best-known critics and fellow travelers. Pulling no punches, Harman gives a masterclass in philosophical argumentation by dissecting, analyzing, and countering their criticism, be it from the Husserlian, Heideggerian, or Derridean corner. At the same time, Skirmishes provides an excellent introduction to the hottest debates in Speculative Realism and Object-Oriented Ontology, a speculative style of philosophy long foreclosed by the biases of mainstream continental thought, but which has turned in recent years into one of the most encompassing philosophies of our time, with a major impact on the arts, humanities, and architecture. Part One considers four prominent books on speculative realism. In dialogue with Tom Sparrow's The End of Phenomenology, Harman expresses agreement with Sparrow's critique while taking issue with Lee Braver's “transgressive realism” as not realist enough. Turning to Steven Shaviro's The Universe of Things, Harman defends his own object-oriented model against Shaviro's brand of process philosophy, while also engaging in side-debate with Levi R. Bryant's distinction between virtual proper being and local manifestations. In the third chapter, on Peter Gratton's Speculative Realism: Problems and Prospects, Harman opposes the author's attempt to use Derridean notions of time and difference against Speculative Realism, in what amounts to his most extensive engagement with Derrida to date. Chapter Four gives us Harman's response to Peter Wolfendale's massive polemic in Object-Oriented Philosophy, which he shows is based on a failed criticism of Harman's reading of Heidegger and a grumpy commitment to rationalist kitsch. Part Two responds to a series of briefer criticisms of object-oriented ontology. When Alberto Toscano accuses Harman and Bruno Latour of “neo-monadological” and anti-scientific thinking, Harman responds that the philosophical factors pushing Leibniz into monadology are still valid today. When Christopher Norris mocks Harman for seeing merit in the occasionalist school, he shows why Norris's middle-of-the-road scientific realism misses the point. In response to Dan Zahavi's contention that phenomenology has little to learn from speculative realism, Harman exposes the holes in Zahavi's reasoning. In a final response, Harman gives a point-by-point answer to Stephen Mulhall's critical foray in the London Review of Books. Amidst these lively debates, Harman sheds new light on what he regards as the central bias of philosophical modernism, which he terms the taxonomical standpoint. It is a book sure to provoke lively controversy among both friends and foes of object-oriented thought. Adam Bobeck is a PhD candidate in Cultural Anthropology at the University of Leipzig. His PhD is entitled “Object-Oriented Azadari: Shi'i Muslim Rituals and Ontology”. For more about his work, see www.adambobeck.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory

One of the fifty most influential living philosophers, a “self-promoting charlatan” (Brian Leiter), and the orchestrator of an “online orgy of stupidity” (Ray Brassier). In Skirmishes: With Friends, Enemies, and Neutrals (Punctum Books, 2020), Graham Harman responds with flair and wit to some of his best-known critics and fellow travelers. Pulling no punches, Harman gives a masterclass in philosophical argumentation by dissecting, analyzing, and countering their criticism, be it from the Husserlian, Heideggerian, or Derridean corner. At the same time, Skirmishes provides an excellent introduction to the hottest debates in Speculative Realism and Object-Oriented Ontology, a speculative style of philosophy long foreclosed by the biases of mainstream continental thought, but which has turned in recent years into one of the most encompassing philosophies of our time, with a major impact on the arts, humanities, and architecture. Part One considers four prominent books on speculative realism. In dialogue with Tom Sparrow's The End of Phenomenology, Harman expresses agreement with Sparrow's critique while taking issue with Lee Braver's “transgressive realism” as not realist enough. Turning to Steven Shaviro's The Universe of Things, Harman defends his own object-oriented model against Shaviro's brand of process philosophy, while also engaging in side-debate with Levi R. Bryant's distinction between virtual proper being and local manifestations. In the third chapter, on Peter Gratton's Speculative Realism: Problems and Prospects, Harman opposes the author's attempt to use Derridean notions of time and difference against Speculative Realism, in what amounts to his most extensive engagement with Derrida to date. Chapter Four gives us Harman's response to Peter Wolfendale's massive polemic in Object-Oriented Philosophy, which he shows is based on a failed criticism of Harman's reading of Heidegger and a grumpy commitment to rationalist kitsch. Part Two responds to a series of briefer criticisms of object-oriented ontology. When Alberto Toscano accuses Harman and Bruno Latour of “neo-monadological” and anti-scientific thinking, Harman responds that the philosophical factors pushing Leibniz into monadology are still valid today. When Christopher Norris mocks Harman for seeing merit in the occasionalist school, he shows why Norris's middle-of-the-road scientific realism misses the point. In response to Dan Zahavi's contention that phenomenology has little to learn from speculative realism, Harman exposes the holes in Zahavi's reasoning. In a final response, Harman gives a point-by-point answer to Stephen Mulhall's critical foray in the London Review of Books. Amidst these lively debates, Harman sheds new light on what he regards as the central bias of philosophical modernism, which he terms the taxonomical standpoint. It is a book sure to provoke lively controversy among both friends and foes of object-oriented thought. Adam Bobeck is a PhD candidate in Cultural Anthropology at the University of Leipzig. His PhD is entitled “Object-Oriented Azadari: Shi'i Muslim Rituals and Ontology”. For more about his work, see www.adambobeck.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

One of the fifty most influential living philosophers, a “self-promoting charlatan” (Brian Leiter), and the orchestrator of an “online orgy of stupidity” (Ray Brassier). In Skirmishes: With Friends, Enemies, and Neutrals (Punctum Books, 2020), Graham Harman responds with flair and wit to some of his best-known critics and fellow travelers. Pulling no punches, Harman gives a masterclass in philosophical argumentation by dissecting, analyzing, and countering their criticism, be it from the Husserlian, Heideggerian, or Derridean corner. At the same time, Skirmishes provides an excellent introduction to the hottest debates in Speculative Realism and Object-Oriented Ontology, a speculative style of philosophy long foreclosed by the biases of mainstream continental thought, but which has turned in recent years into one of the most encompassing philosophies of our time, with a major impact on the arts, humanities, and architecture. Part One considers four prominent books on speculative realism. In dialogue with Tom Sparrow's The End of Phenomenology, Harman expresses agreement with Sparrow's critique while taking issue with Lee Braver's “transgressive realism” as not realist enough. Turning to Steven Shaviro's The Universe of Things, Harman defends his own object-oriented model against Shaviro's brand of process philosophy, while also engaging in side-debate with Levi R. Bryant's distinction between virtual proper being and local manifestations. In the third chapter, on Peter Gratton's Speculative Realism: Problems and Prospects, Harman opposes the author's attempt to use Derridean notions of time and difference against Speculative Realism, in what amounts to his most extensive engagement with Derrida to date. Chapter Four gives us Harman's response to Peter Wolfendale's massive polemic in Object-Oriented Philosophy, which he shows is based on a failed criticism of Harman's reading of Heidegger and a grumpy commitment to rationalist kitsch. Part Two responds to a series of briefer criticisms of object-oriented ontology. When Alberto Toscano accuses Harman and Bruno Latour of “neo-monadological” and anti-scientific thinking, Harman responds that the philosophical factors pushing Leibniz into monadology are still valid today. When Christopher Norris mocks Harman for seeing merit in the occasionalist school, he shows why Norris's middle-of-the-road scientific realism misses the point. In response to Dan Zahavi's contention that phenomenology has little to learn from speculative realism, Harman exposes the holes in Zahavi's reasoning. In a final response, Harman gives a point-by-point answer to Stephen Mulhall's critical foray in the London Review of Books. Amidst these lively debates, Harman sheds new light on what he regards as the central bias of philosophical modernism, which he terms the taxonomical standpoint. It is a book sure to provoke lively controversy among both friends and foes of object-oriented thought. Adam Bobeck is a PhD candidate in Cultural Anthropology at the University of Leipzig. His PhD is entitled “Object-Oriented Azadari: Shi'i Muslim Rituals and Ontology”. For more about his work, see www.adambobeck.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

One of the fifty most influential living philosophers, a “self-promoting charlatan” (Brian Leiter), and the orchestrator of an “online orgy of stupidity” (Ray Brassier). In Skirmishes: With Friends, Enemies, and Neutrals (Punctum Books, 2020), Graham Harman responds with flair and wit to some of his best-known critics and fellow travelers. Pulling no punches, Harman gives a masterclass in philosophical argumentation by dissecting, analyzing, and countering their criticism, be it from the Husserlian, Heideggerian, or Derridean corner. At the same time, Skirmishes provides an excellent introduction to the hottest debates in Speculative Realism and Object-Oriented Ontology, a speculative style of philosophy long foreclosed by the biases of mainstream continental thought, but which has turned in recent years into one of the most encompassing philosophies of our time, with a major impact on the arts, humanities, and architecture. Part One considers four prominent books on speculative realism. In dialogue with Tom Sparrow's The End of Phenomenology, Harman expresses agreement with Sparrow's critique while taking issue with Lee Braver's “transgressive realism” as not realist enough. Turning to Steven Shaviro's The Universe of Things, Harman defends his own object-oriented model against Shaviro's brand of process philosophy, while also engaging in side-debate with Levi R. Bryant's distinction between virtual proper being and local manifestations. In the third chapter, on Peter Gratton's Speculative Realism: Problems and Prospects, Harman opposes the author's attempt to use Derridean notions of time and difference against Speculative Realism, in what amounts to his most extensive engagement with Derrida to date. Chapter Four gives us Harman's response to Peter Wolfendale's massive polemic in Object-Oriented Philosophy, which he shows is based on a failed criticism of Harman's reading of Heidegger and a grumpy commitment to rationalist kitsch. Part Two responds to a series of briefer criticisms of object-oriented ontology. When Alberto Toscano accuses Harman and Bruno Latour of “neo-monadological” and anti-scientific thinking, Harman responds that the philosophical factors pushing Leibniz into monadology are still valid today. When Christopher Norris mocks Harman for seeing merit in the occasionalist school, he shows why Norris's middle-of-the-road scientific realism misses the point. In response to Dan Zahavi's contention that phenomenology has little to learn from speculative realism, Harman exposes the holes in Zahavi's reasoning. In a final response, Harman gives a point-by-point answer to Stephen Mulhall's critical foray in the London Review of Books. Amidst these lively debates, Harman sheds new light on what he regards as the central bias of philosophical modernism, which he terms the taxonomical standpoint. It is a book sure to provoke lively controversy among both friends and foes of object-oriented thought. Adam Bobeck is a PhD candidate in Cultural Anthropology at the University of Leipzig. His PhD is entitled “Object-Oriented Azadari: Shi'i Muslim Rituals and Ontology”. For more about his work, see www.adambobeck.com. 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

------------------Support the channel------------ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thedissenter PayPal: paypal.me/thedissenter PayPal Subscription 1 Dollar: https://tinyurl.com/yb3acuuy PayPal Subscription 3 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ybn6bg9l PayPal Subscription 5 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ycmr9gpz PayPal Subscription 10 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y9r3fc9m PayPal Subscription 20 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y95uvkao This show is sponsored by Enlites, Learning & Development done differently. Check the website here: http://enlites.com/ Dr. Brian Leiter is Karl N. Llewellyn Professor of Jurisprudence at the University of Chicago Law School and founder and Director of Chicago's Center for Law, Philosophy and Human Values. He is the author of books like Nietzsche on Morality, Naturalizing Jurisprudence, Why Tolerate Religion? and, more recently, Moral Psychology with Nietzsche. In this episode, we talk about Moral Psychology with Nietzsche. First, Dr. Leiter tells us what got him interested in Nietzsche. We then ask if Nietzsche was a moral realist, and where he thought morality comes from. We discuss Nietzsche's ideas about nature and nurture in moral psychology. We get into concepts like “drives”, “affect”, and the “Will”. We talk about the role of personality and individual differences in moral predispositions. We discuss to what extent consciousness has any sort of causal power over our behavior. We talk about Nietzsche's “death of God” and atheism. We discuss if there is any space for moral revaluation in Nietzsche's moral philosophy, and if “moral progress” would make sense for him. We talk about the main Nietzschean insights on moral psychology that got vindicated by modern scientific psychology. Finally, we discuss if Nietzsche was an Enlightenment thinker. -- A HUGE THANK YOU TO MY PATRONS/SUPPORTERS: KARIN LIETZCKE, ANN BLANCHETTE, PER HELGE LARSEN, LAU GUERREIRO, JERRY MULLER, HANS FREDRIK SUNDE, BERNARDO SEIXAS, HERBERT GINTIS, RUTGER VOS, RICARDO VLADIMIRO, CRAIG HEALY, OLAF ALEX, PHILIP KURIAN, JONATHAN VISSER, JAKOB KLINKBY, ADAM KESSEL, MATTHEW WHITINGBIRD, ARNAUD WOLFF, TIM HOLLOSY, HENRIK AHLENIUS, JOHN CONNORS, PAULINA BARREN, FILIP FORS CONNOLLY, DAN DEMETRIOU, ROBERT WINDHAGER, RUI INACIO, ARTHUR KOH, ZOOP, MARCO NEVES, COLIN HOLBROOK, SUSAN PINKER, PABLO SANTURBANO, SIMON COLUMBUS, PHIL KAVANAGH, JORGE ESPINHA, CORY CLARK, MARK BLYTH, ROBERTO INGUANZO, MIKKEL STORMYR, ERIC NEURMANN, SAMUEL ANDREEFF, FRANCIS FORDE, TIAGO NUNES, BERNARD HUGUENEY, ALEXANDER DANNBAUER, FERGAL CUSSEN, YEVHEN BODRENKO, HAL HERZOG, NUNO MACHADO, DON ROSS, JONATHAN LEIBRANT, JOÃO LINHARES, OZLEM BULUT, NATHAN NGUYEN, STANTON T, SAMUEL CORREA, ERIK HAINES, MARK SMITH, J.W., JOÃO EIRA, TOM HUMMEL, SARDUS FRANCE, DAVID SLOAN WILSON, YACILA DEZA-ARAUJO, IDAN SOLON, ROMAIN ROCH, DMITRY GRIGORYEV, TOM ROTH, DIEGO LONDOÑO CORREA, YANICK PUNTER, ADANER USMANI, CHARLOTTE BLEASE, NICOLE BARBARO, ADAM HUNT, PAWEL OSTASZEWSKI, AL ORTIZ, NELLEKE BAK, KATHRINE AND PATRICK TOBIN, GUY MADISON, GARY G HELLMANN, SAIMA AFZAL, ADRIAN JAEGGI, NICK GOLDEN, PAULO TOLENTINO, JOÃO BARBOSA, JULIAN PRICE, EDWARD HALL, HEDIN BRØNNER, DOUGLAS P. FRY, FRANCA BORTOLOTTI, AND GABRIEL PONS CORTÈS! A SPECIAL THANKS TO MY PRODUCERS, YZAR WEHBE, JIM FRANK, ŁUKASZ STAFINIAK, IAN GILLIGAN, LUIS CAYETANO, TOM VANEGDOM, CURTIS DIXON, BENEDIKT MUELLER, VEGA GIDEY, AND THOMAS TRUMBLE! AND TO MY EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS, MICHAL RUSIECKI, ROSEY, JAMES PRATT, MATTHEW LAVENDER, SERGIU CODREANU, AND JASON PARTEE!

If God is dead, did morality die with him? Are artists, writers and lovers more valuable than the rest of us mere mortals? Find out what Friedrich Nietzsche thought in our new series on great philosophers. Brian's Book: https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Psychology-Nietzsche-Brian-Leiter-ebook-dp-B07QD6V99B/dp/B07QD6V99B/ Contact Us: Mark.Oppenheimer[at]gmail and Jwerbe[at]gmail

Is the Supreme Court merely a political body made up of warring liberals and conservatives? Should Judges apply laws that are unjust? Will the Supreme Court declare Trump the winner of the election? Leiter Report: https://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/

In this episode, Brian Leiter, Karl N. Llewellyn Professor of Jurisprudence, Director of the Center for Law, Philosophy, and Human Values at the University of Chicago Law School, discusses his article "The Roles of Judges in Democracies: A Realistic View," which is published in the Journal of Institutional Studies, and will appear in his forthcoming book From a Realist Point of View. Leiter begins by observing that realism about democracy ought to cause us to reject concerns about countermajoritarianism. He argues that judges must exercise discretion in decisionmaking, and makes suggestions about how progressive judges should think about exercising discretion. Leiter is on Twitter at @BrianLeiter.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

This week's guest is Brian Leiter, the Karl N. Llewellyn Professor of Jurisprudence at the University of Chicago Law School and the force behind the Leiter Rankings and Brian Leiter's Law School Reports. Topics include law school hiring trends, what it takes to hire top faculty, the role of law school rankings & the US News, and the hiring market in the COVID19 era

Nedávno som cez „messenger story“ zverejnil na 24 hodín krátky úryvok z eseje Vzbúrený človek od Alberta Camusa, kde ponúka zarážajúcu interpretáciu niektorých kľúčových myšlienok Friedricha Nietzscheho. Keďže táto pasáž vyvolala ako pozitívne tak i negatívne ohlasy, rozhodol som sa s vami dnes nad ňou zamyslieť. Nietzsche je básnikom a jedna interpretácia jeho diela naviac nemôže uškodiť----more----Úryvok #1„Súhrn všetkého, čo je možné, ešte netvorí slobodu, ale na druhej strane sa každý nedosiahnuteľný cieľ rovná otroctvu. Aj sám chaos je svojím spôsobom otroctvom. Sloboda jestvuje len vo svete, kde to, čo je možné, je súčasne definované ako to, čo nie je možné. Bez zákona niet slobody. Ak osud nie je usmerňovaný nejakou vyššou hodnotou, ak je kráľom náhoda, je to cesta do temnôt, strašná sloboda slepca. Na vrchole najväčšieho oslobodenia Nietzsche teda volí najväčšiu možnú závislosť. „Ak neurobíme zo smrti Boha niečo ako veľké sebaodriekanie a ustavičné víťazstvo nad sebou samými, bude utrpenie nenapraviteľné.“ Inými slovami, u Nietzscheho revolta ústi do askézy. Karamazovo „ak nič nie je pravda, všetko je dovolené“ teda nahrádza hlbšia logika – „ak nič nie je pravda, nič nie je dovolené“. Poprieť, že na tomto svete je zakázaná jediná vec, znamená zriecť sa toho, čo je dovolené. Tam, kde už nemôže nikto povedať, čo je čierne a čo je biele, svetlo zhasína a sloboda sa mení sa dobrovoľné väzenie.“ Úryvok #2 „Nietzsche sa teda vracia ku koreňom myslenia, k predsokratikom. Tí vylučovali konečné príčiny, lebo večnosť princípu, ktorý si predstavovali, chceli nechať nedotknutý. Večná je len sila, bezcieľna sila, Herakleitova „hra“. Nietzsche sa iba usiluje dokázať, že zákon je obsiahnutý v dianí a hra v nevyhnutnosti: „Dieťa, to je nevinnosť a zabudnutie, večné začínanie, hra, koleso, ktoré sa krúti samo od seba, prvý pohyb, posvätný dar hovoriť áno.“ Svet je božský, pretože je bezúčelný. Preto ho môže pochopiť iba umenie svojou stálou bezdôvodnosťou. O svete nepodáva správu nijaký súd, ale umenie nás môže naučiť svet opakovať, tak ako sa svet sám opakuje v podobe večných návratov. Prapôvodné more neúnavne opakuje na piesočnom brehu tie isté slová a vyhadzuje naň tie isté bytosti v úžase, že žijú. A prinajmenej pre toho, kto súhlasí s návratom a ku komu sa všetko navracia, kto celým svojim srdcom rezonuje, sa toto umenie podieľa na božstve sveta.“ Použitá a odporúčaná literatúra: Albert Camus, Vzbúrený človek (Slovenský spisovateľ, 2004). Brian Leiter, "Nietzsche's Moral and Political Philosophy", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2015 ), plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2015/entries/nietzsche-moral-political.Bryan Magee hovorí o filozofii Friedricha Nietzscheho s J. P. Sternom, BBC, YouTube: www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlqdLHK2K-s&feature=youtu.be***Dobré veci potrebujú svoj čas. Pomohla ti táto dávka zamyslieť sa nad niečím zmysluplným? Podpor tvoj obľúbený podcast sumou 1€, 5€ alebo 10€ (trvalý príkaz je topka!) na SK1283605207004206791985. Ďakujeme! Viac info o podpore na pravidelnadavka.sk Zdroj fotografie: Jakub Betinský  

In Australia, vegan and animal liberation activism has recently become intense and disruptive, invading farms, restaurants, and city centers. They’re doing everything from rescuing animals to blocking traffic, and occupying steakhouses. Some argue that these new activists are needlessly victimizing innocent farmers, business owners, and consumers. Others argue that the activists are only doing what’s necessary to stand up for the innocent victims of farmers, business owners, and consumers. For any cause, when change does not seem to happen, or happen quickly enough, movements can turn to more confrontational styles of protests, or “uncivil disobedience.” Is this morally defensible, or is civility a must in any kind of protest?  Guest voices include Kimberley Brownlee, Chris Delforce, Candice Delmas, Lauren Gazzola, Paula Hough, David Jochinke, Joanne Lee, Brian Leiter, Clare McCausland, Tyler Paytas, Jacy Reese, Jeff Sebo, and Peter Singer. For Slate Plus, there is full bonus companion episode featuring Barry talking with Stephen Metcalf of Slate Culture Gabfest about the philosophical issues raised in the episode. Both Barry and Stephen try to come to terms with whether they think we can separate the morality of activist tactics with the morality of their causes. Sign up at www.slate.com/hiphiplus Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Australia, vegan and animal liberation activism has recently become intense and disruptive, invading farms, restaurants, and city centers. They’re doing everything from rescuing animals to blocking traffic, and occupying steakhouses. Some argue that these new activists are needlessly victimizing innocent farmers, business owners, and consumers. Others argue that the activists are only doing what’s necessary to stand up for the innocent victims of farmers, business owners, and consumers. For any cause, when change does not seem to happen, or happen quickly enough, movements can turn to more confrontational styles of protests, or “uncivil disobedience.” Is this morally defensible, or is civility a must in any kind of protest?  Guest voices include Kimberley Brownlee, Chris Delforce, Candice Delmas, Lauren Gazzola, Paula Hough, David Jochinke, Joanne Lee, Brian Leiter, Clare McCausland, Tyler Paytas, Jacy Reese, Jeff Sebo, and Peter Singer. This episode brought to you by Dave's Killer Bread. Click to read stories of second chances and for a special offer.  For Slate Plus, there is full bonus companion episode featuring Barry talking with Stephen Metcalf of Slate Culture Gabfest about the philosophical issues raised in the episode. Both Barry and Stephen try to come to terms with whether they think we can separate the morality of activist tactics with the morality of their causes. Sign up at www.slate.com/hiphiplus Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

To understand Marx, start with Hegel’s dialectics ... Why Marx emphasized economic production over Hegelian idealism ... Dan: Was Marx’s concept of labor too narrow? ... What will happen if technology eliminates most jobs? ... Marxism post-WWII: More than college activism and Jefferson Airplane? ... Brian: Marx’s predictions were right, but his predicted timeframe was all wrong ... Why “diversity blather” is a capitalist wolf in Marxist clothing ...

To understand Marx, start with Hegel's dialectics ... Why Marx emphasized economic production over Hegelian idealism ... Dan: Was Marx's concept of labor too narrow? ... What will happen if technology eliminates most jobs? ... Marxism post-WWII: More than college activism and Jefferson Airplane? ... Brian: Marx's predictions were right, but his predicted timeframe was all wrong ... Why “diversity blather” is a capitalist wolf in Marxist clothing ...

To understand Marx, start with Hegel’s dialectics ... Why Marx emphasized economic production over Hegelian idealism ... Dan: Was Marx’s concept of labor too narrow? ... What will happen if technology eliminates most jobs? ... Marxism post-WWII: More than college activism and Jefferson Airplane? ... Brian: Marx’s predictions were right, but his predicted timeframe was all wrong ... Why “diversity blather” is a capitalist wolf in Marxist clothing ...

Stop trying to ‘just be happy'. ‘Being happy' isn't the answer. And it won't satisfy you. Rather, says the philosopher Nietzsche, you should be truthful with yourself and instead nurture your passions, be more creative, have the courage to stop mindlessly being a herd animal - and, guess what, EMBRACE your suffering! Own it. It's yours; the good, the bad, the ugly, the sad. And if you listen to that pain you're experiencing, and stick with it as you push on through with your most creative of endeavours, that suffering will reward you with a higher, richer life experience. Or as Nietzsche said, "Throw roses into the abyss and say: 'here is my thanks to the monster who didn't succeed in swallowing me alive.'" All of which, I certainly thought, are mesmerising ideas, Especially given that they were explained to me by this episode's honoured guest Dr. Brian Leiter - the most respected Nietzsche expert on the planet - whose ability to simplify the thoughts of this most sophisticated of thinkers in a way that was digestible for a dullard like myself to understand completely blew me away. For me, the ability to convey some of the biggest ideas of humanity in a way that's simple enough for the man on the street to understand is an artform in itself. So it was an absolute honour and a privilege to speak with Dr. Leiter on the podcast. Please have a listen and comment below with your thoughts: Was Nietzsche right? If not, what crucial insight did he miss? Meanwhile, 100% check out and if you want to, order via Amazon, the second edition of Dr. Leiter's book, ‘Nietzsche On Morality'. It's been described as “the most important book on Nietzsche in the past twenty years.” You can snap his book up here: https://tinyurl.com/ycptegjw. Seriously, what Nietzsche and Dr. Leiter have to say will leave you amazed. I hope you enjoy the podcast. And thank you for listening.

It's been a while since we've had a Spotlight on Sex! In this epsiode we share observations and questions that came up for us when we read this blogpost by professor Brian Leiter regarding a letter written in support of professor Avital Ronell, who is apparently the accused in a Title IX investigation at NYU. What are your thoughts? Have we introduced an idea you'd like us to explore in greater depth? Let us know! info@talkingsexpodcast.com Next week we'll release our regular biweekly episode. The topic: Childcare in America. Stay tuned!

In this episode, we talk to Brian Leiter about why the writings of Karl Marx are helpful for understanding the current situation of the working and middle class in America, the 2016 Presidential election, and related topics! See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Neema welcomes Jeffrey R. Wilson (Harvard) to discuss the election of Donald Trump, its impact on the intellectual climate, and some of the ways in which Shakespeare was used in the coverage of the US election. Wilson’s essay, “Public Shakespeareanism: The Bard in the 2016 American Presidential Election,” is available upon request from the author; email jeffreywilson@fas.harvard.edu. The instances of “public Shakespeareanism” discussed in the essay and the podcast include: Andrew Cutrofello, “Shakespeare and Trump: What’s in a Name?” PublicSeminar.com (December 15, 2015), http://www.publicseminar.org/2015/12/shakespeare-and-trump-whats-in-a-name. Brian Leiter, “Shakespeare on Trump: Money Made the Man,” The Huffington Post (Feb 29, 2016), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-leiter/shakespeare-on-trump-money-made-the-man_b_9344370.html. Charles McNulty, “The Theater of Trump: What Shakespeare can teach us about the Donald,” Los Angeles Times (May 26, 2016), http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/la-ca-cm-0529-shakespeare-trump-20160518-snap-htmlstory.html. Paul Hamilton, “Trumping Shakespeare: Donald Trump, Boris Johnson, and the Rise of the Clown Politician,” Kingston Shakespeare Seminar (July 11, 2016), https://kingstonshakespeareseminar.wordpress.com/2016/07/11/trumping-shakespeare-donald-trump-boris-johnson-and-the-rise-of-the-clown-politician/. Peter C. Herman, “Shakespeare’s ‘Macbeth,’ Donald Trump, and the Republican Party,” Times of San Diego (Aug. 7, 2016), https://timesofsandiego.com/opinion/2016/08/07/shakespeares-macbeth-donald-trump-and-the-republican-party/. Stephen Greenblatt, “Shakespeare Explains the 2016 Election,” New York Times Sunday Review (Oct. 8, 2016), http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/09/opinion/sunday/shakespeare-explains-the-2016-election.html.

More at http://philosophytalk.org/shows/nietzsche Ken and John and Übermensch-at-large Brian Leiter discuss everyone's favorite syphilitic philosopher. Was he a mysogynistic Nazi-supporter, or an artistic visionary who sought to set us free from our moralistic chains? Boring radio is dead.

To discuss last week's Supreme Court decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, Point of Inquiry welcomes Dr. Brian Leiter, law professor and philosopher at the University of Chicago. He's the author of several books including Why Tolerate Religion?. He blogs at Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog.  Leiter and host Lindsay Beyerstein discuss what the Hobby Lobby decision means for women's health, corporate personhood, and the separation of church and state.    In 2013, Leiter headlined a daylong symposium with the Center for Inquiry (the organization that produces Point of Inquiry), and you can watch the video here.    

The U.S. News rankings of law schools are out! We wish they would go away. After follow-up on last week’s episode and a dip into viewer mail, we discuss what problems the rankings might be attempts to solve, how they are calculated, and the obvious problems with them. Joe reports that after the conversation, as after other discussions of the rankings, he felt like he needed a shower. This show’s links: Episode 11: Big Red Diesel (http://oralargument.org/11) Typography in ten minutes (http://practicaltypography.com/typography-in-ten-minutes.html) from Butterick’s Practical Typography (http://practicaltypography.com/index.html), see also his Summary of Key Rules (http://practicaltypography.com/summary-of-key-rules.html) Ben Carter, Typography for Lawyers: One Space, Double Spacing, and Other Good Ideas (http://bluegrassroots.org/home/typography-for-lawyers-one-space-double-spacing-and-other-go.html) The 2015 U.S. News and World Report Law School Rankings (http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/law-rankings) LSAC, Choosing a Law School (http://www.lsac.org/jd/choosing-a-law-school/customize-your-law-school-search) The official U.S. News Rankings Methodology (http://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/articles/2014/03/10/methodology-2015-best-law-schools-rankings) Brian Leiter, An Open Letter to Bob Morse of U.S. News (http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2010/03/an-open-lette-1.html) Brian Leiter, The U.S. News Law School Rankings: A Guide for the Perplexed (http://www.leiterrankings.com/usnews/guide.shtml) Theodore P. Seto, Understanding the U.S. News Law School Rankings (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=937017), in which Prof. Seto describes an attempt to reproduce the U.S. News model and conclusions about the rankings’ reliability, accuracy, and shortcomings Paul Caron, 2015 U.S. News Peer Reputation Rankings vs. Overall Rankings (http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2014/03/2015-us-news-.html) Robert L. Jones, A Longitudinal Analysis of the U.S. News. Law School Academic Reputation Scores Between 1998 and 2013 (http://law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/backissues/vol40/documents/jones.pdf) Jeffrey Evans Stake, The Interplay Between Law School Rankings, Reputations, and Resource Allocation: Ways Rankings Mislead (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=700862) Bill Henderson, Can Stanford Be No. 1 in the U.S. New Rankings? (http://www.elsblog.org/the_empirical_legal_studi/2010/07/can-stanford-be-1-in-the-us-news-rankings-the-data.html)

Is there a principled reason why religious obligations that conflict with the law are accorded special toleration while other obligations of conscience are not? In Why Tolerate Religion? (Princeton, 2013), Professor Leiter argues there are no good reasons for doing so, that the reasons for tolerating religion are not specific to religion but apply to all claims of conscience. He also argues that a government committed to liberty of conscience is not required by the principal of toleration to grant burden-shifting exemptions to laws that promote the general welfare. Brian Leiter is Karl N. Llewellyn Professor of Jurisprudence and Director, Center for Law, Philosophy, and Human Values at the University of Chicago Law School. This talk was recorded on November 19, 2013, as part of the Chicago's Best Ideas lecture series.

Is there a principled reason why religious obligations that conflict with the law are accorded special toleration while other obligations of conscience are not? In Why Tolerate Religion? (Princeton, 2013), Professor Leiter argues there are no good reasons for doing so, that the reasons for tolerating religion are not specific to religion but apply to all claims of conscience. He also argues that a government committed to liberty of conscience is not required by the principal of toleration to grant burden-shifting exemptions to laws that promote the general welfare. Brian Leiter is Karl N. Llewellyn Professor of Jurisprudence and Director, Center for Law, Philosophy, and Human Values at the University of Chicago Law School. This talk was recorded on November 19, 2013, as part of the Chicago's Best Ideas lecture series.

The Hansford M. Epes Distinguished Lecture Series is delighted to welcome University of Chicago Karl N. Llewellyn Professor of Jurisprudence, Director of Law, Philosophy & Human Values Brian Leiter. Leiter will present "The Truth is Terrible: Nietzsche's Idea of an Aesthetic Justification for Existence."

Professor Brian Leiter (Karl N. Llewellyn, Professor of Jurisprudence and Director, Centre for Law, Philosophy, and Human Values, University of Chicago) speaks on the topic of his recent book 'Why Tolerate Religion?' (Princeton University Press, 2012). 27 August 2013

Professor Brian Leiter (Karl N. Llewellyn, Professor of Jurisprudence and Director, Centre for Law, Philosophy, and Human Values, University of Chicago) speaks on the topic of his recent book 'Why Tolerate Religion?' (Princeton University Press, 2012). 27 August 2013

Professor Brian Leiter (Karl N. Llewellyn, Professor of Jurisprudence and Director, Centre for Law, Philosophy, and Human Values, University of Chicago) speaks on the topic of his recent book 'Why Tolerate Religion?' (Princeton University Press, 2012). 27 August 2013

"Why Tolerate Religion?"Guest Brian Leiter What is the afterlife to a fish? To answer that question, we play the debut of Dan Barker's new song, "Heaven," setting to music the poetry of Rupert Brooke. State/church entanglements in Alabama and Texas are in the news. Then we talk with University of Chicago Law Professor Brian Leiter, author of the new book, Why Tolerate Religion? - See more at: http://direct.ffrf.org/news/radio#sthash.lR5x7Uh9.dpuf "Why Tolerate Religion?"Guest Brian Leiter What is the afterlife to a fish? To answer that question, we play the debut of Dan Barker's new song, "Heaven," setting to music the poetry of Rupert Brooke. State/church entanglements in Alabama and Texas are in the news. Then we talk with University of Chicago Law Professor Brian Leiter, author of the new book, Why Tolerate Religion? - See more at: http://direct.ffrf.org/news/radio#sthash.lR5x7Uh9.dpuf "Why Tolerate Religion?"Guest Brian Leiter What is the afterlife to a fish? To answer that question, we play the debut of Dan Barker's new song, "Heaven," setting to music the poetry of Rupert Brooke. State/church entanglements in Alabama and Texas are in the news. Then we talk with University of Chicago Law Professor Brian Leiter, author of the new book, Why Tolerate Religion? - See more at: http://direct.ffrf.org/news/radio#sthash.lR5x7Uh9.dpuf "Why Tolerate Religion?"Guest Brian Leiter What is the afterlife to a fish? To answer that question, we play the debut of Dan Barker's new song, "Heaven," setting to music the poetry of Rupert Brooke. State/church entanglements in Alabama and Texas are in the news. Then we talk with University of Chicago Law Professor Brian Leiter, author of the new book, Why Tolerate Religion? - See more at: http://direct.ffrf.org/news/radio#sthash.lR5x7Uh9.dpuf "Why Tolerate Religion?"Guest Brian Leiter What is the afterlife to a fish? To answer that question, we play the debut of Dan Barker's new song, "Heaven," setting to music the poetry of Rupert Brooke. State/church entanglements in Alabama and Texas are in the news. Then we talk with University of Chicago Law Professor Brian Leiter, author of the new book, Why Tolerate Religion? - See more at: http://direct.ffrf.org/news/radio#sthash.lR5x7Uh9.dpuf "Why Tolerate Religion?"Guest Brian Leiter What is the afterlife to a fish? To answer that question, we play the debut of Dan Barker's new song, "Heaven," setting to music the poetry of Rupert Brooke. State/church entanglements in Alabama and Texas are in the news. Then we talk with University of Chicago Law Professor Brian Leiter, author of the new book, Why Tolerate Religion? - See more at: http://direct.ffrf.org/news/radio#sthash.lR5x7Uh9.dpuf "Why Tolerate Religion?"Guest Brian Leiter What is the afterlife to a fish? To answer that question, we play the debut of Dan Barker's new song, "Heaven," setting to music the poetry of Rupert Brooke. State/church entanglements in Alabama and Texas are in the news. Then we talk with University of Chicago Law Professor Brian Leiter, author of the new book, Why Tolerate Religion? - See more at: http://direct.ffrf.org/news/radio#sthash.lR5x7Uh9.dpuf "Why Tolerate Religion?"Guest Brian Leiter What is the afterlife to a fish? To answer that question, we play the debut of Dan Barker's new song, "Heaven," setting to music the poetry of Rupert Brooke. State/church entanglements in Alabama and Texas are in the news. Then we talk with University of Chicago Law Professor Brian Leiter, author of the new book, Why Tolerate Religion? - See more at: http://direct.ffrf.org/news/radio#sthash.lR5x7Uh9.dpuf

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. The Western democratic practice to single out religious liberty for special treatment under the law is not in sync with the world we live in today, argues University of Chicago Law School professor Brian Leiter in his new book, Why Tolerate Religion? All people, both religious and non-religious, have certain kinds of beliefs about things they feel they absolutely must do, something he calls “claims of conscience.” In the book, Leiter, the Karl N. Llewellyn Professor of Jurisprudence, explores whether there are good reasons behind the tendency to grant legal exemptions to religious claims of conscience while largely rejecting non-religious ones.

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. The Western democratic practice to single out religious liberty for special treatment under the law is not in sync with the world we live in today, argues University of Chicago Law School professor Brian Leiter in his new book, Why Tolerate Religion? All people, both religious and non-religious, have certain kinds of beliefs about things they feel they absolutely must do, something he calls “claims of conscience.” In the book, Leiter, the Karl N. Llewellyn Professor of Jurisprudence, explores whether there are good reasons behind the tendency to grant legal exemptions to religious claims of conscience while largely rejecting non-religious ones.

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. The Western democratic practice to single out religious liberty for special treatment under the law is not in sync with the world we live in today, argues University of Chicago Law School professor Brian Leiter in his new book, Why Tolerate Religion? All people, both religious and non-religious, have certain kinds of beliefs about things they feel they absolutely must do, something he calls “claims of conscience.” In the book, Leiter, the Karl N. Llewellyn Professor of Jurisprudence, explores whether there are good reasons behind the tendency to grant legal exemptions to religious claims of conscience while largely rejecting non-religious ones.

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. The Western democratic practice to single out religious liberty for special treatment under the law is not in sync with the world we live in today, argues University of Chicago Law School professor Brian Leiter in his new book, Why Tolerate Religion? All people, both religious and non-religious, have certain kinds of beliefs about things they feel they absolutely must do, something he calls “claims of conscience.” In the book, Leiter, the Karl N. Llewellyn Professor of Jurisprudence, explores whether there are good reasons behind the tendency to grant legal exemptions to religious claims of conscience while largely rejecting non-religious ones.

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. The Western democratic practice to single out religious liberty for special treatment under the law is not in sync with the world we live in today, argues University of Chicago Law School professor Brian Leiter in his new book, Why Tolerate Religion? All people, both religious and non-religious, have certain kinds of beliefs about things they feel they absolutely must do, something he calls “claims of conscience.” In the book, Leiter, the Karl N. Llewellyn Professor of Jurisprudence, explores whether there are good reasons behind the tendency to grant legal exemptions to religious claims of conscience while largely rejecting non-religious ones.

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. The Western democratic practice to single out religious liberty for special treatment under the law is not in sync with the world we live in today, argues University of Chicago Law School professor Brian Leiter in his new book, Why Tolerate Religion? All people, both religious and non-religious, have certain kinds of beliefs about things they feel they absolutely must do, something he calls “claims of conscience.” In the book, Leiter, the Karl N. Llewellyn Professor of Jurisprudence, explores whether there are good reasons behind the tendency to grant legal exemptions to religious claims of conscience while largely rejecting non-religious ones.

Religious conviction enjoys a privileged status in our society.This is perhaps most apparent in legal contexts, where religious conviction is often given special consideration. To be more precise, religious conscience is recognized as a legitimate basis for exemption from standing laws, whereas claims of conscience deriving from non-religious commitments generally are not. Why is this? Is there something special about religiously-based claims of conscience? Is there something special about religion such that it gives rise to claims of conscience that deserve special consideration? If so, what? In his new book, Why Tolerate Religion? (Princeton University Press, 2013) Brian Leiter offers subtle analyses of toleration, conscience, and respect. He argues that religion is indeed to be tolerated, because liberty of conscience is a central moral and political ideal. However, he holds that there’s nothing special about religion that gives special moral or legal weight to the demands it places on the consciences of believers. Contending that all claims of conscience–religious and non-religious–deserve toleration, Leiter argues that legal exemption may be granted on the basis of a claim of conscience–religious or otherwise–only when doing so does not place additional burdens on the non-exempt. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Religious conviction enjoys a privileged status in our society.This is perhaps most apparent in legal contexts, where religious conviction is often given special consideration. To be more precise, religious conscience is recognized as a legitimate basis for exemption from standing laws, whereas claims of conscience deriving from non-religious commitments generally...

Religious conviction enjoys a privileged status in our society.This is perhaps most apparent in legal contexts, where religious conviction is often given special consideration. To be more precise, religious conscience is recognized as a legitimate basis for exemption from standing laws, whereas claims of conscience deriving from non-religious commitments generally are not. Why is this? Is there something special about religiously-based claims of conscience? Is there something special about religion such that it gives rise to claims of conscience that deserve special consideration? If so, what? In his new book, Why Tolerate Religion? (Princeton University Press, 2013) Brian Leiter offers subtle analyses of toleration, conscience, and respect. He argues that religion is indeed to be tolerated, because liberty of conscience is a central moral and political ideal. However, he holds that there’s nothing special about religion that gives special moral or legal weight to the demands it places on the consciences of believers. Contending that all claims of conscience–religious and non-religious–deserve toleration, Leiter argues that legal exemption may be granted on the basis of a claim of conscience–religious or otherwise–only when doing so does not place additional burdens on the non-exempt. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Religious conviction enjoys a privileged status in our society.This is perhaps most apparent in legal contexts, where religious conviction is often given special consideration. To be more precise, religious conscience is recognized as a legitimate basis for exemption from standing laws, whereas claims of conscience deriving from non-religious commitments generally are not. Why is this? Is there something special about religiously-based claims of conscience? Is there something special about religion such that it gives rise to claims of conscience that deserve special consideration? If so, what? In his new book, Why Tolerate Religion? (Princeton University Press, 2013) Brian Leiter offers subtle analyses of toleration, conscience, and respect. He argues that religion is indeed to be tolerated, because liberty of conscience is a central moral and political ideal. However, he holds that there’s nothing special about religion that gives special moral or legal weight to the demands it places on the consciences of believers. Contending that all claims of conscience–religious and non-religious–deserve toleration, Leiter argues that legal exemption may be granted on the basis of a claim of conscience–religious or otherwise–only when doing so does not place additional burdens on the non-exempt. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Is there a useful distinction to be made between analytic and continental philosophy? Brian Leiter thinks not. Listen to him in conversation with Nigel Warburton in this episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast. Philosophy Bites is made in association with the Institute of Philosophy.

När filosofen Brian Leiter på sin blogg ordnade en omröstning om 1900-talets viktigaste moralfilosofer, hamnade två kvinnliga filosofer på tredje och fjärde plats. Elisabeth Anscombe och Philippa Foot har båda bidragit till att utveckla den moderna dygdetiken. Anscombe stod Wittgenstein nära, och många har nog hört Foots berömda tankeexperiment om moraliska handlingsalternativ med en skenande spårvagn, the Trolley Problem. I Filosofiska rummet idag presenteras och diskuteras de båda brittiska filosoferna med hjälp av tre nordiska: Cathrine Felix, Per Bauhn och Jeanette Emt. Programledare är Lars Mogensen, producent Thomas Lunderquist. Produktionsbolaget Lokatt Media har gjort programmet för Sveriges Radio.

In this episode, Brian Leiter considers whether claims of religious conscience--as opposed to claims of other matters of conscience--should be given special status under the law. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Friedrich Nietzsche has been seen as the philosopher of the Overman, an anti-semite, and a precursor of postmodernist views about truth. But was he any of these? Brian Leiter explores these questions in conversation with Nigel Warburton in this episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast.

In this episode, Brian Leiter discusses Nietzsche's critique of morality and his naturalist approach to human psychology. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.