Podcasts about dostoevsky

Witness Weekly | WW001 | Kickoff Episode!0:00 Intro0:15 Mario Andrew – News6:26 Discussion of the Week21:05 James St Simon – Book & Film Recommendations / Review26:28 Michael – Redlines (Philosophy & Politics)30:25 Jeremy Jeremiah – Viewer Comments & Questions“Smells and bells” vs “bare walls” misses the point. We debate beauty, Scripture, continuity, and why people say they met God at the Divine Liturgy.A bishop detained under murky circumstances. A fresh call for Orthodox unity a decade after the Council of Crete. A study that claims part of a papal encyclical reads like it was AI assisted. We kick off the first Witness Weekly by moving fast through the headlines, then slowing down where it matters: what these moments reveal about religious freedom, public pressure on clergy, and the real stakes for Christians trying to live faithfully in a tense political climate.We launch Witness Weekly with Orthodox news, a deep dive on why evangelicals convert to Orthodoxy, and a candid look at how rhetoric and assumptions can flatten real theological differences. We close with Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, a challenge to political fixes for evil, and listener questions on worship music, conversion, and parish life.• Metropolitan Hilarion's detention in Lithuania and why prayer for clergy matters• Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew's renewed call for Orthodox unity and what changed since Crete• A study suggesting AI assisted writing in a papal encyclical and where the line might be• Archbishop Elpidophoros' hospitalization and continued prayers for his recovery• Common conversion motives and why “aesthetics only” is an unfair summary• Purgatory as a Roman Catholic doctrine and why Orthodoxy gets mislabeled• Institutional continuity versus doctrinal continuity and how Reformers argued their case• The catechumen process as evidence that conversion is usually slow and deliberate• Book of the week The Brothers Karamazov and why it speaks to believers and skeptics• The problem of evil, the Grand Inquisitor, and the limits of political solutions• Listener comment on worship music, tradition, standards, and Christian art• Advice for Protestants navigating hard conversations when exploring OrthodoxyPlease let us know your thoughts in the commentsFrom there, we take on a question we keep seeing everywhere: why are evangelicals converting to Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy? We challenge the lazy take that people switch churches because they got dazzled by “smells and bells” or seduced by a vague sense of history. We talk about the long, prayerful process most converts go through, the catechumen journey, and the way outsiders often lump Orthodoxy and Catholicism together, especially around doctrines like purgatory. We also dissect the rhetoric behind “continuity” claims, including how Reformers like John Calvin argued they were the true heirs of the ancient Church.We pivot into culture and formation with our book of the week, The Brothers Karamazov, and why Dostoevsky still feels uncomfortably current. We connect the problem of evil, the Grand Inquisitor's political temptation, and the hard truth that there is no ideology that can substitute for personal responsibility and repentance. Finally, we respond to listener comments on worship music, tradition, and standards, and we offer practical advice for Protestants navigating difficult conversations while exploring Orthodoxy. Can worship music be “frozen in time” and still alive? We respond to a tough listener critique, talk standards, lyrics, and the difference between church worship and Christian art. Mario Andrew  ⁨@AndrewStMercy⁩ James St Simon  ⁨@jamessaintsimon⁩ Michael  ⁨@redlineshq⁩  Jeremy Jeremiah Questions about Orthodoxy? Please check out our friends at Ghost of Byzantium Discord server: https://discord.gg/JDJDQw6tdhPlease prayerfully consider supporting Cloud of Witnesses: https://www.patreon.com/c/CloudofWitnessesFind Cloud of Witnesses on Instagram, X.com, Facebook, and TikTok.Please leave a comment with your thoughts!

Live June 8, 2026 | Yaron Brook Show(Season 12, Episode 100)Israel/Iran/Lebanon/Trump; Russia; Interview; H1B; N. Korea; Achievements | Yaron Brook ShowIsrael vs. Iran: Is Trump Saving Hezbollah, Betraying Israel, and Rewriting Reality?Plus: Russia's grinding war, the H-1B battle, North Korea's weapons boom, and the technological breakthroughs changing the future.Israel strikes. Iran retaliates. Hezbollah refuses to disappear. And Donald Trump inserts himself into the center of the Middle East's most dangerous conflict.In this episode of The Yaron Brook Show, Yaron returns to break down a dramatic weekend in the Middle East, the escalating Israel-Iran-Hezbollah confrontation, Trump's pressure campaign on Israel, and what the conflict reveals about America's role in the region.But that's only the beginning.Yaron also examines the state of Russia's war in Ukraine, Trump's latest claims about January 6 and the 2020 election, the growing fight over H-1B visas and legal immigration, North Korea's surprising economic gains from arms sales, and several astonishing technological breakthroughs—from autonomous trucking and Parkinson's treatments to supersonic flight.Then, in a wide-ranging Q&A, Yaron tackles everything from Neil deGrasse Tyson and Kant to Elon Musk, altruism, capitalism, immigration, gun rights, Netanyahu, Hezbollah, and the future of Objectivism.Whether you agree or disagree, this episode pulls no punches.Watch now and join the conversation.

Key Highlights:• Why the “Three Temptations” are not ancient stories but modern psychological systems• Why thoughts are not neutral & how repeated thoughts become personality• Jung, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky, neuroscience, & predictive processing brought together into one framework• How modern systems industrialize temptation through stimulation, performance, & certaintyWhat actually owns you?In this episode, we explore the psychological depth behind the Three Temptations — not simply as religious stories, but structures organizing modern life through comfort, validation, & control. Drawing from Jung, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky, neuroscience, predictive processing, and internal calculators, the episode examines how thoughts become patterns, patterns become identity, & modern systems progressively shape the self through stimulation, performance, certainty, & emotional regulation. From dopamine & reward systems to persona formation, ideological rigidity, & the human search for meaning, this episode explores how the temptations never disappeared — they industrialized.Part 5 (and links to part 1-4 in the notes) https://youtu.be/-IJcXrJJMuU?si=xa0Psj0V_X-nrO0cInternal Calculators part 1 https://youtu.be/uKa3wzpRoxQ?si=57tk2tO14VNVdzcpInternal Calculators part 2 https://youtu.be/5lsQIJUPgQ4Elevate How You Navigate with Len & a free call https://elevatehowyounavigate.comMAYU Water, use "autism" for 10% off at https://mayuwater.comDaylight Computer Company, use "autism" for $50 off at https://buy.daylightcomputer.com/autismDaylight Kids (!!!) https://kids.daylightcomputer.com/autism ‪Chroma Light Devices, use "autism" for 10% discount at https://getchroma.co/?ref=autism00:00 Elevate How You Navigate, MAYU Water, Daylight Computer & Daylight Kids, Chroma Light Devices05:16 What Owns You?07:57 The Three Temptations; Wilderness, Jung & the Shadow12:00 First Temptation: Comfort, Relief & Instant Gratification16:00 Internal Calculators; Thoughts, Habits & Identity20:00 Why Comfort Becomes a Trap21:58 Second Temptation: Validation, Persona & Social Media24:14 Kierkegaard, the Crowd & Performance Identity26:45 Authenticity vs Visibility28:14 Third Temptation: Power, Control & Certainty30:10 Nietzsche, Ideology & Psychological Rigidity32:50 Why We Crave Control34:10 The Industrialization of Temptation36:55 Self-Actualization, Meaning & the Void39:05 Logos, Transformation & Identity41:20 What Ultimately Owns You?43:00 Discipline, Strength, Logos & Final Reflections

Video Link: https://youtu.be/_dS2ZK-6jJY?si=eoXAqStqBU7yYu8lYou can learn: 1) Humans have an infinite capacity for Thoughts; Thoughts are Human Creation, & You DO NOT owe your thoughts ANYTHING 2) What Owns You? 3) How the Three Temptations are alive today 4) Philosophy & Psychology meet Christianity (even though it is a Human Story) 5) Autism Research is worthless so it is necessary to be an N=1 This leads into Part 7: The How and the Beatitudes & Self-Transformation Elevate How You Navigate with Len & a free call https://elevatehowyounavigate.com MAYU Water, use "autism" for 10% off at https://mayuwater.com Daylight Computer Company, use "autism" for $50 off at https://buy.daylightcomputer.com/autism Daylight Kids (!!!) https://kids.daylightcomputer.com/autism ‪ Chroma Light Devices, use "autism" for 10% discount at https://getchroma.co/?ref=autism Key Highlights: • Why the “Three Temptations” are not ancient stories but modern psychological systems • Why thoughts are not neutral & how repeated thoughts become personality • Jung, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky, neuroscience, & predictive processing brought together into one framework • How modern systems industrialize temptation through stimulation, performance, & certainty What actually owns you? In this episode, we explore the psychological depth behind the Three Temptations — not simply as religious stories, but structures organizing modern life through comfort, validation, & control. Drawing from Jung, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky, neuroscience, predictive processing, and internal calculators, the episode examines how thoughts become patterns, patterns become identity, & modern systems progressively shape the self through stimulation, performance, certainty, & emotional regulation. From dopamine & reward systems to persona formation, ideological rigidity, & the human search for meaning, this episode explores how the temptations never disappeared — they industrialized. Part 5 (and links to part 1-4 in the notes) https://youtu.be/-IJcXrJJMuUInternal Calculators part 1 https://youtu.be/uKa3wzpRoxQInternal Calculators https://youtu.be/nTs2m8SGqXcInternal Calculators https://youtu.be/5lsQIJUPgQ4

Beauty is one of the most celebrated words in art and faith conversations, but it may also be one of the most misunderstood. Is beauty simply what pleases the eye, or is it something deeper? Can beauty exist alongside suffering, loss, and the grotesque? And what happens when we settle for beauty that comforts us while avoiding the realities that transform us?What if beauty requires darkness, mystery, and even lament in order to reveal its deepest meaning? In this roundtable discussion, Stephen Roach and guests Corey Frey, Liv Ross, and Scott Aasman wrestle with beauty not as sentimentality or surface appeal, but as a force capable of holding together truth, goodness, suffering, and hope.KEY TOPICSWhy beauty can feel inauthentic when it is removed from struggleThe original meaning of "glamour" as a veil designed to trap and deceive, and why that etymology still matters for artists todayHow the three transcendentals — goodness, truth, and beauty — function like a trinity: remove one and the others collapse into vanity, brutality, or cover-upWhat Edmund Burke and Kant meant by the sublime, and why terror and beauty belong together rather than apartThe real context behind Dostoevsky's phrase "beauty will save the world," drawn from The Idiot, and why stripping it from that argument changes everythingThomas Kinkade's stated goal of painting a world where the Fall never happened, and what his private life and Andy Warhol quote reveal about the cost of bypassing Holy SaturdayWhy form without substance is essentially pornographic, and how true beauty requires the material and the spiritual coming togetherHow artistic isolation stunts creative roots the way a tree grown in perfect conditions falls in the first storm and why community, friction, and disagreement strengthen both the artist and the workAbout the Guests:Corey Frey is a multidisciplinary artist, writer, and co-founder of The Well Collaborative, a community dedicated to creativity, curiosity, and culture. He lives in Maryland with his wife and continues to explore the intersections of art, faith, and imagination.Liv Ross is an urban monk, poet, essayist, and Managing Editor of Traces Journal. Writing from the Ozarks, her work explores place, wonder, memory, and spiritual formation. Her first book, The Blackbird Ballad, was published by Solum Literary Press in 2026.Scott Aasman is an award-winning illustrator, educator, and co-founder of Salt Cellar Arts, an arts-focused community for the spiritually attentive and creatively engaged. He lives in Hamilton, Ontario, with his wife and two children.Resources MentionedBeauty Will Save the World by Brian ZahndThe Idiot by Fyodor DostoevskyThe Thought of the Heart and the Soul of the World by James Hillman Works by Flannery O'Connor Works by Cormac McCarthy Paintings of Thomas Kinkade Landscapes of J. M. W. TurnerConnect with Our GuestsCorey Frey coreysfrey.comLiv Ross The Abbey of Curiosity Substack The Blackbird BalladScott Aasman Instagram – San IllustrationSend us Fan MailSupport the showJOIN US FOR BOOK CLUB! Every Tuesday at 8 pm EST in June 2026, we will be reading James's book online in our Patreon community! We'd love to have you with us. Visit patreon.com/makersandmystics to RSVP. Sign Up for Our Newsletter! http://eepurl.com/g49Ks1Give a one-time donation https://buy.stripe.com/9AQeYj7431fD12waEOJoin the Makers & Mystics Creative Collective https://www.patreon.com/c/makersandmystics

Marilyn Monroe was the ultimate bombshell. This week she would have turned 100 years old, but she’s still the iconic sex symbol of mid 20th century Hollywood. Despite her carefully crafted dumb blonde persona, she was also wildly intelligent. She had a library filled with books by authors like James Joyce and Dostoevsky. So . . how did she use that intelligence and what was her Achilles heel? Feel free to DM me if you have a story you’d like me to cover . . on Facebook it’s Patty Steele and on Instagram Real Patty Steele.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

rWotD Episode 3316: Polyphony (literature) Welcome to random Wiki of the Day, your journey through Wikipedia's vast and varied content, one random article at a time.The random article for Tuesday, 2 June 2026, is Polyphony (literature).In literature, polyphony (Russian: полифония) is a feature of narrative, which includes a diversity of simultaneous points of view and voices. Caryl Emerson describes it as "a decentered authorial stance that grants validity to all voices". The concept was introduced by Mikhail Bakhtin, using a metaphor based on the musical term polyphony.Bakhtin's primary example of polyphony was Fyodor Dostoevsky's prose. According to Bakhtin, the chief characteristic of Dostoevsky's novels is "a plurality of independent and unmerged voices and consciousnesses, a genuine polyphony of fully valid voices". His major characters are, "by the very nature of his creative design, not only objects of authorial discourse but also subjects of their own directly signifying discourse" (italics in the original).Polyphony in literature is the consequence of a dialogic sense of truth in combination with the special authorial position that makes possible the realization of that sense on the page. The dialogic sense of truth, as it manifests in Dostoevsky, is a radically different way of understanding the world to that of the monologic. Dostoevsky's novels, according to Bakhtin, cannot be understood from within the monological tradition of western thought, a way of thinking about "truth" that has dominated religion, science, philosophy and literature for many centuries.This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 01:14 UTC on Tuesday, 2 June 2026.For the full current version of the article, see Polyphony (literature) on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Mastodon at @wikioftheday@masto.ai.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm neural Salli.

In Part 1 of our discussion on Fyodor Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment, we welcome translator Michael Katz to discuss the effects of Dostoevsky's personal and family life on his writing, the "big questions of life" and morality woven into Dostoevsky's works, and the challenge of translating Dostoevsky's repetitive writing style. Michael R. Katz is the C. V. Starr Professor Emeritus of Russian and East European Studies at Middlebury College. He has translated over twenty Russian novels, including The Brothers Karamazov, Crime and Punishment, Fathers and Children, and Notes from Underground.To learn more or purchase a copy of the Norton Library edition of Crime and Punishment, go to https://wwnorton.com/books/9780393427950. Learn more about the Norton Library series at https://wwnorton.com/norton-library.Have questions or suggestions for the podcast? Email us at nortonlibrary@wwnorton.com or find us on Twitter at @TNL_WWN and Bluesky at @nortonlibrary.bsky.social. 

Life keeps happening. Pope Sixtus is the next name on the docket and I will get it out by July. Another fascinating history if not as long as Leo or Gregory. I have promised a former student to read along with her: Crime and Punishment by Dostoevsky, Fathers and Sons by Turgenev, and Paradise Lost by you know who. So I will attempt to drop a few thoughts about that sometime over the course of June. Another topic: Pope Leo's first encyclical. After reading the first ten paragraphs, I am very struck by his distributist (that word is clearly lurking in the background) interpretation of Nehemiah, the story he presents as paradigmatic for human economic effort arranged in a way consistent with human nature and our relationship with God. Surely Bill and I can find some grist to grind there when I get him corralled and back at a microphone.

Matt and Michael dive deep into the meaning of Jesus Christ's death and resurrection. Starting from last week's cliffhanger about whether Jesus had to die, they explore the story of Cain and Abel, the problem of human sin, and why God chose to meet humanity in its darkest place rather than simply forgive from a distance. The conversation weaves through Job, the cross as the ultimate expression of love, and why this story demands a response that other worldviews don't. They discuss Carl Jung's Answer to Job, CS Lewis's analogy of God outside of time, and why Christianity's claim of divine self-sacrifice is unique among world religions. Michael shares his experiential journey through multiple religions and why Jesus was the one that actually changed him. Matt reflects on seeing a Rothko painting at the Met and how biblical stories are interactive in a way art cannot be. The episode grapples with troubling questions: What kind of God commands slaughter? What does it mean that God justifies himself to Job? Why did God choose to die rather than simply forgive? And what does it mean that we are all Cain? Cheers y'all

What happens when a mind built for depth, precision, and pattern recognition is forced to survive inside systems designed for generalization, compression, and social conformity?Part 5 explores how modern environments shape behavior, identity, attention, and even self-worth through constant pressure to adapt. Pulling from neuroscience, autism research, predictive processing, and the work of Jung, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, and Dostoevsky, this episode examines masking, chronic self-monitoring, cognitive translation, hyper-awareness, and the hidden metabolic cost of trying to fit into systems that were never designed for certain kinds of minds.The episode also explores individuation, authenticity, predictive processing, and why many autistic individuals experience the world as intensely detailed, emotionally costly, and cognitively overwhelming. Rather than framing autism as a deficit, this discussion asks a deeper question: what if many struggles emerge not from the mind itself, but from the mismatch between the individual and the environment surrounding them?Part 1 https://youtu.be/fqDAfjMXTBQ?si=zzhf5ZrQ8nlwcVuuPart 2 https://youtu.be/bM7kw6ni3Tk?si=sSH_CJcV42Rx-xLrPart 3 https://youtu.be/lFP-anBiei4?si=UlJrsNLjQWJKMZnrPart 4 https://youtu.be/KpjLo75XHK0?si=Ns4F8_oEV2yN438yMAYU Water, use "autism" for 10% off at https://mayuwater.comDaylight Computer Company, use "autism" for $50 off at https://buy.daylightcomputer.com/autismand Daylight Kids (!!!) https://kids.daylightcomputer.com/autism ‪Chroma Light Devices, use "autism" for 10% discount at https://getchroma.co/?ref=autism00:00 – MAYU Water01:12 – Daylight Computer Company & Daylight Kids02:19 – Chroma Light Devices03:26 – Self, crowd, mind, shared reality & the system04:13 – Why schools, workplaces & society break on difference06:22 – Systems as compression machines; rules, metrics & expectations08:52 – Misalignment vs deficiency; compatibility mistaken for capability11:20 – School systems; task switching, attention, pacing & deep processing14:42 – Jung's persona; masking, survival architecture & translation cost18:34 – Why systems resist change; stability, predictability & the herd22:58 – Chronic misalignment; exhaustion, identity confusion & suppression24:55 – Dostoevsky; hyper-awareness, contradiction & the “piano key” system27:40 – What actually helps; individuation, environment & cognitive diversity30:47 – Final synthesis; internal structure vs institutional structureX: https://x.com/rps47586YT: https://www.youtube.com/@FromTheSpectrumemail: info.fromthespectrum@gmail.com

Most extraordinary people are never famous.History remembers a few names — Marcus Aurelius, Churchill, Dostoevsky — but civilization itself is carried forward by ordinary people doing small things faithfully. Good fathers. Loyal friends. Honest workers. Men and women who plant trees whose shade they will never sit under.In this episode, I reflect on anonymous greatness, mortality, forgotten ancestors, war, courage, and why being forgotten may actually be one of the most beautiful truths about being human.We talk about:Why most virtuous lives are invisible to historyThe courage that comes from accepting your impermanenceWhy relationships matter more than recognitionThe quiet nobility of doing good without applauseWhat Marcus Aurelius can teach us about presence and legacyWhy civilization survives because of ordinary peopleBecause in the end, very few people will remember our names.But a handful of people may truly know who we were.And maybe that's enough.

Most extraordinary people are never famous.History remembers a few names — Marcus Aurelius, Churchill, Dostoevsky — but civilization itself is carried forward by ordinary people doing small things faithfully. Good fathers. Loyal friends. Honest workers. Men and women who plant trees whose shade they will never sit under.In this episode, I reflect on anonymous greatness, mortality, forgotten ancestors, war, courage, and why being forgotten may actually be one of the most beautiful truths about being human.We talk about:Why most virtuous lives are invisible to historyThe courage that comes from accepting your impermanenceWhy relationships matter more than recognitionThe quiet nobility of doing good without applauseWhat Marcus Aurelius can teach us about presence and legacyWhy civilization survives because of ordinary peopleBecause in the end, very few people will remember our names.But a handful of people may truly know who we were.And maybe that's enough.

What happens when a culture loses belief in God?In this deep and surprisingly funny conversation, Dr. Chris Palmer joins Dr. T. Michael W. Halcomb to discuss nihilism, modern despair, AI, atheism, church hurt, faith, science, memes, Dostoevsky, Nietzsche, and why Christianity still matters in a collapsing culture.Dr. Palmer's new book A World Without God explores what happens when society abandons transcendence and attempts to construct meaning without God. Along the way, this conversation tackles:• Why modern culture feels empty• The psychological consequences of nihilism• Why faith and science “play by different rules”• Church hurt and hypocrisy• Dostoevsky vs Nietzsche• AI, memes, absurdism & modern despair• Why beauty still points people toward God• Whether Christianity is essential for human flourishingThis episode is thoughtful, philosophical, pastoral, and unexpectedly hilarious.

Everyone worships something. The rock star, the ideology, the bottle of wine, the beautiful person across the room. Dostoevsky identified it as an incessant, painful longing: so long as man remains free, he strives for nothing so persistently as to find someone worthy of complete surrender. We have free will — and where we invest our affection becomes our most important choice. In this episode Raghunath and Kaustubha explore that longing alongside the Vedic text's most sacred passage — where the gopi girls of Vrindavan invest everything in the very source of rasa itself. Srimad Bhagavatam 10.29.12-19 ******************************************************************** LOVE THE PODCAST? WE ARE COMMUNITY SUPPORTED AND WOULD LOVE FOR YOU TO JOIN! Go to https://www.wisdomofthesages.com WATCH ON YOUTUBE: https://youtube.com/@WisdomoftheSages LISTEN ON ITUNES: https://podcasts/apple.com/us/podcast/wisdom-of-the-sages/id1493055485 CONNECT ON FACEBOOK: https://facebook.com/wisdomofthesages108 *********************************************************************

What if reality is not experienced directly, but constructed through prediction, compression, memory, and social agreement? In this episode of Autism & the Structure of Reality, we explore how the brain builds models of the world — and why most people stabilize reality collectively through shared assumptions, habits, and social compression. Drawing from neuroscience, predictive processing, Jung, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, and Dostoevsky, this episode examines how perception itself may be shaped by consensus rather than objective truth.The episode also explores autism, heightened detail processing, uncertainty, social conformity, pattern recognition, and why different perceptual styles can create radically different experiences of the same world. If the brain is constantly simplifying reality to conserve energy, what happens when a mind compresses less and perceives more? This discussion dives into predictive processing, internal vs external reality, cognitive friction, and the hidden psychological cost of maintaining the shared structures humans call “normal.”Part 1 https://youtu.be/fqDAfjMXTBQ?si=zzhf5ZrQ8nlwcVuuPart 2 https://youtu.be/bM7kw6ni3Tk?si=sSH_CJcV42Rx-xLrPart 3 https://youtu.be/lFP-anBiei4?si=nvcheRbdPnaE9ygLMAYU Water, use "autism" for 10% off at https://mayuwater.comDaylight Computer Company, use "autism" for $50 off at https://buy.daylightcomputer.com/autismand Daylight Kids (!!!) https://kids.daylightcomputer.com/autism ‪Chroma Light Devices, use "autism" for 10% discount at https://getchroma.co/?ref=autism00:00 MAYU Water01:12 Daylight Computer Company & Daylight Kids02:19 Chroma Light Devices03:24 Autism & the Structure of Reality; Prediction & Consensus Reality05:18 Predictive Processing; Shared Perception & Compression07:46 Autism, Detail Processing & Reduced Compression10:31 Jung, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard & the Crowd13:42 Dostoevsky, Meaning & Collective Illusions16:18 Internal vs External Reality; Social Conformity18:56 Pattern Recognition, Salience & Autistic Perception21:37 Prediction Errors; Uncertainty & Resistance to Change24:11 Shared Reality, Identity & Cognitive Friction26:54 Autism & the Structure of Reality — Final ThoughtsX: https://x.com/rps47586YT: https://www.youtube.com/@FromTheSpectrumemail: info.fromthespectrum@gmail.com

Everyone worships something. The rock star, the ideology, the bottle of wine, the beautiful person across the room. Dostoevsky identified it as an incessant, painful longing: so long as man remains free, he strives for nothing so persistently as to find someone worthy of complete surrender. We have free will — and where we invest our affection becomes our most important choice. In this episode Raghunath and Kaustubha explore that longing alongside the Vedic text's most sacred passage — where the gopi girls of Vrindavan invest everything in the very source of rasa itself. Srimad Bhagavatam 10.29.12-19 ******************************************************************** LOVE THE PODCAST? WE ARE COMMUNITY SUPPORTED AND WOULD LOVE FOR YOU TO JOIN! Go to https://www.wisdomofthesages.com WATCH ON YOUTUBE: https://youtube.com/@WisdomoftheSages LISTEN ON ITUNES: https://podcasts/apple.com/us/podcast/wisdom-of-the-sages/id1493055485 CONNECT ON FACEBOOK: https://facebook.com/wisdomofthesages108 *********************************************************************

That Dostoevsky has taught me anything, let alone about workout consistency is not something I expected to be saying as a health and fitness coach!But finishing Crime and Punishment on holiday turned out to have more in common with getting in shape after 40 than I could have imagined.

Send us Fan MailThe Russian people and their destiny played an important role in Dostoevsky's works, but in the contemporary context, what does this mean for Slavophilism and other nationalistic movements? In this video, I am joined by Dr. George Pattison to discuss this question.Support the show--------------------------If you would want to support the channel and what I am doing, please follow me on Patreon:www.patreon.com/christianityforallWhere else to find Josh Yen:Philosophy YT: https://bit.ly/philforallEducation: https://bit.ly/joshyenBuisness: https://bit.ly/logoseduMy Website: https://joshuajwyen.com/

In this episode of Autism & the Structure of Reality (Pt. 3), we go deeper into one of the biggest questions in neuroscience, philosophy, and human experience: What is reality from the perspective of the mind? Building from Jung, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, and Dostoevsky, this episode connects phenomenology and modern neuroscience to show how perception is not passive. The brain filters, predicts, suppresses, and constructs experience long before we consciously recognize it. Topics include the thalamus as a sensory gatekeeper, predictive processing, salience networks, attention, filtering, compression, and why different minds can inhabit fundamentally different experienced realities.This episode also explores how the autistic phenotype may process the world with less compression, stronger bottom-up sensory detail, and different salience weighting, creating tension between the individual and the social system. Rather than framing difference as dysfunction, the discussion reframes it as a different way of organizing reality itself. If Episodes 1 and 2 explored the conflict between the self and the crowd, this episode examines the deeper computational and perceptual mechanisms underneath that conflict — and why the world different people experience may not actually be the same world at all.Part 1 https://youtu.be/fqDAfjMXTBQ?si=zzhf5ZrQ8nlwcVuuPart 2 https://youtu.be/bM7kw6ni3Tk?si=sSH_CJcV42Rx-xLrMAYU Water, use "autism" for 10% off at https://mayuwater.comDaylight Computer Company, use "autism" for $50 off at https://buy.daylightcomputer.com/autismand Daylight Kids (!!!) https://kids.daylightcomputer.com/autism ‪Chroma Light Devices, use "autism" for 10% discount at https://getchroma.co/?ref=autism00:00 – MAYU Water; hydration, minerals & absorption01:12 – Daylight Computer Company & Daylight Kids; low-stimulation tech, focus & sleep02:19 – Chroma Light Devices; full-spectrum lighting & circadian rhythm support03:26 – Intro; Jung, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky & the self vs the crowd05:50 – What is reality? Perception, lived experience & phenomenology07:18 – The thalamus; sensory gating, awareness & perception filtering09:12 – Attention shapes reality; William James, alpha rhythms & suppression12:03 – The predictive brain; prediction error, beta/gamma rhythms & constructed reality15:08 – Salience networks; ACC, insula, spindle neurons & what the brain flags as important18:21 – Filtering & compression; detail processing, prediction weighting & social tension21:42 – Different processing = different realities; the individual vs the system24:37 – Closing thoughts; deeper truth, perception & organizing reality differentlyX: https://x.com/rps47586YT: https://www.youtube.com/@FromTheSpectrumemail: info.fromthespectrum@gmail.com

Michael plays devil's advocate and argues that human societies naturally refine their values over time. Monogamy works better. Less crime is good. These truths emerge through trial and error. Matt pushes back hard. Without truth and love as a fixed reference point, he argues, the word "better" loses all meaning. What looks like natural progress is actually borrowed capital from a civilization built on Judeo-Christian values. They explore Canada's assisted suicide program, the sterilization of young people through the transgender movement, and Nietzsche's warning that removing God does not just remove religion. It unmoors everything. This one goes deep. It is about what happens when a culture forgets where its values came from. And why substituting anything for God makes your world smaller. Cheers y'all

Send us Fan Mail"What happens when the inventor of the Video Sales Letter meets AI? Jon Benson joins us for a conversation that will change how you think about creativity, copy, and your business."In Episode 271 of Navigating the Customer Experience, host Yanique Grant sits down with Jon Benson, the pioneering copywriter and entrepreneur who invented the Video Sales Letter (VSL) the format that became the backbone of modern digital marketing. Since 2010, Jon has been quietly working at the intersection of AI and persuasion science, partnering with early AI companies as far back as 2015 to teach machines the nuances of high-converting copy. Today, he's the creator of BNSN (pronounced "Benson"), a proprietary AI copywriting platform built exclusively for ethical marketers who want to attract their ideal customers not just anyone with a credit card.But before any of that, Jon was a graphic designer who nearly lost his life. At 38 years old, he suffered a heart attack a consequence of obesity, stress, and burning the candle at both ends. His recovery led him to write a bestselling book on fitness transformation, which launched him unexpectedly into the world of internet marketing and copywriting. It's one of the most compelling origin stories you'll hear, and it sets the tone for everything Jon has built since.In this episode, Jon and Yanique explore:

In this episode, we explore autism, identity, intuition, & the tension between authenticity and social conformity through psychology and philosophy. Expanding from part 1 & Carl Jung's work, we add Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, & Dostoevsky, and ask a deeper question: what happens when someone is naturally more connected to their internal structure than to the social roles the world expects them to perform? Topics include sensory processing, visual thinking, pattern recognition, the psychological cost of masking, and the struggle between the “self” and the persona people present to the world.This conversation explores why many autistic individuals experience tension not because of who they are, but because of constant pressure to become someone else. We discuss intuition, internal consistency, social adaptation, individuality, meaning, and the challenge of staying connected to yourself in a world that often rewards performance over authenticity. Rather than viewing autism only through deficits or labels, this episode examines it as a different orientation toward perception, identity, and human experience itself.Part 1 https://youtu.be/fqDAfjMXTBQ?si=Sf918WWPsyIsnNKQMAYU Water, use "autism" for 10% off at https://mayuwater.comDaylight Computer Company, use "autism" for $50 off at https://buy.daylightcomputer.com/autismand Daylight Kids (!!!) https://kids.daylightcomputer.com/autism ‪Chroma Light Devices, use "autism" for 10% discount at https://getchroma.co/?ref=autism00:00 – MAYU Water01:12 – Daylight Computer Company & Daylight Kids02:19 – Chroma Light Devices03:27 Introduction; autism, the self, and the tension between the individual and society05:05 Friedrich Nietzsche and the “herd”; stability, conformity, prediction, and why systems resist difference07:50 Immediate certainty, misunderstanding, and why insight depends on the structure receiving it09:38 Becoming vs being formed; imitation, social reinforcement, and developing from within11:40 Søren Kierkegaard, “the crowd is untruth,” and the danger of losing the self14:10 Internal alignment, masking, adaptation, and the cost of staying true to your structure17:36 Fyodor Dostoevsky; deep processing, overthinking, and translating complex internal worlds into social reality20:02 Compression, misunderstanding, and why depth can appear “wrong” to the external world22:05 Schools, workplaces, autism, stimming, eye contact, and the difference between “error” versus alternative structure25:14 Closing; the tension between internal structure and external expectation, and why the traits that create friction are often the ones that move systems forwardX: https://x.com/rps47586YT: https://www.youtube.com/@FromTheSpectrumemail: info.fromthespectrum@gmail.com

On this week's episode of the RealClearInvestigations Podcast, RCI Editor J. Peder Zane and RCI Senior Reporter James Varney speak with Gary Saul Morson, a professor of Arts and Humanities at Northwestern University and a scholar of Russian literature about what Dostoevsky can teach us about modern progressives. In our round-up of the week's best investigative reporting, Zane and Varney discuss a Wall Street Journal article about China's stranglehold on drone production, Roger Pielke Jr.'s Substack piece on a dramatic change in climate change forecasts, and a Daily Wire story on the Los Angeles arsonists who drew inspiration from the assassin Luigi Mangione. 00:00 Introduction and Overview of Current Events 03:13 The Impact of Chinese Supply Chains on U.S. Defense 05:58 Climate Change Narratives and Scientific Realities 09:10 The Ideological Underpinnings of Violence in Society 12:07 Interview with Professor Gary Saul Morrison on Communism and Ideology 14:45 Dostoevsky's Insights on Modern Progressivism 17:53 The Role of the Intelligentsia in Revolutionary Movements 20:59 The Normalization of Violence in Political Discourse 24:09 Comparisons Between Historical and Modern Revolutionary Movements 32:44 The Role of Liberals in Political Change 34:00 The Dangers of Labeling Political Opponents 38:21 Lessons from History: The Power of the Majority 41:13 The Importance of Literature and Universal Values 47:16 The Psychology of Political Identity 51:32 The Challenge of Compromise in Democracy 55:22 The Role of Science in Political Ideology 01:01:04 The Transformative Power of Literature Articles Discussed in This Podcast:   Gary Saul Morson: Re-Possessed – Commentary Magazine Gary Saul Morson: Solzhenitsyn Warned Us – Commentary Magazine Gary Saul Morson: The Return of the ‘Useful Idiot' – Commentary Magazine Gary Saul Morson: The Red Star Returns - The New Criterion Gary Saul Morson: Marxism Is a Gulag of the Mind - WSJ Wall Street Journal: U.S. Targets China's Stranglehold on Drone Production  Roger Pielke Jr. Substack: New Climate Report Eliminates Most Extreme Scenarios  Daily Wire: LA Arson Suspect Obsessed Over Luigi Mangione  Sign up for the RealClearInvestigations Newsletter. Watch each episode on the RealClearPolitics YouTube ChannelContact us with your thoughts and feedback: jpederzane@realclearinvestigations.com

My colleague Oliver Traldi recently published an essay called ‘Jane Austen's Virtuous Liberalism'. It's a very nice discussion of the ways in which Austen understand the challenges of character formation.Virtue, as Austen sees it, faces two tough challenges. First, people whose characters are not yet formed must see how to be virtuous rather than vicious. Then, the virtuous must somehow find a way to succeed in their struggles against the vicious without adopting vicious means.In this episode, Oliver and I discussed Austen's ideas of virtue, what that has to do with liberalism, the relationship between philosophy and literature more broadly, as well as poetry and ideas about the Great Books. We also talked about the Keira Knightly Pride and Prejudice. Yes, we both liked it. Here is why Oliver thinks Jane Austen is so popular among philosophers.TRALDI: And so I do think that even though she's not making arguments, she's not laying out philosophical theories, there is a level of precision in her thinking about virtue, which I do think is something that it took me a little aback.And I think it's part of why—one person who quote-tweeted my article was Daniel Kodsi, who's a friend of our colleague John Maier and his coauthor often. And he runs this magazine called The Philosophers' Magazine, which I had written before. And Daniel quote-tweeted my article with something like, “Add Oliver to the list of all the philosophers who love Austen.”OLIVER: And it's a long list.TRALDI: And I think it's a long list. And I do think this precision is part of it that she does, that it is—again, it's not like a philosophy journal article, but it is an intellectual sophistication that is often not present in novelists that we really appreciate.And here is an extract about Austen, Smith, and the wonderfully fertile period at the end of the eighteen century.TRALDI: But yes, I think it's obvious—without knowing the background, I'm sure there are scholarly questions about, how much Smith did Austen read? And they're both 250th—a lot was happening in 1775 and 1776.OLIVER: Those were great years. Those were the good old days.TRALDI: They were great years. In the great books syllabus, you get to the end of the 1700s and suddenly there's this—you have Smith, you have Kant, you have the American Revolution, you have the French Revolution, you have Burke. Rousseau is right before, Montesquieu is right before. I mean, it was a real—OLIVER: It's a great time.TRALDI: It was a great time. A lot was being done. And obviously, you know, I love the 1800s. I love the Romantics. But you could teach a whole great books course from 1750 to 1800, probably.OLIVER: You've also got all the dictionaries and all that kind of work going on as well. It's a very, very fertile—explorations.TRALDI: Yes, yes. There's all sorts of—yes, it was an amazing time.OLIVER: So did you, having read these two, Austen and Smith, close together—TRALDI: Yes, and I should say that my reading of Austen was much more careful than my reading of Smith.OLIVER: Sure, but you wrote this before you read Smith.TRALDI: Yes, absolutely.OLIVER: Or at least you fully conceived it. Do you see a lot of Smith in Austen?TRALDI: “A lot” might be—This was my favourite bit.TRALDI: Yes. But this is one of the great—I know we talked about this, but it's one of the great—you see this in Smith, you see this in Austen—commerce has its own virtues, and they are very traditional virtues. You have to be trustworthy. You have to be pleasant. You can't really be wholly self-interested in every moment because people have to be willing to deal with you given your—I mean, think about Yelp reviews or even just word of mouth. “Oh, that person screwed me over.”OLIVER: There's a discussion in one of Hayek's papers, which is—it's a very Smithian point he makes about, the nature of the knowledge problem means that it's not so much that I'm trying to get information about the thing you're trying to sell me, but I'm really trying to get information about you and whether you are someone I should be buying from. Which is exactly the project that the novelists and Smith—there's a sort of period between Smith and the early novelists, running through Austen to George Eliot, when they're all working on that problem together.TRALDI: Yes. I do think in Austen, it's often—the real puzzle is, how do you make out somebody else's character?OLIVER: Exactly.TRALDI: This is a phrase that Lizzy Bennet does use with regard to Darcy. And how do we actually figure out who the trustworthy and untrustworthy people are?OLIVER: And if you're too philosophical about that, in the sort of analytic sense, I think you can end up not paying enough attention to the particulars of that question.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: Because when you actually try and do it, it's really, really hard.TRALDI: Yes. And I think this is the sort of—reading Austen, you get a sense of—and there are very few philosophy papers on things like this. Reading Austen, you get a sense of, what sorts of details in a normal life are the ones that I can extract information from to make out somebody else's character?Oliver is an analytical, political philosopher. You can find out more about his work here. Here he is on Twitter. His Substack is orting. You can watch the episode on YouTube here.TranscriptHENRY OLIVER: Today I am talking to Oliver Traldi. Oliver is an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Toledo in Ohio. He is my colleague on the Emerging Scholars Program at the Mercatus Center, and he's written a book about political beliefs as well as many other articles for magazines, online.He's got a Substack. He's maybe the most prominent political and epistemological young philosopher of his generation. [laughter] But most importantly for us, he is interested in Jane Austen and the idea of virtue. Oliver, welcome.OLIVER TRALDI: Thank you so much for having me.Reading Austen as a PhilosopherOLIVER: Let's just start—before we get to this article you've written, tell me about being a philosopher but reading Jane Austen, because she's often read and commented on by people who are not philosophers or who are only philosophers by acquaintance or whatever.TRALDI: Right.OLIVER: Is it different reading as a philosopher, do you think?TRALDI: I think yes and no. One thing as a philosopher, there are—contemporary philosophy, we have very exacting standards of rigor and clarity. And when we look for a theory, we want something that's been improved by hundreds of people and thousands of journal articles.And so, if you were to simply extract a theory of virtue from a novel and say, “Does this—is this the end-all, be-all of moral thinking?” obviously you're going to be disappointed. So I think as a philosopher, you have to look for other types of things, other types of sensitivities rather than logical sensitivity.You have to say, how sensitive is the author to the different types of situations where people's virtue can be exhibited or challenged? Or how sensitive is the author to the different types of pressures that a character's convictions can be put under, or the different sorts of compromises that they might have to make, or the different sorts of people who might not be virtuous who they might have to interact with and sort of, you know, contract with or avoid? And what are going to be the impacts of different kinds of choices in those situations?So the novelists, I think, tend—if they do it well, a novelist who's interested in morality will understand living morally probably better than a philosopher, while maybe not understanding, say, arguments about whether morality supervenes on reality or vice versa, or what grounds morality, or different theories of meta-ethics or whatever.OLIVER: I mean, there are obviously some novelists who do have a better appreciation of those things than others, we should say.TRALDI: Yes, I think that's absolutely true. And as I wrote in my article, I do think Austen in particular had an appreciation for this issue that you might call moral disarming or unilateral disarming. You know, does the moral person put themselves at a disadvantage relative to the immoral person? And then how do we actually help—how does morality survive?So that's a kind of philosophical question, but I tend to think—I taught last year—I think we've talked about this a bit. I taught in a great books program at Tulsa.OLIVER: This is the Jennifer Frey program.TRALDI: This is the ill-fated Jennifer Frey program. Jennifer—I don't know if you've met her, but she's an incredibly charismatic person. But somehow the program, despite being enormously successful, did not survive. You know, I was there for a year, and they decided that was long enough.OLIVER: [laughs] You don't think your arrival was the—TRALDI: No, no. I hope not. I most certainly hope not.OLIVER: No. General problems of higher education prevailed. Yes.TRALDI: Yes, many, many problems of higher education these days. But yes, so I think—what was I saying?OLIVER: Well, I think we're getting to this question of, you are not just a philosopher; you teach the great books.TRALDI: Right, exactly. The great books. That's where I was. Yes.Philosophy and the Great BooksOLIVER: So, one thing I'm interested in is that, you know, reading as a philosopher, you get a slightly different perspective on Austen. When you read other fiction, poetry, whatever, is there a benefit to you as a philosopher? Does it broaden you in some way?TRALDI: Yes. I think absolutely, it's broadening, but it's also focusing in a different way. You know, contemporary philosophy is often described or captured with the word epicycles. So what we mean when we say epicycles is, you have some major theory, which is supposed to answer some big question. And then your career as a philosopher—you're like three layers deep in the theory, in some sub-debate, and you're making some really fine-grained distinctions.And if you can make those distinctions successfully, you've had a really great career. But I think it's easy to forget, why are we doing—you know, what attracted us to philosophy? Why are we doing this to begin with?And the great novels, great books in general—one example I always use is the Book of Job. It doesn't really—it's not doing clear philosophy on the question of why do bad things happen to good people. But when you read it, you feel the question, why do bad things happen to good people? You get it, you know? You get why this is a question that people have worried about for thousands of years. You get why it calls out for an answer.You know, there's a lot of truth out there. I'm looking at a set of coat hangers, and I could count the coat hangers. But if you were given the decision, would I rather have an answer to how many coat hangers are across the room from me, or why do bad things happen to good people? You'd probably go with the latter one. There's somehow some kind of depth or importance to that question, right?And I think there's—a great novelist can often generate some vividity to these questions. They can show how these questions are part of a good life, asking these questions, trying to have these questions answered—or a not-so-good life.Certainly in Austen there are a lot of characters who learn to be more virtuous. Probably Emma is the clearest example. But you might also think of Marianne Dashwood. Really—OLIVER: Lizzy Bennet.TRALDI: Lizzy Bennet really learns to be a better person. I actually think her character is rather close to Emma in a lot of ways.OLIVER: Yes, I think Emma's sort of a clear rewrite of Lizzy in some—yes, yes.TRALDI: Yes, and in some ways more evocative, actually. Yes. I mean, we can talk about all these books. But yes, I think there's these things, even—obviously qua literature, they have other virtues, right? Which much philosophy doesn't have; very little philosophy has the literary virtues.But the philosophical virtue that a lot of literature does have is you see, okay, these are the—this is what a life is like. This is what making choices is like. These are the big questions when you decide how to live your life and what kinds of choices to make.And I think Austen—these questions are all through Austen, even though nobody has to murder anybody in Austen. Nobody has to make decisions about war and peace or about, you know, civilizational decline or civilizational progress or anything like that. These people making these small choices in a lot of ways. But those are the lives that most of us lead. And when you read Austen, you think, “Oh, okay, there's a virtuous and a vicious way to lead this kind of rather normal life.”The Good LifeOLIVER: The question of what is a good life, or what is a good life in a commercial society, maybe, is the sort of bedrock of what she's doing.TRALDI: Yes, I think so. And that's why I think Austen—you know, Austen wasn't on our syllabus at Tulsa, but she was certainly discussed. And the “what is a good life” question—to me, it's the big question that a great books program for college students should always come back to.If I didn't know what else to talk about, I would just say, “Well, we just read this book.” You know, we read these old biographies of Charlemagne from, like, Einhard—Notker the Stammerer and Einhard, his adopted son or whatever. I don't remember. But this is like 800s. I'm sure you know more about this stuff than I do.And I wasn't quite sure what to do with them because what do I know about Charlemagne? So I just said, “Does it seem like Charlemagne lived a good life?” And you know, you're off to the races. And I think that's important at that age, because that's the age at which—OLIVER: For the undergraduates?TRALDI: Yes. I think that's the age at which you're starting to make your own big decisions about what sort of life to lead. And I think for me, looking back to myself at that age, I think one thing I did wrong—at Tulsa I was in some ways as much a student as a teacher. I was rereading a lot of this stuff for the first time in decades. And some of it I was reading for the first time. As I told you, I was reading a lot of Austen for the first time for this essay.OLIVER: Right, right.TRALDI: And yes, it was stuff that I had thought about at a theoretical level, you know, like what are the ins and outs of this theory or this philosophical move or something like that. But you feel the question a bit differently when you're like, “Okay, I'm an adult. I have to decide whether to live in this way or that way.”The world is open to you. You could convert to Thomism [laughter] like so many have tried to have me do, or you could become a merchant after reading The Wealth of Nations. Or you could become a revolutionary after reading Marx, or you could become a Nietzschean. You know, there are all these choices open to you.OLIVER: Please don't become a Nietzchean.TRALDI: No, no. That is, I'm a—OLIVER: Keep your children out of school if that's going to be the result. [laughs]TRALDI: Yes. I'm a committed moralist, so I cannot, but he is—he made a comeback, that's for sure.Philosophy and PoetryOLIVER: Now, there's this obviously sort of long-running question in philosophy about, what is the relationship between philosophy and poetry? Are they antagonists, or are they in some way, you know, twins, and each provides one half of what is needed for a complete way of understanding the world? Do you have a position on this?TRALDI: Yes, I mean, I think they're what the kids call twinning.OLIVER: Twinning? [laughs]TRALDI: I think they're twinning. No, no, I think that means something different. I think that means when you're wearing the same outfit or something like that.OLIVER: So we're almost twinning with our stripes—yes, I see.TRALDI: We're almost. We actually—we are stripes and blue. Yes, we're closer than I would've expected.I would say closer to twins. There are a lot of claims that philosophy is at odds somehow with this or that. There's also this—certain people will say, “Well, ever since Socrates, philosophy has been at odds with politics.” And a big part of philosophy is, how do you survive? Well, I don't know. Nobody's trying to kill me. I think of myself as a decently committed philosopher.OLIVER: It seems to me this changed fundamentally in the Enlightenment and with the Romantics, and they see it all much more joined up. It's a sort of ancient-and-modern dynamic.TRALDI: Yes, there may be an ancient-and-modern distinction there. But yes, for me I don't see any kind of contradiction. Now, there are—and I think this comes out of what I said before—philosophical attempts to understand poetry. And certain kinds of literary and aesthetic devices do sometimes fall a little flat.The philosophical literature on metaphor, for instance—I think some theories of metaphor really don't get why people use metaphors. [laughter] So one of the most important theories of metaphor is that they're all just false, that it's like everybody who uses a metaphor is lying. This isn't the full theory. There are bells and whistles added.OLIVER: Sure, sure.TRALDI: But yes, so I think there's no contradiction. But at the same time, they are different modes in some ways, and people who do the one are often trying to do something different than the other.I do think that the desire for rigor and precision and clarity that philosophers have can be a little maddening to nonphilosophers, who see the pull of philosophical questions like, “What sort of life I should lead?” and then see, what do philosophers actually do?And we're doing all this modal logic and all these truth tables and all this very technical stuff that looks like math. And they say, “That can't possibly be the right way to think about how to live.” And it's true that there are these studies of—that suggest ethicists aren't actually very good people and things like that, although you have to wonder what is the background ethical theory that went into evaluating them.So yes, I don't think there's really a contradiction between philosophy and anything else. But certainly, there was a point in my life where I always come back to trying to write poetry and do poorly and then stop. But it was always something where I would say, “Okay, if I'm doing philosophy in the afternoon, I better wait till the evening to write poetry.” You have to sort of reboot and get into a different mode.OLIVER: Iris Murdoch used to write philosophy in the morning and novels in the afternoon. That kind of thing.TRALDI: Yes, I think that's very sensible.OLIVER: And she was upstairs for the one and downstairs for the other.TRALDI: Yes. That's even better, you know?Favorite PoetsOLIVER: Which poets do you like?TRALDI: Geez, I guess for an American, I like Wallace Stevens. I wasn't expecting this question. For a Brit, you know, I actually like Philip Larkin a lot.OLIVER: Oh, yes?TRALDI: I know—what is the opinion of Larkin? Is he considered—OLIVER: Very high.TRALDI: Very high? Okay.OLIVER: Some—there are some dissenters, but basically he's the guy.TRALDI: He's the guy, okay. Yes.OLIVER: Twentieth-century English poetry is like Auden, Larkin, Betjeman.TRALDI: Yes, Auden is—actually, my friend Jane Cooper just wrote something about Auden.OLIVER: Yes, Jane is excellent.TRALDI: Yes, Jane is really great.OLIVER: That was in the New Statesman if you want to look it up.TRALDI: That was in the New Statesman. Yes, yes, yes. But Auden, I don't know quite as well.I mean, poetry is—I think it's interesting the way that we receive poetry now. I think you were talking about this a few days ago, about things like poems appearing as inspirational quotes on social media or something like that, and whoever is the most quotable. And you felt like maybe Dostoevsky is very quotable.OLIVER: Dostoevsky has a sort of screenshot quality.TRALDI: Yes, yes.OLIVER: As does Martin Amis.TRALDI: Yes. So I—OLIVER: Whereas Philip Larkin in a funny way—you know, he has very short poems. You can get the whole poem on Twitter. Like, Robert Frost has that. But something like “The Whitsun Weddings,” it's quite hard to just take three lines out. The whole thing works as a—and that, so that poem gets less—TRALDI: Yes. Which is what you would expect from a good poem, really, that it would form a kind of whole.OLIVER: Exactly. If it's a three-page ode, it should have a continuous quality.TRALDI: Yes, it should have a kind of internal structure. Yes.OLIVER: There are some one-line things and—but I think it's notable that a poet like Wordsworth doesn't seem to get a lot of social media play. And I think probably that's one reason.TRALDI: So yes, I think Larkin is somebody who, I did see some shorter references to him, and I thought I'd better just go and look up a ton of poems by this guy. And Stevens was the same way.Death and Philip LarkinOLIVER: So, which Larkin do you like?TRALDI: You're really putting me on the spot here. [laughter] It has been a little while.OLIVER: I lied to you and said it would be about Jane Austen.TRALDI: Yes, now I'm completely screwed. Well, he has a bunch about death. He has one where death is a ship following you. And he has one where death is, like, a fruit that gets picked or something.OLIVER: Apple?TRALDI: Might be an apple.OLIVER: He decides not to throw the apple.TRALDI: There's one with sweetbreads in it. And now I'm really—OLIVER: The ship one, “Next, Please”—that's excellent.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: He sees the—it's like hearing the music coming, and then the ship.TRALDI: I forgot that that was the title. I forgot that that was the title.OLIVER: And then as the ship goes past, it leaves nothing in its wake. It's very sort of—very gloomy.TRALDI: It's very gloomy, yes. I think I read Larkin in a gloomy phase; it was like Larkin and Radiohead or something.OLIVER: But he's a good example of what you were saying before, that he won't think propositionally. He's logical in the sense that he's sort of orderly, and he goes from one thing to the next. But he's not being a philosopher.TRALDI: No, of course. Yes.OLIVER: But he's very preoccupied with the sorts of questions that philosophers are probing, but has a sort of very meaningful treatment of them.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: And I think in a way, the sharp response that you want from the reader in those questions, Larkin is better at provoking than someone like Bertrand Russell or some other contemporary of his.TRALDI: Yes, yes.OLIVER: Bertrand Russell's a bit earlier, but you know what I mean.TRALDI: No, I think that's exactly right. And I think that is why I'm a fan of the great books pedagogically and not—I don't know if Larkin will be called a great, you know, like, who knows? I don't really understand that designation, but tings like poetry and novels.OLIVER: The biggest dissenter was Harold Bloom, who said Philip Larkin's just a period piece. And he doesn't understand why everyone likes him.TRALDI: Oh, yes, well, I'm not on board with everything. Oh, I've also been—OLIVER: No, you're not very Bloomian.TRALDI: I'm not very Bloomian, I don't think.OLIVER: Either Allan or Harold.TRALDI: Yes. Well, I actually—this is very embarrassing, but I've actually never read The Closing of the American Mind, which I know is—OLIVER: But why should you? I'm not sure it's retained its—TRALDI: Well, it's certainly been received into my circle. But it is like a classic of anti-ideological—OLIVER: Sure. Have you read Adler, How to Read a Book, that kind of great books stuff?TRALDI: No. There's so many things that I haven't read. I mean, I'm just learning how to read. I learned how to read in Tulsa last year, [laughter] in Oklahoma, which is not where most people would go to learn how to read.Jane Austen and the Problem of MoralityOLIVER: So let's move to Jane Austen. Your thesis basically is, many moral theories face this problem that if I believe XYZ theory and you don't believe it, you can get the advantage of me. Because I'll always stick to my principles and you can just be a bad guy.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: So is morality screwed? This is what people say about liberalism. This is what you're arguing. And you think Jane Austen's got an answer to that?TRALDI: Yes, I think she has a kind of answer. And again, one decision I had to make while writing the essay was, am I going to go super—this is a completely philosophically rigorous and respectable answer? Or am I just going to kind of sketch it?OLIVER: Slum it in literary criticism? [laughter]TRALDI: Yes, I wouldn't put it quite that way, but—and I think I went for the latter, where I just wanted to kind of evoke the answer. And I think the answer has something to do with living in a large enough society where—and Austen I think is not the only person to give this answer. But you live in a large enough society where, when people see you acting well and somebody else acting poorly, the disadvantage that you have in that one interaction is outweighed by the advantages you have from the society that you gain from being seen to act well by many others.So one thing I didn't mention here, but a connection I made when I was first coming up with this idea, is that it's actually a lot like what Martin Luther King Jr. says about civil disobedience. So he says, you might think, if you're out there and the police are coming at you with bats, or the white supremacists are coming at you with bats or whatever, weapons or whatever, you might think, “I'm on the losing end of this interaction.”But actually what will happen is that this interaction will be seen by many others. And you, by keeping your calm, will be seen to be the virtuous one, and they, by being violent, will be seen to be the vicious ones. And this can only help your political cause. I'm probably abstracting some of the details of King's presentation.OLIVER: In a vulgar sense, this is the sort of “be the change you want to see” approach.TRALDI: Yes, but also, be the change you want other people to see. You know? Because that's how it gets saved from—and again, one of the ways in which this is not quite philosophically rigorous is because the philosopher can say, “Well, what about an example where nobody's going to see it? Or what about an example where the situation is set up that in doing the right thing, you're perceived to have done the wrong thing?” And you get back into tough problems. And that's why we have philosophy. You know, there's always going to be these puzzles.OLIVER: But we don't get the—I think this is what the novelists are helpful for. We don't get to set the conditions in our lives. You know, when you're doing a philosophical problem, you can just say, “Well, these are the conditions. What happens then?” And what Jane Austen is so good at is saying, “I'm going to take her and drop her in this house, and that's life. And she's just going to—she won't even know what the conditions are for a long time.” That's the novelist's preoccupation.TRALDI: Yes. Yes. It's interesting what you said about not even knowing what the conditions are. It's one thing I love, which is there in, I think, a lot of Austen—and it's done by a lot of my favorite novelists. I think Kazuo Ishiguro is really good at this. It's just novels where you see the characters' growing awareness of their circumstances and—OLIVER: Like in Klara and the Sun or something.TRALDI: Yes, or I think certainly in Never Let Me Go and in Remains of the Day, a lot of the action is in a situation where you understand what's going on better than the characters do.Clues and GamesTRALDI: And I think we talked about this the other day. In Austen, Emma, for example, is this sort of, like, halfway detective where she sees a lot of clues that could help her understand the nature of the life she's leading and the circumstances she's in, but she always misinterprets the clues. But on the other hand, it's not like she misses them entirely. She's kind of on the right track, and at least she's trying.OLIVER: And what I think Austen does so well in that book—I think it's her most important book—is that by putting us, without quite realizing it, with Emma's blinkers on, as it were, and only allowing our perspective to be her perspective, she makes us the detective.But whereas in a detective novel, you know, there's a funny little man and he is a detective, and he says, “Oh, there's a clue in this novel,” the read of—on the first read very often goes straight past what they must later realize to be a clue. And that is such a normal condition of life, that, “Oh, actually, that was one of the conditions, but you couldn't have known it. Sorry.” And you can only work it out in retrospect.TRALDI: Yes. In modern love, these are sometimes called red flags. [laughter] I think it's not quite a precise analogy, but yes, I think it's right. And I certainly—I had read Emma years ago and didn't really notice. As you say, on my first read, I didn't really notice, even having watched—I think it was the, what is it, the Kate Beckinsale version maybe, from ITV in like 1996 or something.It was really in reading it for this essay that I noticed that this feature that, starting on page 30 or 40 or so, there's a—and they're often in games. The clues are often in games. So very early on, Elton is playing some sort of poem game with Emma.OLIVER: The riddles, yes.TRALDI: The riddle game. And you know, Emma already misinterprets his riddles as being about Harriet rather than about her. But then there's also—the riddles also have some relation to things that happen much later.OLIVER: Then there's the anagram game at the end.TRALDI: There's the anagram game at the end. Yes, it's the—and I don't think there are many games like that in any of the other Austen.OLIVER: People play games, but we're not taken into them and have them narrated in that way.TRALDI: And they're not word games in general. There's card games and things like that. And you know, in Pride and Prejudice, Wickham has all these gambling debts and things like that.OLIVER: Yes.TRALDI: You know, in—I don't know if you know Whit Stillman, but for the same magazine a couple years ago I wrote about Whit Stillman, who's a sort of conservative filmmaker who's a huge Austen fan and brings in Austenian themes to a lot of his movies, but writes them about characters in the 1960s and '70s. And one of them was called The Last Days of Disco, for example, about—and some of the broader social themes he talks about are also there in Austen.So one thing that was just on the edges of my consciousness as I read through the novels for this essay was the question of the noble man versus the working man, which I think is very present in Austen and has something to do with her conception of virtue: that the virtuous person will be engaging in commerce in some way.OLIVER: Those moments of the noble and the virtuous man or whatever often take place in a shop, like the drapier in Emma or the jewelry shop in Sense and Sensibility.TRALDI: That's interesting. That's interesting.OLIVER: She's very careful to take us into a commercial situation and contrast.TRALDI: See, that is the sort of detail that I think a philosopher—I think we—the mere—the vibe of, “You're in a shop, and this means something.” I think this is something philosophers are—we can watch for the action; we can judge the characters' actions. But then there are these questions of atmosphere and milieu. And certain things happen in a shop; certain things happen at the seaside. In Persuasion there's an injury by the seaside.OLIVER: Yes. That's one of the most exciting scenes in Austen. Very dramatic.TRALDI: Yes, yes. I think actually Persuasion in some ways is quite different than her other books. It has a sort of—you know, in some ways it feels a little more like Frankenstein or Wuthering Heights at points. There's a little bit of a windblown, dark quality to it at times. It's a little bit bleaker. It's a little hard to explain why, but that's just a feeling that I had reading it that maybe had changed with some of the other literary tastes of the time.Artlessness in Austen's HeroinesOLIVER: Now, the quality that you focus on in the heroines, in this question of virtue defending itself against bad actors who break the rules, is artlessness.TRALDI: Yes. So this is a term Austen uses quite a bit, and almost always, she very much picks and chooses the characters who are going to receive this term. And I thought that this is like—it's not only her artless characters who face this question about how can morality survive, or how can virtue prevail, but I think they're the limit point.Like, if you really are unwilling to use—and I mentioned in the essay, when Darcy describes—I forget what; maybe it's him describing how he found Lydia and Wickham, or it's something to do with Wickham—he said, “I had to resort to arts.” So it must be, the “arts” back then means—one of the meanings of the term is dishonesty or subterfuge or something.OLIVER: Yes, if someone was artful, it could have—TRALDI: Yes, like the Artful Dodger.OLIVER: Exactly. Could have negative connotations for sure.TRALDI: Yes. And so the artless one, you know, they're missing something.So it's the question of, if you view—morality in a way means you're missing something, right? You've taken arts out of your arsenal. You've taken tools that could deal with certain situations, and you've just decided not to use them. So the question is, how can it be an advantage to have less tools?You know, we're here at Mercatus; the economists would tell you it's never advantageous to have fewer choices, right? There's no paradox of choice. It's never advantageous to have fewer choices. And so I think this is the—if morality is a kind of unilateral disarmament, artlessness is the clearest case of that.OLIVER: And you're seeing that in Fanny Price, Elinor—TRALDI: You see that in Fanny Price. You see that in Elinor. Harriet Smith is described as artless over and over again. And then there are these other characters who are described as artful, or other things that are mentioned as arts.I think Harriet, in a lot of ways, is the one who's most often described this way. And it's interesting because you think of Emma changing a lot in Emma, but Knightley actually shifts in his evaluation of Harriet, who he thought of as sort of an unserious person. And Knightley himself comes to recognize her artlessness as a kind of seriousness which makes her a good match, not ultimately for him, but for his dude, Robert.OLIVER: The farmer.TRALDI: The farmer, yes.OLIVER: He doesn't change his view of her social position, though.TRALDI: No, certainly not. But he does change his view of her character, basically. You know, her artlessness is not silliness. It has a sort of depth to it.And yes, certainly Fanny. In the Whit Stillman movie Metropolitan that's part of what set me on this, there's this whole discussion of the book Mansfield Park and this old Lionel Trilling essay about it where he says, how is it—there's this question about how modern people can even like Mansfield Park because we've sort of lost the notion of virtue being exciting or something.One of the most provocative lines to me in Austen was in Sense and Sensibility where it says that Elinor glories in Edward's integrity, which is an odd thing to glory in. You don't glory—nobody is on Instagram showing off their integrity, you know?OLIVER: It's like that René Gerard quote people like to pass around: “Everyone is on diet pills and nobody wants to be a saint.”TRALDI: I like that. That is very Instagrammable.OLIVER: Exactly. Exactly.TRALDI: That's very good, actually. I like that. Yes, so there's something provocative about the notion that virtue can be exciting, and in particular can be romantically exciting.The Importance of IntegrityOLIVER: Or even less than that. One thing I think is difficult for people interpreting Austen today is that virtue, whether it's exciting or romantically exciting, or the notion of integrity is of interest for its own sake.There's a lot of—you know, we have integrity as an organization. It's very important for me to have integrity as a professional. But there's not as much a sense of, just having integrity is the good life. We don't need to be complicated about this. That's just—you should just do that. And Austen's very firm on that all the way through.And criticism wants to pull her towards sometimes feminism, sometimes discussions of slavery, sometimes various other things. And she's just constantly sort of resisting that by saying, “I like integrity. I like good people. I don't think it's that hard.” It's a good line you've picked up on, I think.TRALDI: There's a character in The Wire who says, “A man's gotta have a code.” I think he's Omar, who murders the drug dealers and steals from them.OLIVER: I haven't seen it.TRALDI: So he says, “A man's gotta have a code.” And I think there is a—even in a character who in some ways is bad, we admire the integrity of having a code and sticking to it.There is this debate, I guess in moral philosophy, or at least on the outskirts of moral philosophy, about, “Well, if your code is wrong, maybe it's better not to stick to it.” I don't share that perspective. I think part of the good life is holding yourself to certain standards. And if those standards turn out to be wrong, the holding yourself is still of moral value, right? Not allowing yourself—OLIVER: It doesn't mean they're not adjustable.TRALDI: Yes, no, of course. If you decide the standards are wrong, and in Austen—OLIVER: It's sort of implicit in the idea of having standards that you will be honest and therefore accept when your standards need to be improved or whatever. Right?TRALDI: Yes, I think that's absolutely right. And in Austen we certainly see people shifting their standards. And I think one thing that I—of course, modern readers and watchers of Austen do not quite understand some of these things. But I think in Pride and Prejudice in particular, we're supposed to feel that Lizzy Bennet is quite hard on people and has to learn to improve herself in that way.OLIVER: We're delighted with her when she does that because we think it's sassy.TRALDI: Yes, exactly. If you go on YouTube, you can see all these, like, “Lizzy Bennet owning people's lives for 50 minutes,” these compilations of clips from the various movies or whatever. And she's obviously very, very clever.But she realizes—after coming to understand who Wickham is and feeling that she might not have another chance with Darcy, she comes to realize that she has had certain prejudices, which have made her blind to the realities of the world and blind to what might be her best options.So yes, I was saying I believe in integrity; that's all I was saying. And integrity obviously is adjustable, but I tend to think that it's better—even if the rule is wrong, it's better for the person who has it to hold themselves to it, rather than to adjust to try to get an advantage.And in philosophy, we have all sorts of terminology for these sorts of questions: “Are you an internalist or an externalist about reasons or about rules or whatever?” I think the more literary way to say it would just be that integrity is a virtue. And people should stick to their codes unless they see a good reason to change them.Austen and Adam SmithOLIVER: Now, you have recently been reading Adam Smith.TRALDI: Yes, I did read a lot of Adam Smith for this debate we had last week. Although I did a poor job because I had forgotten that the debate was about whether Smith was a philosopher or an economist. [laughter] I thought it was simply, is he a philosopher or not? So I put myself in the odd position of arguing that Adam Smith is not an economist.But yes, I think it's obvious—without knowing the background, I'm sure there are scholarly questions about, how much Smith did Austen read? And they're both 250th—a lot was happening in 1775 and 1776.OLIVER: Those were great years. Those were the good old days.TRALDI: They were great years. In the great books syllabus, you get to the end of the 1700s and suddenly there's this—you have Smith, you have Kant, you have the American Revolution, you have the French Revolution, you have Burke. Rousseau is right before, Montesquieu is right before. I mean, it was a real—OLIVER: It's a great time.TRALDI: It was a great time. A lot was being done. And obviously, you know, I love the 1800s. I love the Romantics. But you could teach a whole great books course from 1750 to 1800, probably.OLIVER: You've also got all the dictionaries and all that kind of work going on as well. It's a very, very fertile—explorations.TRALDI: Yes, yes. There's all sorts of—yes, it was an amazing time.OLIVER: So did you, having read these two, Austen and Smith, close together—TRALDI: Yes, and I should say that my reading of Austen was much more careful than my reading of Smith.OLIVER: Sure, but you wrote this before you read Smith.TRALDI: Yes, absolutely.OLIVER: Or at least you fully conceived it. Do you see a lot of Smith in Austen?TRALDI: “A lot” might be—OLIVER: Primarily from Theory of Moral Sentiments.TRALDI: So I would say that the notion of sympathy as being fundamentally part of how you recognize a good person seems to me to be there in Austen. The characters are—OLIVER: And this is the thing about awareness of other people and learning from that awareness.TRALDI: Awareness of other people and learning from other people and feeling other people's emotions. One thing that is related to sympathy in an odd way—and I think actually Austen and Smith conceive of it a bit differently, but that is there for both of them, in particular in Sense and Sensibility—is this notion of self-control or self-command.OLIVER: Self command. Yes. Yes.The Importance of Self-CommandTRALDI: Now, Smith gives a really odd argument about self command, which is that if you don't have control over your emotions, you will end up feeling or expressing something that other people can't sympathize with. And this is bad because sympathy is good, or something like that. I actually think it's a rather confused argument.OLIVER: I think what he's saying is that if you display a lack of self-command, then no matter what you are feeling, people find it difficult to deal with that sort of uncontrolled behavior. It's not the particular expression of feeling; it's the fact that you are a little unstable or—TRALDI: Yes, I think that's right.OLIVER: —a bit extra.TRALDI: I think what Smith doesn't do is explain quite how that's bad. But what I think is that actually, in Sense and Sensibility, it's a little bit the reverse, where actually Elinor and their mother, they do sympathize with Marianne. They do feel what she's feeling after—who's the other, the w guy in Sense and Sensibility? They're all w's.OLIVER: Oh, Willoughby.TRALDI: Willoughby, right, right. Not Wickham, Willoughby. When Willoughby—OLIVER: You can just say “the cad.”TRALDI: The cad. There's always a cad. So when the cad leaves, Marianne has all these emotions, and you really feel them. And Marianne also has a lack of self-command when Willoughby is there. There's this whole episode, which I didn't quite make the most of but felt very important, where they go to the house of this woman. They just sort of barge into this house, Willoughby and Marianne.And this is really supposed to show something about the relationship. If you and your partner barge into somebody's house, it can't be a good relationship somehow because it's leading you into bad actions. That's my sense of what that episode is supposed to show from the highest possible remove.OLIVER: I think, yes, and I think there are several other instances of that: when they ride in the carriage together, unaccompanied.TRALDI: Right, right.OLIVER: And there's a sort of general consternation about this. And Marianne sort of says, “Oh, well, how can it be a problem?” And they—part of the consternation is, you're breaking the rules in a very flagrant way, but also that you are assuming that it's okay because you'll get married. And this assumption is a very big one.TRALDI: Yes. And obviously there is this assumption that—she doesn't recognize quite how—she thinks her position is much more secure than it actually is, which is how it turns out in the book. But I think we're supposed to think that even if she were right about Willoughby's affection, which in a sense, she—Willoughby—OLIVER: No. Even if they do get married, she's broken the rules in a way that—TRALDI: She's broken certain rules in a way that is—but I think what's different from Smith is, there is sympathy from her family even though she lacks self-command. But that is precisely—so it's sort of a different theory of why self-command is good. It's precisely because her emotional state is actually draining for her family.And then Elinor says—when she learns that Elinor has actually been going through something—OLIVER: The same.TRALDI: —very similar, and maybe even rougher, in this whole thing with Lucy Steele telling her about this, you know, blah, blah, blah.OLIVER: Which is a beautiful name—to steal. I mean, it's great.TRALDI: It's an amazing—honestly, in some ways Sense and Sensibility may have been my favorite. I think it's just lovely.OLIVER: If I just wanted to just read one for fun, that's what I go to. I do, yes.TRALDI: Yes. And there's a lot—none of these things are quite perfectly in there. But I think honestly, everything that's in the other novels has a little part to play in Sense and Sensibility. You know, I think if I were to recommend just one, if somebody was like, “I have time for just one,” I might recommend Sense and Sensibility.But in the end, Marianne says—again, it's one of these amazingly evocative lines. Elinor says, “You didn't act that badly. Do you compare your conduct with Willoughby's?” And she says, “No, I compare it with—Elinor, I compare it with your conduct. You have this self-command.”And it's precisely the fact—it's not—and I think this is why philosophers do like Austen, because it's not—it's still literary, but there is a precision to her moral evaluations. It's precisely the fact that Elinor knew that her family loved her and didn't want to burden—it's all quite conscious. She didn't want to burden her family with her emotions. But you actually see that Elinor has this family trait of having very strong sentiment, which Marianne does, and simply also has this virtue of self-command.And that is—there are film adaptations and TV adaptations that demonstrate self-command, but it's a very hard thing to film. It's something you feel inside. It's a very hard—the actors have to be very good for you to see—you see pieces of it in some of the adaptations of Persuasion and some of the adaptations of Sense and Sensibility, but self-command is very hard to find.Austen AdaptationsOLIVER: Which adaptations do you like the best?TRALDI: I'm forgetting—I often like the long ones that I think were for the British ITV. So I like the—I think Kate Beckinsale was in the Emma one. Although I think there was one of Persuasion, which was also quite good. I like the one of Northanger Abbey. I don't think it's that good, but it's kind of cute, which I think it's probably the cutest of her long novels.Whit Stillman did a very loose adaptation of Lady Susan, which is hilariously funny at times, and also has Kate Beckinsale and some other great actors in it.OLIVER: Did you see the new Persuasion on Netflix a couple of years ago?TRALDI: No. No.OLIVER: It has that—is it Dakota Johnson, the actress, who's famous for other non-Austenian—Fifty Shades of Grey or whatever.TRALDI: Yes, and isn't she one of the Avengers or something like that?OLIVER: Something like that. But everyone was very upset that it was this terrible adaptation.TRALDI: Oh, yes.OLIVER: Didn't—it sort of killed all of Austen's words. She looks at the camera; she drinks from the bottle. I actually thought it was quite fun. On the basis that all adaptations are bad—TRALDI: I think if you allow some looseness, it can be quite fun. So for example, the 2005 Pride and Prejudice, I think if you're just sort of like, “Well, this is just somebody who was inspired by Pride and Prejudice,” you can have a lot of fun with the movie.OLIVER: I think as an interpretation of the book, that film is quite bad.TRALDI: Oh, yes. I think it's absolutely missing the mark.OLIVER: But in terms of like, the countryside and the house and the geese and the food, it's fantastic.TRALDI: Oh, yes. It's lovely to look at.OLIVER: The dresses, right? The clothes are amazing.TRALDI: And a lot of the—and the cast is honestly like—OLIVER: Yes, it's great.TRALDI: The cast is really, really great. And the parts as they are—OLIVER: Rosamund Pike is maybe the best Jane on TV.TRALDI: She's terrific. And who's the one who plays Kitty?OLIVER: Yes.TRALDI: Who is in—and the father is the guy from The Hunger Games. I forget his name, but I think the father is excellent in that. But of course, it's not exactly the father from Austen.OLIVER: No, no, no.TRALDI: But as a movie itself—but yes, I like a lot of these longer TV versions.One odd thing—they make these choices. So there is some scholarly apparatus brought to bear on some of them. So I think maybe it's Persuasion that there were multiple versions of, and some of the adaptations use pieces from the unpublished version, which are interesting. And as I was reading it, I had to Google around a bit and figure out these things.Austen's Moral PrecisionTRALDI: I was going to say about Austen's moral precision, the other place where I think this comes in—and I wrote a bit about this in the essay—is near the end of Mansfield Park, when—the names are what I'm worst at—when Edmund, right, is finally disillusioned with—OLIVER: Mary.TRALDI: With Mary Crawford?OLIVER: Mm-hmm.TRALDI: It's because there was this affair. There's always a sibling or a cousin who makes some horrible mistake, you know? So there was this affair, and Mary Crawford can only criticize it by saying that they weren't very prudent, you know, in prudential terms. They took a big risk. They made a bad decision. You know, they really screwed themselves over.OLIVER: They could have made it work. Yes.TRALDI: Yes. And Edmund realizes that she lacks moral fervor because he thinks the appropriate criticism should be a moral one. And as a psychological matter, it shouldn't even enter your head, I think is the idea. I'm extrapolating a bit, but if you see somebody acting this badly, to then say, “Well, geez, you're doing something that isn't in your interest”—for that to be your first thought indicates that your priorities are highly misplaced in a way that, to him, is quite unattractive.And this also struck me as a moment of—this is something we philosophers talk about. What is the distinction between prudence and morality? They both tell you what you should do, in some sense, but there's different—the shoulds have different forces, right? So Edmund has a certain moral precision and sensitivity which, actually, Fanny is basically the only person he knows—not that everybody in the house is a bad person; his father is a decent guy, and one of the aunts is okay, I think.But yes, there's a real sophistication to this evaluation. And it's funny to me that she actually used this as the—I mean, I suspect that even at the time there were readers who were just like, “Wait, I really don't get what the nature of Edmund's problem is here,” because it's not like Mary—Mary's not like, “Oh, yes, I support infidelity.” You know? She's not like— it's if you blinked, you might miss it, the mistake that Mary has made.And so I do think that even though she's not making arguments, she's not laying out philosophical theories, there is a level of precision in her thinking about virtue, which I do think is something that it took me a little aback.And I think it's part of why—one person who quote-tweeted my article was Daniel Kodsi, who's a friend of our colleague John Maier and his coauthor often. And he runs this magazine called The Philosophers' Magazine, which I had written before. And Daniel quote-tweeted my article with something like, “Add Oliver to the list of all the philosophers who love Austen.”OLIVER: And it's a long list.TRALDI: And I think it's a long list. And I do think this precision is part of it that she does, that it is—again, it's not like a philosophy journal article, but it is an intellectual sophistication that is often not present in novelists that we really appreciate.Every Word MattersOLIVER: I mean, one way people talk about the great books is to say that every word matters. And a lot of novelists will say that about their own. Well, you know, Elizabeth Bowen used to say, “What you're doing is to make everything count.” Austen is one of the examples where it's actually true. Every word is being used carefully.TRALDI: Yes. It's funny, this bears on another Twitter argument I had recently about this phrase logographic necessity. Basically, every word in a great book is there for a reason. I think that's right. Although you have to be careful about—if you were to say, “Well, every word in Plato is there for a reason, so you can't really say he's wrong about every—” you would be kind of abandoning the philosophical mission.OLIVER: I mean it in the sense of what you might call the artistic or structural integrity of the book. Not everything has to tell in the meaning sense. But it all holds as a unit for some—TRALDI: Yes. I think everything is there—there is what we could call an internal reason for everything to be there. Everything is there to hold together—OLIVER: Like the making of a piece of furniture or something.TRALDI: And I think you hear—I think this is one thing that—and not all classical music, but I think it's one thing that distinguishes classical music even from very good contemporary pop music or jazz or rock music, is that you have this sense of, “Yes, every note I hear basically is holding up a larger structure of some sort.”OLIVER: Yes. And Jane Austen is very Mozart in that way.TRALDI: Yes, I think that's right. Yes.Austen's Place in Great Books ProgramsOLIVER: So should Jane Austen have a bigger place on great books programs, based on all these things you've said about her?TRALDI: Yes, this is—so, there was actually a debate—I did not write the piece in response to this debate, but this is—OLIVER: Tanner Greer.TRALDI: Yes, there was—Tanner Greer weighed in on this, and my friend Circe. I think—OLIVER: I think they're just desperately wrong.TRALDI: You think they don't—that she—OLIVER: I think Emma is obviously a book that should be on one of these syllabuses. Maybe Sense and Sensibility.TRALDI: Yes. I think the ones I would consider are Emma, Sense and Sensibility, Mansfield Park. I do think they're actually longer than I realized, which is always—I mean, there are these very practical concerns with putting together a syllabus.OLIVER: Sure, sure. Although I want to ask you about that, because my response to a lot of these debates, which is maybe just because of where I studied, but just make them read more. And if they don't do the reading, that's their, you know—TRALDI: That's true. Well, I don't want to get into this too much. We already make them read a lot compared to—so for example, a year ago, I had my students read two novels in a week, which is more than most courses make college students read.OLIVER: But that's by no means unreasonable.TRALDI: No, no, of course, of course.OLIVER: You know.TRALDI: Well, exigencies of the teenage mind aside—OLIVER: Because I often think this, when people debate how things should be taught and why it's so important to keep these programs, and they'll talk about the importance of writing essays. And then it turns out the students maybe write one essay a semester. And I sort of think, well, who cares? All this rhetoric for one essay.TRALDI: Yes. I don't know if I'm really ever going to assign essays again. It just is—the age of AI is upon us.OLIVER: Sure. But you see what I mean.TRALDI: No, yes, I know exactly what you mean. And I do think reading a lot is the main part of—and certainly, you know, when I read all seven of these in two weeks, that's much more reading than I normally do, as well, to write this essay.OLIVER: But you didn't have to lie on the sofa afterwards with a cold compress. You were fine.TRALDI: In a way it was a really good two weeks. If you get to read—I mean, this is why we have good lives, right? If you get to read Jane Austen and you call that work, it's a nice life.OLIVER: So yes, will you be putting Emma on your program?TRALDI: I would definitely consider Emma. I would definitely consider Sense and Sensibility. I would consider Mansfield Park. I think these are the ones that have—the moral element is very prominent. But it's obviously there in all of her books.OLIVER: You can have a really good moral discussion about Mansfield Park, which is a bigger, broader thing than Pride and Prejudice, for example.TRALDI: Yes, I think so. I would definitely consider—in the 1800s there were—obviously the British novel of the 1800s was a big deal, and there's—OLIVER: [laughs] We did quite well, yes.TRALDI: You all did quite well. So the ones we did at Tulsa—we had Frankenstein and Wuthering Heights and The Picture of Dorian Gray. And then we had one Irish, The Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. And I don't think anybody—if you replaced one of those with Emma or Mansfield Park, I don't think anybody would say, “Oh, you made a horrible call.”OLIVER: I think Tanner's point was that you simply don't have that many slots for an English novel that deals with these sorts of ideas, and that it should obviously be Middlemarch because that is the bigger novel. It's about bigger questions of society. It's about the whole—it's got more greatness in it, whereas Austen is sort of more about the individual.TRALDI: So I do think that this question of greatness—I think there are some people who read Austen and they think, “Well, this is—obviously it has all these sorts of themes, but it's not great. It has this littleness to it. It has this smallness to it.”OLIVER: It's domestic.TRALDI: That is not my reading of it. I think if that's the question, I don't feel that way. I think it pulls out these great themes about the nature of virtue and the nature of moral learning, becoming a better person, the nature of love. We read Sappho. We read the Symposium.To me, you read Wuthering Heights and you say, “Oh, this is a really big book because it's about society and how trauma gets passed down, and it has these horror elements, and it's very dark.” But actually, it's quite hard to figure out, how do we turn Wuthering Heights in a discussion about how to live? With Austen, it's just completely straightforward.OLIVER: [laughs] How not to live, maybe.TRALDI: Yes. In Austen, it's just completely straightforward. This is the discussion. This is what she had in mind as well, this question of how to live. So to me, Austen is completely—in terms of her successes as an artist, she belongs. In terms of her themes, she belongs. So I would not rule her out. I think she is absolutely a great, and who knows what that means, but I think she would be completely appropriate on any of these syllabi.Reading PlansOLIVER: Very good. And what will you read next?TRALDI: What will I read next? I mean, our—from the beginning, I'm thinking I should read some more poetry. It's been a while. Actually, speaking of—this is funny. Well, I want to get into William Empson. He had an odd life, which I think somebody should do like a movie about him or something.OLIVER: Yes, he'd make a great movie.TRALDI: I think Empson would be a good movie. So that might be—OLIVER: Are you going to read the poems or the criticism?TRALDI: Probably a little of both, but that's for a while from now. I think, you know, at the moment I'm back to reading philosophy. So what novel will I read next? That's a good question. What should I read next?OLIVER: If you like Jane Austen?TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: Maybe read one of the people that she admired, like Samuel Richardson or Fanny Burney, someone like that.TRALDI: You know, I do think—you saying Samuel Richardson reminded me, I've read very little Samuel Johnson. I think reading some of the great critics, I think, writing this piece—OLIVER: Oh, Johnson, yes. You would like Johnson.TRALDI: I think I would like Johnson. I think I would like Empson. The history of literary criticism is something I have very, very little idea of.OLIVER: Oh, well, then, Johnson. I mean, he's the best.TRALDI: Yes, I think I should, I should definitely read Johnson.OLIVER: English literary criticism begins and ends with Samuel Johnson.TRALDI: You know what, this is a little different, but—I might have talked about this with you a little bit—I want to read The Fable of the Bees, Mandeville, because reading about Smith—a lot of the ideas that we think of as Smithian are actually Mandevillian, and he kind of moderated them.OLIVER: Well, he hated Mandeville.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: Very hard on him.TRALDI: Yes. So a lot—like the invisible hand, it's only a small part of Smith's thinking, but it was like the entirety of Mandeville's thinking, this sort of dynamic.OLIVER: Well, I think it means different things for them. I think Mandeville, in a funny way, is more philosophical in the sense you were saying, and trying to make these propositions. And Smith was saying, “Well, what about feelings? What about all these funny things that we can't account for? Like, look around. It's too messy.”TRALDI: No, that makes sense to me. Yes, I think between Mandeville and Smith, Mandeville is somebody who thought virtue was sort of like a con.OLIVER: A fool's game.TRALDI: Exactly. You're sort of a sucker if you try to be virtuous.OLIVER: I think he also just assumed that if you were commercial, you were obviously on the get.TRALDI: Yes. But this is one of the great—I know we talked about this, but it's one of the great—you see this in Smith, you see this in Austen—commerce has its own virtues, and they are very traditional virtues. You have to be trustworthy. You have to be pleasant. You can't really be wholly self-interested in every moment because people have to be willing to deal with you given your—I mean, think about Yelp reviews or even just word of mouth. “Oh, that person screwed me over.”OLIVER: There's a discussion in one of Hayek's papers, which is—it's a very Smithian point he makes about, the nature of the knowledge problem means that it's not so much that I'm trying to get information about the thing you're trying to sell me, but I'm really trying to get information about you and whether you are someone I should be buying from. Which is exactly the project that the novelists and Smith—there's a sort of period between Smith and the early novelists, running through Austen to George Eliot, when they're all working on that problem together.TRALDI: Yes. I do think in Austen, it's often—the real puzzle is, how do you make out somebody else's character?OLIVER: Exactly.TRALDI: This is a phrase that Lizzy Bennet does use with regard to Darcy. And how do we actually figure out who the trustworthy and untrustworthy people are?OLIVER: And if you're too philosophical about that, in the sort of analytic sense, I think you can end up not paying enough attention to the particulars of that question.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: Because when you actually try and do it, it's really, really hard.TRALDI: Yes. And I think this is the sort of—reading Austen, you get a sense of—and there are very few philosophy papers on things like this. Reading Austen, you get a sense of, what sorts of details in a normal life are the ones that I can extract information from to make out somebody else's character?In philosophy, we do ask, what is a good character and what is the good action in this sort of situation? What is the bad action in this sort of situation? But it's not for the philosopher to say, “Okay, in the sorts of situations you're likely to be in, what do you pay—where do you direct your attention to try to figure out these things about?”And it's not—I don't think Austen—it's not super subtle either. In Persuasion—I mentioned in the essay—in Persuasion, it starts out by saying Anne really cared about paying off the family's debts, and the rest of her family didn't give a s**t, you know? And it's sort of like, okay, so we just immediately are like, Anne's the sort of person who you might want to have a business transaction with because if she has a debt to you, she might actually pay it. And I forget if that's the exact detail, but it's something like that, you know?OLIVER: And there's also the novelist—Jane Austen is very good at what you don't see, which aga

Notes from Underground by Fyodor Dostoyevsky---Exploring Fyodor Dostoevsky's Notes from Underground, hosts unpack the dangers of self-deception and the challenge of living with integrity as a leader. They analyze how self-awareness without mastery leads to alienation, the importance of matching words with actions, and the societal consequences of habitual lying. The episode weaves Dostoevsky's legacy with real-world leadership, discussing how courage and honest self-examination are vital in modern organizations.Book Title: Notes from UndergroundAuthor: Fyodor DostoevskyGuests: Jesan Sorrells (Host), Dr. Hana Kabele Gala (Guest)---Time Stamped Overview---00:00 The enduring power of truth06:38 Introducing Co-Host Dr. Hana Kabele Gala12:52 Discussing Dostoyevsky's challenging books20:55 Living and writing in Arkansas22:52 Dostoevsky's productivity and inspirations30:58 Dr. Hana Kabele Gala's Internship with Vaclav Havel33:44 Christianity and modern evangelicalism40:04 Dealing with societal challenges48:26 Navigating choices as a leader52:46 Discussing moral courage and context56:37 Struggling with self-identity01:03:10 Discussion on storytelling and conflict01:09:16 Meaningless corporate mission statements01:12:17 AI's impact on middle management01:20:07 Mentoring and coaching team members01:22:51 Putting aside self-righteousness01:29:04 Seeking constructive feedback01:36:46 Money and social status in Russia01:42:45 American perception of wealth and class01:45:33 Comparing serfdom and chattel slavery01:53:27 American Christianity's future challenges01:57:30 Lessons from Dostoevsky's characters---Dr. Hana Kabele Gala Substack, Tough Cookies - https://hanakabelegala.substack.com/ Dr. Hana Kabele Gala LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/hanakabelegala/Dr. Hana Kabele Gala Website - https://www.rtncwithhana.com/The Way of Integrity by Martha Beck - https://www.amazon.com/Way-Integrity-Finding-Path-Your/dp/1984881507/On Bullshit by Harry Frankfurt - https://www.amazon.com/Bullshit-Harry-G-Frankfurt/---Opening theme composed by Felipe Sarro - Bach - Silotti - "Air"  from Orchestra Suite No. 3, BWV 1068 Closing theme composed by Brian Sanyshyn of Brian Sanyshyn Music.---Pick up your copy of 12 Rules for Leaders: The Foundation of Intentional Leadership NOW on AMAZON!Check out the Leadership Lessons From the Great Books podcast reading list!---Subscribe to the Leadership Lessons From The Great Books Podcast: https://bit.ly/LLFTGBSubscribeCheck out Leadership ToolBox at: https://leadershiptoolbox.us/ ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Through these two seminal fictional characters, Dostoevsky and Huxley offer us a stark warning about our future! ... Check out my new books! This one is called: The Last Human: How Technology is Changing What it Means to be Humanhttps://www.amazon.com/Last-Human-Technology-Changing-Means/dp/1069510831/ 

Pamela Anderson was the ultimate '90s tabloid machine — Baywatch bombshell, Playboy's most-covered model, and ground zero for the mechanics of celebrity . So how did she end up quoting Dostoevsky and giving spiritual speaking tours in Australia, selling skincare and preaching slow living at 58 yeard old? We break down the one of the most audacious celebrity rebrand of the decade — the Pamverse in full. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In some of his novels, the great Russian Dostoevsky writer explores the limitations of innocence in a complex world. I think he might be helpful to the younger generation today! ... Check out my new book! It's called: The Last Human: How Technology is Changing What it Means to be Humanhttps://www.amazon.com/Last-Human-Technology-Changing-Means/dp/1069510831/  

Bitcoin Archive opens up about his 2026 El Salvador reset, life in El Salvador Before and After Bukele, Bitcoin adoption, and how he escaped the fiat rat race for a total Circadian Health and dopamine reset.Archie from Bitcoin Archive joins Mike Peterson to reveal the reality of his journey toward financial sovereignty. After years of explosive growth, he realized high-level content creation is a double-edged sword that can compromise mental sovereignty. He shares why he finally doxxed his identity to find an authentic path through podcast hosting, proving that even the biggest accounts need real human connection to survive the fiat system.The duo explores the neurological price of being "always on" and why a digital detox is the only way to heal a brain fried by the fiat rat race. Archie describes the moment he realized his dopamine receptors were so conditioned for short-form hits that he could no longer focus on a book. During his 2026 reset in El Zonte, he consulted with Dr. Jack Kruse to understand how the modern attention economy had compromised his biology. Inspired by Jack Kruse's protocols for biological sovereignty, Archie explains how fixing your circadian rhythm and watching the sunrise beats any "hustle culture" life hack for reclaiming your mental focus.To bridge the gap between digital chaos and mental clarity, Archie turned back to creative writing. He discusses why escaping short-term thinking is a necessary exercise to transition from the fiat mind to a contemplative life. It is a reminder that a Hard Money Standard is not just about money, but about changing how you interact with time.The experience in Bitcoin Beach shows a story of seamless merchant adoption. Bitcoin has evolved here into the primary hard money used for everything from dinners to coffee. Most importantly, local businesses now treat sats as a strategic Bitcoin reserve, mimicking the treasury strategies of nation-states. Seeing this circular Bitcoin economy function without the friction of traditional banking offers a glimpse into a future that many still think is impossible.—Bitcoin Beach TeamConnect with ArchieX: https://x.com/BitcoinArchiveYT: https://www.youtube.com/@BitcoinArchiveIG: https://www.instagram.com/btc.archive/Newsletter: https://newsletter.bitcoinarchive.coApple Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/bitcoin-archive-w-archie/id1811833668Support and follow Bitcoin Beach:X: https://www.twitter.com/BitcoinBeach IG: https://www.instagram.com/bitcoinbeach_sv TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@livefrombitcoinbeach Web: https://www.bitcoinbeach.com Browse through this quick guide to learn more about the episode:00:00 Intro05:25 What is the mental cost of Bitcoin content?08:32 Why did Archie quit corporate banking in London?13:01 How to grow 1 million Twitter followers from zero?19:53 Why did Bitcoin Archive dox his identity?25:17 Dr. Jack Kruse: How to fix your dopamine in El Salvador30:54 Can reading Dostoevsky heal a fiat brain?40:13 How does the fiat system crush the middle class?49:24 How did El Zonte solve Bitcoin merchant adoption?56:19 Why are small businesses building a Bitcoin reserve?59:38: Nayib Bukele: the "Founding Father" of the Nation-State Bitcoin StandardLive From Bitcoin Beach

In honor of the 30th anniversary of David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest, novelist Hannah Smart once again joins us for a discussion of the ethical limits and critical revaluation of this maximally ambitious and chronically misunderstood novel.  A polygenetic and polyphonic novel, Infinite Jest's interlocking themes and characters circle back to the urgent need and paradoxical impossibility of self-forgetting and transcendence within the American psyche ravaged by the grotesqueries of late consumer capitalism and the imperatives of individualism. Infinite Jest builds its literary DNA out from the spiritual seriousness of Dostoevsky, the parables of Kafka, Pynchon conspiracism, and Gassian forebodings of the infantile fascist lurking in the intellectual artifices of the hidden American heart. It is a novel about the deadly pleasures of the culture industry and temptation of the hedonic oblivion promised by advertisers. In this discussion, we focus on what it can still teach us about the hard-won discipline of sustained activity of reading, what's still true about the ethics of individual responsibility, and hold up a comic mirror to the horror of our American political present and besieged future.Follow Hannah on Twitter(X): @fowlinghantodSubscribe to Hannah's Substack: @howlingfantodPreorder Hannah's debut novel, Meat Puppets: https://merchtable.bigcartel.com/product/meat-puppets-by-hannah-smartRead Hannah's LARB piece: https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/nothing-ever-happens-mister-squishy-and-the-year-of-the-sentence-diagram/Please consider becoming a paying subscriber to our Patreon to get exclusive bonus episodes, early access releases, and bookish merch: https://www.patreon.com/MoralMinorityFollow us on Twitter(X).Devin: @DevinGoureCharles: @satireredactedEmail us at: moralminoritypod@gmail.com

John Baker is a former Major Leaguer turned coach who is wiser than both of us—that’s for sure. He is well-studied in the minds of individuals, which he applies to the mindset of ballplayers. Visit www.baker-hq.com for more details and see how your ballplayer can benefit from his life’s work. We talk all things big leagues, including something we never knew about John Lackey and the COVID year. Plus, we dive into that incredible Cubs team that won it all in 2016. He also got us into the minds of Paul Skenes and up-and-comer Konnor Griffin—trust me, these guys are next level. For moms and dads of little leaguers, we spent a lot of time talking about growing up in the game—there’s plenty here for all of us to learn. And speaking of learning, we picked up new words and explored new books with Baker. What a great guest. Stranger things have happened on this podcast—that’s for sure! Subscribe and follow for more!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode of Gangland Wire, retired Kansas City Police Intelligence Unit detective Gary Jenkins sits down with author Aaron Mead to discuss his gripping novel Body in the Barrel, a story inspired by a real-life discovery in Lake Mead that shocked the nation. In 2022, as water levels at Lake Mead dropped to historic lows, authorities discovered a body in a barrel with a gunshot wound to the head—a killing style that many investigators immediately linked to organized crime. The discovery triggered speculation that the remains could date back to the 1970s or 1980s, the heyday of mob activity in Las Vegas. Aaron Mead explains how this discovery sparked the idea for his novel. Although Mead is a longtime water engineer for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the mystery of the barrel victim and the history of mob activity in Las Vegas inspired him to craft a fictional story grounded in real events. Gary and Aaron dive deep into the Chicago Outfit's influence in Las Vegas, discussing figures like Tony Spilotro and hitman Frank Cullotta, whose violent methods and stories helped shape the mythology of organized crime in the desert. They also explore the long-standing mob practice of disposing of bodies in barrels, including the infamous case of mobster Johnny Roselli, whose body was also discovered stuffed in a drum. The conversation examines several possible identities of the Lake Mead victim, including casino insiders and Outfit associates who disappeared during the era of casino skimming. Mead's novel follows a fictional mob associate named Lenny Battaglia, who becomes terrified when news breaks about the barrel discovery. The reason? He knows there's another barrel—with his victim—still resting somewhere in Lake Mead. The discussion moves beyond mob history into the psychological consequences of violence, comparing Mead's story to classic works like Crime and Punishment. Rather than focusing on a traditional “whodunit,” the novel explores what happens after the crime, examining guilt, fear, and the moral weight carried by those who commit violence. Gary and Aaron also discuss the broader context of violence in American culture, including parallels between organized crime murders and modern tragedies such as the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting. Finally, the conversation shifts to Mead's professional expertise in Western water law and the Colorado River, explaining how drought and declining water levels at Lake Mead are literally revealing pieces of hidden history—sometimes including crimes buried for decades. This episode blends mob history, real crime mysteries, and fiction inspired by true events, offering listeners a fascinating look at how the past can resurface in unexpected ways. Click here to find Body in a Barrel Hit me up on Venmo for a cup of coffee or a shot and a beer @ganglandwire Click here to “buy me a cup of coffee” Subscribe to the website for weekly notifications about updates and other Mob information. To go to the store or make a donation or rent Ballot Theft: Burglary, Murder, Coverup, click here To rent ‘Brothers against Brothers’ or ‘Gangland Wire,’ the documentaries click here.  To purchase one of my books, click here. [0:02]Introduction to Gangland Wire [0:00]Hey, all you wiretappers, good to be back here in studio of Gangland Wire. This is Gary Jenkins. You know, I’m a retired Kansas City Police Intelligence Unit detective. Now I have a podcast and I interview real crime mobsters, policemen, FBI agents, do authors that are doing true crime books. And I do authors that are doing novels that are based on true crime. Because we stick with true crime as close as we can here, guys. You know that. And today I have one of those authors that has written a book that is a novel, but it’s based on a lot of real events in Las Vegas. And we all know a little bit about Las Vegas and the Mafia. So Aaron Mead, welcome, Aaron. Thank you. It’s a pleasure to be here. It’s great to have you on the show. Tell us a little bit about yourself, a little bit about your history. [0:47]Sure. Yeah, I’m actually I’ve been working as an engineer, a water engineer for 30 some odd years. And so I come by my writing habit as a sort of a side interest. I, I, yeah, I just, I got a very, I’ve got a varied educational background too. So I started out as a, as an engineer in my training and then just had a creative itch and went back to school, ended up doing a PhD in philosophy of all things. And while I was doing that, I, I thought I might be an academic. I thought I might be a professor at one time and through the job search, things didn’t really work out. I did find a job, but it just wasn’t going to pay well enough, consider moving my family across the country for it. So I ended up not going into academia, but I stuck with writing, which was my favorite part of the PhD, the dissertation. [1:31]And I just started writing different things, some nonfiction stuff related to my dissertation research, but then just got an idea for a story, wrote a novel. It’s still sitting in the drawer. I’m interested in publishing that someday. But this idea for the book related to kind of Las Vegas mob stuff actually came connected with my work as a water engineer. So I work for Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. We import water to Southern California from the Colorado River. And so I track the Colorado River news pretty closely. And in 2022, the lake was dropping because of drought and overuse. And this body in a barrel showed up on the shore of Lake Mead. And there was a gunshot wound to the head. And this looked an awful lot like a mob hit to the authorities. And so this just piqued my interest and got me thinking about how did this barrel get there and this body and what’s the story behind it. And I started doing a little research and it turns out that the clothing on the body was pretty well preserved. [2:29]So the police dated it to the late 70s, early 80s potentially. And that’s of course the heyday of the mob activities in Las Vegas. It got me onto the Chicago outfit and, Some of the characters involved in the outfits activity in Vegas there. And so my story just went from there. But, yeah, I guess that’s a little about me and the story. So, yeah. Yeah. Those are the days when Tony Spolatro was really active out there. Chicago outfit man on the scene, if you will. And Body in a Barrel, another interesting Chicago link is they found a guy named Johnny Roselli, who was a highly placed mob guy who was connected to Las Vegas and Los Angeles. He had been their guy before Spalatro. He had been their representative out in the West, and they found his body in a barrel down in Florida. Wow, okay. There’s some reference there. [3:21]I’d read a little that this is a pretty popular method of body disposal in various times. And Tony Spalatro was, I understand that they haven’t actually identified the victim yet, but the kind of style of killing they think is pretty connected with something Tony Spalatro might do. I guess the sort of low caliber gunshot wound was a popular way to dispose of it, to whack people just because it was a little less messy than a high caliber weapon. Yeah, this is one they call it a lupara blanca, which means white shotgun in Italian. And that means that you never find the body. In this case, they found the body. Every once in a while, they’ll find the body. Not very often, though. Usually they hide them pretty good. Now, who’d ever thought that Lake Mead would drop that much? Yeah, they dropped it at 100 feet of water, and I don’t think anybody expected it to drop that low. And it could go even lower in the next couple of years here, honestly. Really? Oh, really? It’s still dropping. I thought there’d been some more rain and some snow up in the mountains that were going to add to that. It’s going to be still dropping, huh? Yeah, there has been a fair bit of precipitation this year, but in the areas that count most, where you get most of the runoff, which is up in the mountains of Colorado and Utah, it’s really quite dry, actually. They’ve had some rain, but not much snow, and so they’re talking about a snow drought. Yeah, things could. It just depends. We’ll see how things develop, but it could get bad. Yeah, talk about that gun now. Chicago was noted. [4:40]For using these 22 caliber high standard i think they’re browning semi-automatic pistols with a silencer on it and they had them out there i believe and they also another interesting thing about the outfit in order to keep the sound down they would load their own shells and so they were had less powder in them and sometimes the shells didn’t do the job that they wanted to do now frank Kulata, who was in Las Vegas working for Tony Splattro during these years, he tells a story about trying to kill a guy with one of those guns and how he had such a hard time getting him killed. So I don’t know how many holes were in this guy’s head, but you got to get somebody just right in the head with that .22 caliber pistol. Yeah, they say it had to be pretty close range. You’re talking about the Jerry Listener murder, I think. Is that right? Yeah. I read about that one. That’s actually the kind of the murder in question in my book is based on that loosely. And so yeah, Kolata advises my main character, Lenny, to load his gun with half loads because they’ve lost their silencer or something. So that’ll keep the sound down. But yeah, I guess Lister ended up with multiple bullets to the head. And when they found them, more than you’d imagine would be necessary. [5:55]Really? There’s a guy that worked for the Stardust named Jay VanderWalk that disappeared at the time. It disappeared for a long time. Did you look at that one, too, as some of your source material? Yeah. So there’s this great article that’s been turned into a podcast on the Mob Museum website. I don’t know if you’re familiar with that in Las Vegas there. And they suggest there might be three potential victims. [6:21]VanderMark is one of the—is that the guy you mentioned, George VanderMark? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, they call him by Jay. That’s right. Yeah. So, yeah, he is one of the, he’s a missing person, right? From that era, had connections with the Argent company. So they think he, that’s one of the possibilities. He was running the skimming operation, at least in some of the casinos there for Argent. And I guess the, as the gaming control board in Nevada found out about the skimming operation, gradually, they were starting to talk to people. And I think that they were worried that he was going to talk or actually this is, I think the, the outfit suspected he was stealing money from him. I think it was a combination. Stealing money is worse than talking. Right, yeah. So I guess he took off to Mexico, maybe, I read, or Costa Rica even. But I think… He came back. I can’t remember the exact story, but yeah. Yeah. So from what I read, Nick Calabrese, who I guess was a hitman for the outfit, and then turned eventually and started talking to the feds. He suggested that, I guess, Vandermark ended up in a hotel in Phoenix or something, and the outfit sent a couple of hitmen after him and whacked him there. And then Calabrese said they buried his body in the desert. So that means, you know, if that’s true, then obviously it’s not the guy in the barrel, but he’s one of the ones they talk about because they never found his body. Yeah. And I guess the other one I read about was William Crespo. [7:40]I don’t know that story. Yeah. So the little I know of it is he was a drug runner [7:48]Stories of the Las Vegas Mob [7:45]involved with the outfit in Las Vegas. And he got caught kind of landing in the Las Vegas airport coming from Miami with $400,000 worth of cocaine on him. And the feds arrested him. He accepted an offer of immunity to become an informant. And he was set to testify about this drug ring that the outfit was part of. And he actually ended up testifying before a grand jury, got a bunch of folks indicted. I guess one of the names of folks who was indicted was Victor Greger, according to this article. He was a former Argent executive. But then when Crespo himself went to testify, he was set to testify in June 83. And they got to him before then and he never testified. So, he’s another kind of missing person they suspect could be in the barrel. But the article thought the most likely candidate was a guy named Johnny Pappas. I don’t know if you know him at all. Yeah, I don’t know the story of that. Okay. So, this is a Chicago native guy who was involved in some of the Argent Corporation casino work. And he was, I guess by the 70s, late 70s, he was managing this resort on the northern part of Lake Mead called Echo Bay Resort, which was an Argent Corporation Resort. [9:00]And it’s closed now. It’s not there anymore. It used to be like a hotel and a boat launch. And so he was at the lake at different times. He also owned a boat on Lake Mead. And so in 1976, the day he disappeared, his wife told authorities basically that he went to meet this guy at a restaurant who was interested in buying his boat at Lake Mead. And so they think it could have been a ruse set up by outfit folks luring him basically down to the lake to show him his boat. And then they knock him off and take him out on his own dang boat and drop him in the lake. The motive is a little less clear in this case, but it was around that time when stuff was coming out about the Argent Corporation and the skimming. And they could have just thought he was a liability, might be set to talk or something. Yeah, those are the three that I read about anyway. He just disappeared after this meeting to go sell his boat. Yeah, they found that theory makes sense. They found his car parked in the circus casino parking lot on the strip the next day. And yeah, he’s just gone, disappeared. [10:01]I’ll be darned. I hadn’t heard that story. That is a pretty likely scenario. Say, hey, I’ll drive and let’s run down there and let’s see that boat. I got the money right here. You show the guy a bunch of money and he’ll drop all caution. It’ll go to the wind. That’s how they do it. and got him isolated then. [10:18]Yeah. And maybe it’s a last minute deal. So nobody really knows who he’s meeting and where he’s going and that he’s even going. So that’s, that’s a classic in the mob. Yeah. Apparently he told his wife he was going to go sell his boat, but that’s about it. Yeah. I’ll be darned. Yeah. The, as Lake Mead’s gone down, has there been any other bodies or any other things that have been found out there recently? Yeah, there’s been some strange things turned up. One is a sort of a World War II era airplane, honestly, started coming out of the water. But that was known about for some time. You could see it, I guess, from aerial photos. But other bodies, yeah, there’s a few other bodies, just skeletons, nothing in barrels and no gunshot wounds. And so, people just, I think authorities have identified most of those and suspect they were just drowning victims, unfortunate boating accidents and whatnot. But nothing like this body in a barrel. I think they’ve been trying to identify that body. There’s lots of DNA evidence, right? You got still a pretty intact body. But the problem is back in that era, I guess they didn’t have the DNA database to be matching with. Yeah. So, it’s not borne a lot of fruit. I think it’s still an open case, honestly. Really? The chance they have is if one of that guy’s descendants goes to something like 23andMe and then does that. And I know they’ve come up with a deal where they can start running an unknown DNA through those… [11:44]Files and see if you can come up with a connection and then go back and say, okay, where would this guy have ever come across or be in this other person’s family tree, if you will, and then they can eventually get it. That’s fascinating. Amazing. Yeah, it is what they could do. I had a guy that used to be a professional criminal talking about it. He said, I don’t know why anybody does crime today. He said with the DNA and the cameras and the cell phones and all that, he said, there’s just way, way too many ways to get caught. That’s wild. Yeah. Oh boy. Yeah. I watch a lot of crime shows and I see a lot of that stuff. And everybody watches those crime shows. So they know about those tools out there. So first thing, you got to go get a burner phone. If you’re going to go do something, you better go get a burner phone. And then you better dress up in one of those suits in those English police movies, those white hazmat suits and your whole face covered. Crazy, crazy. Yeah. And then go do it. Don’t use your own car. You better go steal a car somewhere. Man, complicated. It’s too hard. Yes. And even then, if they look at you and say, your phone never moved for 24 hours, but yet you were seen over here or over there. How come you didn’t have your phone with you or your car? You parked your car here for 12 hours and then you came back and got it. What were you doing? [13:08]It is just crazy, isn’t it? Yeah. But tell us, what’s the storyline of your book? Don’t give too much away. You want people to buy it. I understand that. But tell the guys the storyline of your book. Sure, yeah. So the storyline is, it starts out with the true events of 2022, right? This headline that there’s a body in a barrel shows up on the shore of Lake Mead. And my main protagonist, who’s sort of made up from my imagination, his name’s Lenny Battaglia. [13:37]The Body in the Barrel [13:33]And he reads this headline. He’s an old time mob associate. He, at one time when he was young, was connected with the outfit, but ended up getting out of it barely. But he reads this headline and starts to get worried because he’s got a barrel with a body in it that’s his victim farther out in the lake. So this one that he reads about is not his. It’s actually his partners who, in my story, the partners loosely based on Frank Collada, actually. [14:01]And so he reads this headline, gets worried, goes out in his little boat to try to move his victim farther out into the lake because he’s concerned that his lake, the lake’s continuing to drop and the kind of the falling lakes acts like a ticking clock in my story in some ways. I think the Sopranos did something like this. They thought somebody was going to come up and buy some farm, and they had said, these guys have to dig this body up and move it. So that is not out of the realm of possibility, is it? No, no. But what is out of the realm of possibility is this old guy in his tiny little boat actually moving the barrel. So he goes out with just a gaff with a hook on it and tries to yank it out with his little outboard motor, and it just won’t budge. The thing’s really heavy. If you know anything about water, stuff under water is really heavy. Really heavy. Yeah. He’s wrestling with it and ends up falling in while he’s trying to pull this barrel farther out. And so it’s a big failure. And while he’s falling in, he has this flashback to the killing, basically. And so the story kind of goes from there, but it’s really focused on how he deals with what he’s done, basically. [15:10]Crime is no mystery from the beginning. it’s not a it’s not a traditional it’s not a traditional police procedural of where who done it yeah it’s not like that it’s more like kind of what is what’s the aftermath what’s the effect of, a terrible crime like this on even the perpetrator yeah yeah and as I said one of my characters is based on Frank Collada who so he was the story takes place in kind of two time frames right we’ve got the, contemporary time frame, but then we got flashbacks to his time at the mob and Frank was his partner in this hit. We’ve also got a character showing up who’s based on Tony Spolatro. I call him Tony Bonucci, named after one of my favorite Italian soccer players. [15:50]But yeah, so we’ve got this connection to the early 80s, late 70s, and then also this kind of contemporary period. And I understand Frank Collado was actually, he recently just died, right he was he did during covid times i think he he already had copd he was already everything he did he you’d see me to have his oxygen on and so he was already weakened then he got covid during uh during covid that’s a shame you know yeah i did some listening to a podcast he was on in researching my book and it was really fascinating to listen to yeah yeah he is he’s and he’s got his there’s a whole book out there that he mainly just told stories about his life during the whole book. It’s amazing. I did one with him and then added some more clips in from that a long time. One of my earlier ones, I got to know him real early because we had the mob con out there. I knew the guy that was getting it going and I went out to the guy that actually Denny Griffin who wrote the books with Frank Collider, wrote several books with Frank Collider and I’d gotten to know Denny and so Denny invited me to come out and do a program at the first mob conference and I met Frank then. I met him and a couple others after that. He was gruff, but he was a good guy. I mean, he was gruff, I’ll tell you. He wasn’t a guy that just, it was hard to joke around with him. Interesting. Okay, interesting. [17:12]Yeah, I got a bit of that vibe from the podcast of him that I was listening to. Yeah, it’s funny. Just genuine Italian Chicago, like to the core. Yeah, he was that. He was born and bred, born and bred from early his childhood. He was a Chicago mobster. There’s no doubt about that. That’s wild. [17:32]Yeah, Denny Griffin’s book was really helpful to me, actually, in my research. Yeah, the battle for Las Vegas in particular was. Yeah, that’s the one I used. Denny was that. Denny’s dead now. I don’t know if you knew that. I did know that, unfortunately. Yeah, I was pretty good friends with Denny. He helped me out a lot when I got started and got me out there. And he gave me for my first documentary, which was about the skimming, a lot about the skimming. He got me several people to interview, lined me up with them and verified, hey, this guy’s okay and work with him. And I flew out to Las Vegas and interviewed a bunch of people and interviewed him too. But he got me an employee of the Best Casino that knew Lefty Rosenthal really well. She gave us some really great sound bites. I get calls today or emails wanting to know if she’s still around. She’s died since. People are still trying to find her to get to interview her. That’s wild. That’s wild. That’s because old Denny Griffin, he was a good guy. He really was. That’s neat. His book was certainly good. Yeah. Interesting. So what else do you want to say about your book before we get out of here? Besides, go out and buy it. Go out and buy it. It’s on Amazon, I’m sure, and I’ll have a link to the Amazon site. I appreciate that. Yeah, it is on Amazon. What do I want to say about it? I guess the other thing to say is it’s got some, I don’t want to give too much away, but gun violence is really a big part of the book. Not only this single mob hit, but also it wraps in. [18:56]This mass shooting in 2017, the one where the guy was a shooter was in the hotel suites up high and he was shooting across the street into that country music festival. So it’s really funny. I compare it to two things, right? I compare it to Casino, which is this famous Scorsese film from that mobster era, which everybody knows about. And actually, Frank Collado was in. He had a cameo in that. Yeah, that’s funny. But then the other thing I compare the book to is Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment, which is obviously this sort of towering literary novel. But the parallel is just dealing with this aftermath of violence, right? What happens when you kill somebody and what’s the sort of dealing with guilt and fear and the consequences. [19:44]Exploring Themes of Violence [19:40]So I’d say those are the sort of things I point to as parallels for the book. I don’t know. There’s a lot more to say. Like you’ve said, it’s grounded in true life crime, but it’s also definitely fiction. I’ve made up the better part of it. Yeah. [19:54]All right. Aaron Mead. The book is Body in the Barrel. Aaron, I really appreciate you coming on the show. And guys, I’ll have links to this book down below. Yeah, thank you so much for having me. It’s been a pleasure meeting you and hearing some of your stories. And I’m enjoying your podcast. And it’s been a privilege to be on here. So thank you. Okay. We like to hear that. Thanks a lot, Aaron. [20:17]Yeah, thank you. Okay. Okay. I’ll do a little extra here in a minute. I just want to tell you something. When I went to law school at the police department and my favorite class was water law and I did my, you have to do a 50 page publishable paper to get out of law school. I did mine on Western water law and it was just, I was fascinated by that Western water law and all the things that go into that, the Rio Grande Pact and all the different political entities that are trying to use that water and how they use it. And then how the EPA rules and figured in on using water out West. And the fact that out West, they treated water like they treated gold or some other mineral. If you found the source, you owned it. Whereas they had riparian interest in [21:06]The Complexities of Water Law [21:03]laws back East here, where you have plenty of water. You can use all the water you want as long as you don’t reduce it. But nobody owns that source of water. [21:12]If it’s a big source, it’s just a fascinating topic. Yeah, it is a bit of the Wild West, like applies to water out West. It’s that first in time, first in right thing. It’s pretty crazy. The Colorado River especially is so complicated. You got seven, seven states take water from it. You got the federal government running the dams there. You’ve got Mexico that takes a portion of it. You’ve got this whole hundred year history of law layered on top of each other. And even today, the rules on how the water gets distributed are about to expire in this year. And so we’re trying to come up with new rules. And it’s just so tough because… [21:49]There’s less water in the river than there used to be, and so the old agreements don’t quite work out, and we’re having to take reductions, and, you know, who takes what? It’s just sort of a big mess, honestly. We’re fighting over it. I wouldn’t be surprised if we end up in court, honestly. But that would be not a good outcome, but it seems potentially likely. Yeah. There’s a judge I heard say once that, you better make a deal outside of my courtroom. If you come into my courtroom, my decision is not going to hurt everybody’s feelings with my decision. Yeah. And inevitably, like the folks, the special masters or whatever the justices are that are making the decisions, they don’t know as much about water as we do. If we can’t work it out, it’s going to happen. I know. And there are just so many pressures that are on it. And it’s tough. And plus, one thing we haven’t mentioned is a huge growth in population over the last 20, 30 years out there. It’s true. Yeah, it’s true. Yes, unbelievable how many people have moved to Phoenix and Albuquerque and Las Vegas, especially Las Vegas, but just being such a huge growth in population out. And before it was desert that nobody really, they didn’t live, they didn’t want to live out there. [22:55]It’s true. Yeah. And surprisingly, like in a lot of these cities, actually, the demand for water has not increased. Like in Las Vegas, it’s actually gone down. Oh, really? They have done an incredible job of conserving water. Same in Los Angeles. The demands for water have gone down despite the population growth. The thing that makes it challenging is that the whole pie is shrinking and it’s the agricultural use that’s the highest. I think it’s something like 85% or 80% of the water in the Colorado Basin is agriculture. And so, those are the things you’re going to need to find conservation there, which is harder. [23:30]Like those Israelis did, it was something called drip irrigation where they used, they were more skillful in the way they used their water in their fields down in the desert. Yeah, and some of the folks that’s been, some of the agricultural folks have been converting to that kind of irrigation for quite some time now. So, it’s like we’re wringing out every sponge we got and running out of options. But, yeah, we’ll figure it out one way or the other here. Yeah, I’m sure we will. This is America, after all. [23:59]Or is it still America? It’s hard to know. Yeah, it’s hard to know. We’re going down that path. Looking a little different these days. Yes, it is. Yeah. Oh, my God. Okay, Aaron, I really appreciate it. I’ll get in touch with you whenever I send an email with the links after I put them up. It’ll be, I don’t know. It’ll probably be a month or more before I get it up. Sure. I stay way ahead. I’ve got quite a few kind of scheduled up for the next two weeks now or three. Smart. Two weeks now, one just went up today. So I put it up, video, I put them up on Sunday evening, and then the audio comes out like 4 o’clock in the morning on Monday morning. Okay. Don’t ask me why. I just started doing that. Yeah. No worries. It gets ahead of everybody. Then they can see it. Hey, I’ve got a question for you, if you don’t, if you don’t mind. No. Do you know about any contemporary organized crime activity in Las Vegas? Is there still stuff going on or is it? I don’t. I really don’t. Yeah. Okay. [24:59]Trying to think of a source for you. I’ll check with a source for you. Okay. I know it’s not Midwest folks from your era, but yeah. Yeah, no, probably something up there out at Los Angeles and people that moved out there a generation ago and stayed under the radar. And then, of course, international. Yeah. Those like Russians and people like that out of Phoenix or in Los Angeles, both. Anyhow, I’ll check on that. Okay. Yeah. If you think of something, that’d be great. I’d be interested. Okay. Okay. I will. All right. Thank you. Thank you again. Take care. All right. Bye-bye. Can you go ahead and do, can you exit the meeting? I’m going to do a little ending thing here. I will. Yeah. [25:40]That was interesting, folks. I did Waterlaw in, well, that was interesting, folks. I really liked Aaron and I think his Body in the Barrel book is going to be pretty darn good. [25:53]Concluding Thoughts on Crime and History [25:50]So I’d recommend you try it. I haven’t actually read it myself. I’ve read excerpts from it. I’ve got it here. I need to sit down and take some time and read it. I like when they base it on the real life people and some people that I know something about. It’s kind of like hearing stories about your hometown. Oh, yeah, I know that guy. Oh, yeah, I remember when that happened. And it’s an interesting thing, the lowering of Lake Mead. He and I, he’s a water engineer, and he and I talked a little bit more about it. I find it a fascinating topic, that Western water law and Western water rights and how that all works. It’s different than back east where we have plenty of water. So don’t forget, I’ve got videos on Amazon Prime for rent. Just use my name and mafia, Gary Jenkins Mafia on Amazon Prime, and you’ll find them. And I’ve got books there. Do the same thing. Gary Jenkins Mafia books. I’ve got three books on Amazon and I’ve got them on my website. And I always appreciate when people make comments on my YouTube channel or on my Gangland Wire podcast page. We’re just here to report mob history. That’s all we want to do is report mob history. And in this case, we got a fictional book that’s reporting mob history based on real mob history. I’ll do that every once in a while, too. [27:07]So thanks a lot, guys. I always appreciate doing this show. It’s a way to end my life out, if you will. I’m down to that last quarter, maybe down to the last two minutes one of these days, but we’ll get there. Thanks a lot, guys.

Dostoevsky's 1864 novella doesn't contain the descriptive detail, impersonal narration or many other features of 19th-century realism established by Flaubert. The book's two-part structure, which starts with a 40-year-old's furious rant against rationalism and moves on to present three humiliating episodes from his earlier life, offers no kind of conclusion. Instead, it is the unbearable moments of psychological truth that make ‘Notes from Underground' a revolutionary development in the history of realism. In this episode, James Wood is joined by the novelist and critic Adam Thirlwell to consider Dostoevsky's mastery of the inner life and the experiences that shaped his hostility to rational egoism, from being subjected to a mock execution and four years in a Siberian prison camp to his reading of Hegel and a visit to London's Crystal Palace. Non-subscribers will only hear an extract from the episode. To listen in full, and to all our other Close Readings series, sign up: Apple Podcasts: https://lrb.me/applecrwaor Other podcast apps: https://lrb.me/closereadingswaor Read more in the LRB on Dostoevsky: John Bayley: https://lrb.me/realismep301 Daniel Soar: https://lrb.me/realismep302 Michael Wood: https://lrb.me/realismep303

Join our community at hotliterati.com

In our big Lenten episode, we explore Jesus's three temptations in the desert and all things Sawma Rama (the Great Fast). We break down Matthew's account of Jesus tempted by Satan and reflect on how Jesus overcomes each temptation through love—and how we can apply the same strength during Lent through fasting, prayer, and almsgiving to grow in love of God, love of neighbor, and proper love of self. In this Lent special, we cover: - The deeper meaning of Jesus entering the wilderness to be tempted - The unforgettable Grand Inquisitor scene from Dostoevsky's "The Brothers Karamazov" - Why Jesus had to face real temptation as a man? - Pope Leo's practical Lenten message - We revisit the topic of mixed marriages in the Chaldean and Assyrian diaspora: balancing cultural preservation, language, heritage, and community concerns with the Church's priority on salvation of souls and sacramental validity. - And we BLIND RANK our favorite Lenten foods! Featuring: Fr. Chris Somo, Fr. Andrew Younan, Fr. Tristan Farida, Fr. Augustine Joseph ––– 00:00 Sawma Raba Begins 02:51 Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor: Love as Christ's Response 08:37 First Temptation (Bread): Deeper Hunger & Deuteronomy 13:28 Temptation vs. Exorcism: Grace, Sacraments, and Spiritual Realism 15:21 Second Temptation (Temple): Pride, Forced Faith, and Misusing Religion 23:06 Why Jesus Had to Fast: New Adam, Identity Tested, and Defeating Sin 30:45 Pope Leo's Lent Message: Fasting from Hurtful Words 33:17 Beyond ‘Not Sinning': Lent as Freedom to Love 35:20 Do Priests (and the Pope) Forget Their Homilies? 38:01 Responding to Comments on Marrying Outside the Culture 49:38 The Top 7 Lenten Foods (Blind Ranking) ––– ▶️ Video version of this episode: https://youtu.be/65XzF8s52qY    

Listen in as Niv Rajendra, expert health and longevity coach, walks you through three fool-proof ways to awaken and heal, practiced and instructed by mystics from the Ayurvedic and Yogic traditions. These are tools that are accessible to you within the realities of your everyday life, here and now.She draws from her own lived experience as well as professional insights through her 7+ years of clinical practice.Weaving in teachings from Ayurveda, Yoga and Tantra as well as inspiration from visionary poets and teachers like T.S. Eliot, Dante, William Blake, Dostoevsky and Malcolm Guite. ✧ Read the health results possible for you based on previous client ROIshttps://nivrajendra.com/✧ Apply to partner with Niv for 2026https://nivrajendra.com/work-with-me✧ Instagram: @yourhealthcompass✧ Facebook: Niv Rajendra✧ Listen to the EMBODIED Ayurveda Podcast:https://open.spotify.com/show/3rfeG9m0qHH39jzHXLXblC?si=EzlxaDTDQ6iEZsbzk99DZQ

What have the cluttered landscapes of Pieter Bruegel the Elder to do with the complex plots of Fyodor Dostoevsky? In each, we find subtle allusions to the holy, hidden and tucked away in the least likely of places. Why do these artists hide the holy? And what are the implications for theology and the arts in our age?.Lecture Resources: PowerPoint deckPlease note that the ideas expressed in this lecture do not necessarily represent the views of L'Abri Fellowship.For more resources, visit the L'Abri Ideas Library at labriideaslibrary.org. The library contains over two thousand lectures and discussions that explore questions about the reality and relevance of Christianity. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit englishlabri.substack.com

Sermon Brainwave dives into the First Sunday in Lent exploring Jesus' testing in the wilderness from Matthew 4:1-11. Hosts Matt Skinner, Karoline Lewis, and new co-host Cody Sanders examine what this familiar text reveals about power, identity, and God's empire versus earthly empire. The conversation moves through wilderness, temple, and mountain—locations that speak to where we expect to find God and how Jesus manifests divine authority through self-giving ministry rather than control.The team explores Warren Carter's insights on empire and political critique, connecting the devil's temptations to Jesus' ministry of compassion versus power-seeking. Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor makes a surprising appearance, highlighting themes of freedom versus control that resonate in our current moment of rising authoritarianism. The discussion extends to Genesis 2-3, examining knowledge of good and evil not as moral abstraction but as the capacity to manipulate both for advantage. Psalm 32 offers a confessional counterpoint about concealing versus confessing sin, while Romans 5:12-19 frames the cosmic scope of reconciliation God pursues in Jesus.Join the conversation as these biblical scholars and preachers help you prepare for sermon preparation during this Lenten season of risk and revelation, precarity and possibility.

In this conversation, Australian, Soviet, Israeli writer and editor Lee Kofman reflects on how she began her writing career in English, her third language, and what it has meant to claim her literary voice across cultures and countries. We talk about her early love of the classics such as Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, and how reading shaped her ambition and how literature shapes her thinking. Lee also shares her thoughts on love, spirituality, philosophy and the uneasy but compelling intersections between sexuality and intimate relationships. We even talk about polyamory. Wide-ranging and intimate, this discussion explores writing as both craft and inquiry, a way of making meaning, desire and belonging intelligible.

‘A society,' Dostoevsky said, ‘should be judged not by how it treats its outstanding citizens but how it treats its prisoners.'In the U.K. Nigel Farage is promising to build bigger prisons and send prisoners to Estonia and El Salvador. There are more people in prison in the US than in any country in the world.On Free State today we look at how society gave up on prisoners. We examine why populism and media scares matter more than any idea of rehabilitation. And there is news on the GAA quiz which was postponed as Joe questioned Dion's right to even answer the questions. Send your questions to info@freestatepodcast.com Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Send us a textMy New Podcast launches today. "The Classic Literature Podcast".Subscribe and follow it wherever you get your podcast from.Podcast Website: https://www.buzzsprout.com/2568906The First Ever Episode of The Classic Literature Podcast.“In the beginning was the Word…” — John 1:1Welcome to The Classic Literature Podcast. I'm your host, Jeremy McCandless, and I'm so glad you've joined me for this first episode of a new bi-monthly journey—one that explores the great works of classic literature, approaching these great books via the world out of which they emerged—a cultural heritage, rich in spiritual metaphor.Each season, we'll walk alongside the giants of literary history—authors who in many ways have shaped nations, stirred hearts, whilst at the same time wrestling with the deepest questions of human existence. But we won't just admire their craft. We'll ask: What spiritual soil did these stories grow from? What echoes of grace and redemption resound within their pages?

This episode is a cross examination of Dostoevsky's seminal work The Brothers Karamazov and Satoshi Kon's slept on brilliant anime holiday film Tokyo Godfathers. Happy New Year. FULL EP AT PATREON.COM/PODDAMNAMERICA

What does it really take to build software that can grow from a single line of code to millions of users a day without losing its soul along the way? In this episode of Tech Talks Daily, I'm joined by Alex Gusev, CTO at Uploadcare, for a wide-ranging conversation about scale, simplicity, and why leadership in technology starts with people long before it gets anywhere near frameworks or tooling. Alex has spent two decades building server-side systems, often inside small teams, and has seen firsthand how early decisions echo through a company's future, for better and for worse. We talk openly about the realities of early-stage engineering, including why shipping imperfect code is often the only way to survive, how technical debt should be taken on deliberately rather than by accident, and why knowing when to slow down and clean things up is one of the hardest leadership calls to make. Alex shares his belief that simplicity is the strongest ally in high-load environments, and how over-engineering, often inspired by copying the playbooks of much larger companies, creates fragility instead of strength. Our conversation also digs into his continued faith in Ruby on Rails, a framework that divides opinion but still plays a central role in many successful products. Alex reframes the debate around speed, focusing less on raw performance metrics and more on how quickly teams can build, adapt, and maintain systems over time. It's a practical view shaped by real-world trade-offs rather than theory. Beyond code, we explore why Alex puts people ahead of technology and process, and how creating psychological safety inside teams leads to better decisions, lower churn, and smarter use of limited resources. He also reflects on personal experiences that reshaped his approach to leadership, the growing tech scene in Kyrgyzstan, and why he finds as much inspiration in Dostoevsky as he does in engineering blogs. If you've ever questioned whether modern engineering culture has overcomplicated itself, or wondered how to balance ambition with sustainability as your product grows, this episode offers plenty to think about. Where do you think your own team is adding complexity without realizing it, and what might change if you started with people first? Useful Links Connect with Alex Gusev Learn more about Uploadcare Tech Talks Daily is sponsored by Denodo

December 22, 1849. Russian writer Fyodor Dostoevsky is saved from execution by a last-minute reprieve, an event that shapes the writer's greatest works. This episode originally aired in 2022. Support the show! Join Into History for ad-free listening and more. History Daily is a co-production of Airship and Noiser. Go to HistoryDaily.com for more history, daily.

World Fantasy and Ignyte winner Tochi Onyebuchi joins Gary for a brief but wide-ranging discussion that touches upon his genre-hopping 2025 novel Harmattan Season, his fascinating Internet memoir Racebook: A Personal History of the Internet, the virtues of Roberto Bolaño and Dostoevsky, and Tochi's own work in progress. As always, our thanks to Tochi for making time to talk to us. We hope you enjoy the episode.

An early encounter with one of the most famous people in the world initiated Jack Zipes into the world of fairy tales - and he never looked back. In this episode, Jacke talks to the fairy tale expert about his book Buried Treasures: The Power of Political Fairy Tales, which profiles modern writers and artists who tapped the political potential of fairy tales. PLUS Jacke delivers some Chaucer news before looking at Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment, which lands at #11 on the list of the Greatest Books of All Time. NOTE: The discussion with Jack Zipes was originally released on July 17, 2023. It has not been available in the archives for many months. Join Jacke on a trip through literary England (signup closing soon)! The History of Literature Podcast Tour is happening in May 2026! Act now to join Jacke and fellow literature fans on an eight-day journey through literary England in partnership with ⁠⁠⁠⁠John Shors Travel⁠⁠⁠⁠. Scheduled stops include The Charles Dickens Museum, Dr. Johnson's house, Jane Austen's Bath, Tolkien's Oxford, Shakespeare's Globe Theater, and more. Find out more by emailing jackewilsonauthor@gmail.com or masahiko@johnshorstravel.com, or by contacting us through our website ⁠⁠⁠⁠historyofliterature.com⁠⁠⁠⁠. Or visit the ⁠⁠⁠⁠History of Literature Podcast Tour itinerary⁠⁠⁠⁠ at ⁠⁠⁠⁠John Shors Travel⁠⁠⁠⁠. The music in this episode is by Gabriel Ruiz-Bernal. Learn more at ⁠⁠⁠⁠gabrielruizbernal.com⁠⁠⁠. Help support the show at ⁠⁠⁠⁠patreon.com/literature ⁠⁠⁠⁠or ⁠⁠⁠⁠historyofliterature.com/donate ⁠⁠⁠⁠. The History of Literature Podcast is a member of Lit Hub Radio and the Podglomerate Network. Learn more at ⁠⁠⁠⁠thepodglomerate.com/historyofliterature⁠⁠⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

CBS EYE ON THE WORLD WITH JOHN BATCHELOR SHOW SCHEDULE  9-5 GOOD EVENING: The show begins in Las Vegas as the Strip struggles with decline. FIRST HOUR 9-915 Jeff Bliss, Las Vegas Tourism Decline and Anaheim Development Jeff Bliss reports a significant decline in Las Vegas tourism, with a 12% drop in visitors, which he attributes to the city's nickel and diming practices by major corporations like MGM and Caesar's Palace, coupled with the rise of online gambling. Despite increased gaming revenue, the broader city economy, including restaurants and hotels not part of the strip, is suffering. Vegas resorts are now offering discounts and food credits to attract visitors. Nevada's unique lack of a state lottery, forcing residents to cross state lines for games like Powerball, also highlights a peculiar disadvantage. In Anaheim, a proposed skyway/gondola system aims to connect Disneyland, hotels, and sports venues. 915-930 Brandon Weichert, Artificial Intelligence, Quantum Computing, and Economic Impact Brandon Weichert and John Batchelor discuss artificial intelligence and quantum computing, with Weichert expressing optimism for AI's long-term economic benefits, though he finds a 7% GDP growth projection very optimistic. He believes AI will augment, not replace, human work, leading to positive productivity gains over time, especially in manufacturing and tech sectors. The conversation touches on AI's current competitiveness in generating novel research hypotheses, nearly matching humans in a Science magazine study, but humans still slightly lead in designing experiments. Weichertsees quantum computing as the next breakthrough 930-945  Professor Richard Epstein, Federal Power, National Guard Deployment, and University Funding Professor Richard Epstein discusses two cases involving the Trump administration's use of federal power. First, he analyzes Judge Charles Brier's ruling that Trump's deployment of National Guard troops for immigration enforcement in Southern California was partially illegal, citing the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act. Epstein distinguishes between protecting federal interests and overstepping into local policing, as with traffic violations or raids far from Los Angeles. He criticizes the political polarization between Trump and Governor Gavin Newsom for hindering cooperation during emergencies. Second, Epstein addresses Judge Allison Burroughs' interim decision against Trump's freezing of Harvard's research funds over anti-Semitism allegations, warning of long-term damage to US medical research. 945-1000 CONTINUED Professor Richard Epstein, Federal Power, National Guard Deployment, and University FundingProfessor Richard Epstein discusses two cases involving the Trump administration's use of federal power. First, he analyzes Judge Charles Brier's ruling that Trump's deployment of National Guard troops for immigration enforcement in Southern California was partially illegal, citing the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act. Epstein distinguishes between protecting federal interests and overstepping into local policing, as with traffic violations or raids far from Los Angeles. He criticizes the political polarization between Trump and Governor Gavin Newsom for hindering cooperation during emergencies. Second, Epstein addresses Judge Allison Burroughs' interim decision against Trump's freezing of Harvard's research funds over anti-Semitism allegations, warning of long-term damage to US medical research. SECOND HOUR 10-1015 Bradley Bowman, Chinese Military Parade and US Security Bradley Bowman discusses a recent massive Chinese military parade, noting the presence of Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, and Kim Jong-un, with the president of Iran also in attendance. He views the parade as a demonstration of China's decades-long effort to build a military capable of defeating the US in the Pacific, highlighting the erosion of American security and increased likelihood of a Taiwan Strait conflict. Specific concerns include modernized hypersonic YJ seriesanti-ship missiles challenging US naval interception, the DF61 intercontinental ballistic missile aimed at the US, and a low-observable tailless drone for manned fighters.1015-1030 Conrad Black, Canadian Politics, Mr. Carney's Government, and Regional Challenges Conrad Black discusses the challenges facing Mr. Carney's new Canadian government, particularly the unrest in Alberta. Carney's extreme green views threaten Alberta's oil and ranching economy, leading to a significant separatist movement that could see the province join the United States if its energy exports aren't facilitated. Black notes that Carney has yet to reveal his plans to address this or the historical cultural and political challenges posed by Quebec, a wealthy province with aspirations for independence. Carney has been robust on national security, agreeing with President Trump that Canada needs increased defense spending.1030-1045 Jim McTague, Lancaster County Economy and National Job Market Jim McTague provides an optimistic view of Lancaster County's economy, contrasting with national job market slowdowns. He notes low unemployment at 3.4% and no personal reports of job losses. The county's economy is buoyed by affluent retirees, who contribute millions to local restaurants and businesses, and a booming tourism sector attracting 10 million visitors annually. McTague highlights the importance of agriculture and the Amish culture as economic backbones. However, housing prices are significantly elevated, posing a challenge for younger, lower-wage workers. Growth is concentrated in suburban townships due to a superior healthcare industry and expanding data centers and pharmaceutical companies attracting professionals.1045-1100 CONTINUED Jim McTague, Lancaster County Economy and National Job Market Jim McTague provides an optimistic view of Lancaster County's economy, contrasting with national job market slowdowns. He notes low unemployment at 3.4% and no personal reports of job losses. The county's economy is buoyed by affluent retirees, who contribute millions to local restaurants and businesses, and a booming tourism sector attracting 10 million visitors annually. McTague highlights the importance of agriculture and the Amish culture as economic backbones. However, housing prices are significantly elevated, posing a challenge for younger, lower-wage workers. Growth is concentrated in suburban townships due to a superior healthcare industry and expanding data centers and pharmaceutical companies attracting professionals. THIRD HOUR 1100-1115 Molly Beer, Angelica Schuyler Church and the American Revolution Molly Beer discusses Angelica Schuyler Church (1755-1814), a prominent figure during the American Revolution. Born to the influential Schuyler family in Albany, Angelica was well-educated, a trait uncommon for women of her time but typical for Dutch families. She eloped with John Carter (later John Barker Church), much to her family's dismay, a decision perhaps driven by love for the cosmopolitan Englishman. Angelica was deeply involved in the revolutionary cause, supporting the French army and maintaining a strong patriotic identity even while living in London after the war. She cultivated extensive connections with key figures like George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, and Lafayette .1115-1130 CONTINUED Molly Beer, Angelica Schuyler Church and the American Revolution 1130-1145 CONTINUED Molly Beer, Angelica Schuyler Church and the American Revolution Molly Beer discusses 1145-1200 CONTINUED Molly Beer, Angelica Schuyler Church and the American Revolution Molly Beer . FOURTH HOUR 12-1215 Henry Sokolski, Plutonium, Nuclear Proliferation, and International Debate Henry Sokolski discusses the global debate surrounding plutonium, a highly poisonous substance used in nuclear weapons, especially by China, South Korea, and Britain. He explains that plutonium can be extracted from nuclear power reactors and quickly used to make a bomb, similar to the Nagasaki weapon. Sokolski criticizes the US Energy Department for suggesting that new reactor designs like Natrium and Ollo can extract plutonium while leaving enough radionuclides to prevent bomb-making, a claim previously debunked by studies. He highlights proliferation risks, citing South Korea's historical attempts to use civil reprocessing to acquire nuclear weapons.1215-1230 Jack Burnham, Manhattan Project Lessons for AI and US-China Talent Competition Jack Burnham explains that China views the Manhattan Project as a key lesson in harnessing international talent for national strategic goals, particularly in artificial intelligence. The US successfully recruited theoretical physicists fleeing Nazi Germany, nurturing a scientific reserve for the atomic bomb project. Burnham notes that after World War II, the US continued to prioritize basic science funding, leading to its technological edge. However, he suggests the US is currently struggling with this, as funding issues and regulatory uncertainty are driving American scientists abroad and limiting foreign talent attraction while countries like China, the EU, France, and Canada actively recruit US scientists.1230-1245 Nathaniel Peters, The Nature of Murder and Evil in Andrew Klavan's "The Kingdom of Cain" Nathaniel Peters reviews Andrew Klavan's "The Kingdom of Cain," which explores murder and evil through fiction and real-life examples. Klavan, a former atheist, was propelled to faith by Klavan, a former atheist, was propelled to faith by pondering evil, suggesting that recognizing objective moral order is necessary to condemn acts like those of the Marquis de Sade. The book examines Leopold and Loeb, who murdered to prove their superiority and live beyond good and evil, but left a crucial clue, highlighting their human fallibility. Klavan also considers Dostoevsky's Raskolnikov, whose rationalized yet pointless murder leads to a breakdown of his self-deception. Klavan argues artistic creation, like Michelangelo's Pietà, can redeem or transform the subject of art.1245-100 AM CONTINUED Nathaniel Peters, The Nature of Murder and Evil in Andrew Klavan's "The Kingdom of Cain" Nathaniel Peters reviews Andrew Klavan's "The Kingdom of Cain," which explores murder and evil through fiction and real-life examples. Klavan, a former atheist, was propelled to faith by pondering evil, suggesting that recognizing objective moral order is necessary to condemn acts like those of the Marquis de Sade. The book examines Leopold and Loeb, who murdered to prove their superiority and live beyond good and evil, but left a crucial clue, highlighting their human fallibility. Klavan also considers Dostoevsky's Raskolnikov, whose rationalized yet pointless murder leads to a breakdown of his self-deception. Klavan argues artistic creation, like Michelangelo's Pietà, can redeem or transform the subject of art.

Today we talk about two different theories for why we ritualize self-destructive behavior. We check out a lesser-known work from Dostoevsky called The Gambler. We consider how much we can hold people morally accountable for this kind of stuff. Then we look at the work of Georges Bataille, his book The Accursed Share, and how a hidden underlying economics may be a way we can understand self-destructive behavior from a new angle. Hope you love it and have a great week. :) Sponsors: Greenlight: https://www.greenlight.com/PT Nord VPN: https://nordvpn.com/philothis Better Help: https://www.BetterHelp.com/PHILTHIS Thank you so much for listening! Could never do this without your help.  Website: https://www.philosophizethis.org/ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/philosophizethis  Social: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/philosophizethispodcast X: https://twitter.com/iamstephenwest Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/philosophizethisshow Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices