Podcasts about heidegger

Samah Karaki est neuroscientifique et essayiste et son dernier essai "contre les figures d'autorité" est la raison pour laquelle je la reçois de nouveau!C'est la quatrième fois que je reçois Samah. Et à chaque fois, je sens que quelque chose me bouscule profondément.Dans cet épisode, nous parlons de notre besoin presque viscéral de figures d'autorité. Pourquoi nous aimons tant certains visages. Pourquoi nous leur déléguons notre jugement. Pourquoi nous sommes parfois déçus comme si nous avions été trahis personnellement.J'ai questionné Samah sur la naissance historique de la figure du “génie”, sur la Renaissance, sur le mythe du héros, sur le mérite, sur la visibilité, sur les médias, sur les algorithmes. Mais aussi sur quelque chose de plus intime : qu'est-ce que ça fait de devenir soi-même une figure d'autorité ?Ce que j'aime dans cette conversation, c'est qu'elle ne cherche pas à “cancel”. Elle cherche à déplacer le regard.On parle de plagiat, de création collective, d'impunité, de Heidegger, de Bertolucci, d'écologie, de réseaux sociaux, de gourous, de soft skills… et surtout d'utopie.Et si la pensée n'appartenait jamais à une seule personne ?Et si le vrai pouvoir, c'était de négocier le sens ensemble ?Citations marquantes “Nous avons besoin de boussoles, mais pas de sommets.”“Le problème n'est pas la signature. C'est pourquoi on voit toujours les mêmes noms.”“Quand on sacralise quelqu'un, on suspend notre jugement.”“La pensée n'appartient pas à une figure. Elle appartient à ceux qui la manipulent.”“L'utopie, c'est un endroit où le sens se négocie en permanence.”Big Ideas (Idées centrales)1. Le besoin d'autorité est humainNous manquons d'attention. Nous avons besoin de repères.

Samah Karaki est neuroscientifique et essayiste et son dernier essai "contre les figures d'autorité" est la raison pour laquelle je la reçois de nouveau!C'est la quatrième fois que je reçois Samah. Et à chaque fois, je sens que quelque chose me bouscule profondément.Dans cet épisode, nous parlons de notre besoin presque viscéral de figures d'autorité. Pourquoi nous aimons tant certains visages. Pourquoi nous leur déléguons notre jugement. Pourquoi nous sommes parfois déçus comme si nous avions été trahis personnellement.J'ai questionné Samah sur la naissance historique de la figure du “génie”, sur la Renaissance, sur le mythe du héros, sur le mérite, sur la visibilité, sur les médias, sur les algorithmes. Mais aussi sur quelque chose de plus intime : qu'est-ce que ça fait de devenir soi-même une figure d'autorité ?Ce que j'aime dans cette conversation, c'est qu'elle ne cherche pas à “cancel”. Elle cherche à déplacer le regard.On parle de plagiat, de création collective, d'impunité, de Heidegger, de Bertolucci, d'écologie, de réseaux sociaux, de gourous, de soft skills… et surtout d'utopie.Et si la pensée n'appartenait jamais à une seule personne ?Et si le vrai pouvoir, c'était de négocier le sens ensemble ?Citations marquantes “Nous avons besoin de boussoles, mais pas de sommets.”“Le problème n'est pas la signature. C'est pourquoi on voit toujours les mêmes noms.”“Quand on sacralise quelqu'un, on suspend notre jugement.”“La pensée n'appartient pas à une figure. Elle appartient à ceux qui la manipulent.”“L'utopie, c'est un endroit où le sens se négocie en permanence.”Big Ideas (Idées centrales)1. Le besoin d'autorité est humainNous manquons d'attention. Nous avons besoin de repères.

My guest on the show today is Jonny Thakkar. Jonny is an Assistant Professor in Political Science at Swarthmore College and one of the founding editors of The Point. He's the author of various articles, most recently “Beyond Equality” in the newest issue of the Point, and the 2018 book Plato as Critical Theorist.I asked Jonny on to talk about his late friend and mentor the philosopher and psychoanalyst Jonathan Lear, who was his advisor at the University of Chicago Committee on Social Thought and, as you'll hear in our discussion, his occasional advisor on matters of the heart.He wrote about Lear, after his death, along with a collection of other remembrances from friends and colleagues of Lear's:His own career path was so individual as to be impossible to emulate. Institutionally speaking, he had completed two undergraduate degrees, one in history and the other in philosophy, followed by two graduate degrees, the first a Ph.D. on Aristotle's logic under the supervision of Saul Kripke—a prodigy in contemporary logic and metaphysics who was only eight years older than Jonathan, had no expertise in Aristotle and only ever supervised one other dissertation—and the second a professional qualification in psychoanalysis that licensed him to treat patients clinically. His philosophical interlocutors were many and various, among them Plato, Aristotle, Kierkegaard, Freud, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Williams, J. M. Coetzee and Marilynne Robinson, but he was no dilettante. He wanted to understand what it meant to be human, and he simply followed that question wherever it took him. Without end, I should add: he took up the study of ancient Hebrew in his mid-seventies because he had become so puzzled by the treatment of the prophet Balaam that he wanted to make sure he wasn't missing anything in translation!That ethos of constant self-development was central to what you might call Jonathan's philosophy of life. Some people use the term “perpetual student” pejoratively; for Jonathan, being open to learning from the world was the key to human flourishing. As he told matriculating undergraduates in a 2009 address, “the aim of education is to teach us how to be students.” In the preface to Open Minded, he wrote that achieving tenure at Cambridge in his twenties freed him from professional pressures to such an extent that he was forced to confront the meaning of his own existence. “I realized that before I died, I wanted to be in intimate touch with some of the world's greatest thinkers, with some of the deepest thoughts which humans have encountered. I wanted to think thoughts—and also to write something which mattered to me.”We talk about Lear's work, but also about what it means to be, or be influenced by, what Lear called a “local exemplar,” which is someone who has a profound influence on the people around him or her. An exemplar could be a real mentor in the classic sense, as Lear was for Jonny and other students of his, or a writer who affects other people just through text, which is how he functioned in my life. It could also be someone who just said or did something once or a few times that stays with us, imprints itself on us, and changes us in ways that unfold over time.So we talk about how Lear played that role in our lives, but also about the ways in which Thakkar may be playing the role of local exemplar, as a teacher, in the lives of his students, and more generally what it is about someone, or something, that makes it capable of influencing us in these ways.One reason we ended up in this space, I think, is that I've been wrestling a lot, lately, with the question of how writing does or doesn't influence people, because I'm writing a book, on relationships and therapy, that edges into the territory of self-help, and I've become moderately obsessed with not replicating the mistake that so many self-help books make on this front, which is thinking that in order to help people, the thing to do is give them straightforward advice on how to do or be better.This always seems to me like a fundamental misunderstanding of how texts change people, and in some ways an odd one to make in particular for the therapists and psychologists who write so many of these books. If anyone should understand that the human psyche is tricky and that real change tends be a product of close relationships and communal structures playing out over time, rather than advice distilled to words, it should be therapists.Texts do change people's lives, but it's indirect. They're poetic. They're narrative. They're allusive and elusive. They're not precision tools to achieve a predictable outcome in readers.Lear understood this. I asked him once if the style of his essays was deliberately looping and associative because he was trying to emulate something about the rhythms of psychoanalytic practice, and his response was surprise. I just try to write clearly, he said, and the more I think the more I believe him. I think there was something so integrated in the way he did all these things – teach, write, practice psychoanalysis – that his version of writing clearly became this thing that I perceived as indirect, and that it is because of this, in some sense, that his writing has the capacity to affect people in a way that most self-help literature doesn't.I didn't know Lear well, as a person, but he had, and continues to have, a big influence on me. That's even more the case for Jonny, as you'll hear. I don't think he's for everyone, but if he might be for you, I really encourage you to pick up one of his books or find one of his essays online. I'll drop in some links to a few of below. He was a remarkable person.Hope you enjoy. Peace.Jonathan Lear articles:* “Aims of Education”* “Inside and Outside the Republic”* “A Case for Irony”* “Wisdom Won from Illness” [this is actually the whole text of one of his books]* “Transience and hope: A return to Freud in a time of pandemic”* “Jumping from the Couch: An Essay on Phantasy and Emotional Structure”* “Can the virtuous person exist in the modern world?” This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit danieloppenheimer.substack.com/subscribe

A full century ago, a young and relatively unknown philosophy instructor in a small town in Germany would publish a book that would be swiftly picked up and radically reshape the intellectual landscape around it. Everything published before could now be reread in a new light, while everything after would often be seen as a sort of development in response to this book. Its author was Martin Heidegger, and the book was his Being and Time (Yale UP, 2026), one of the most important and influential works in the history of philosophy. Due to the difficulty of the text, filled with dense neologisms or unconventional uses of common terms, Heidegger's work has proven a consistent challenge for any translator trying to render him in English. The first attempt was by John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson in 1962, with a repeated attempt by one of Heidegger's students, Joan Stambaugh, arriving in 1995, with revisions by Dennis Schmidt in 2010. Now in 2026, Cyril Welch has brought his own translation to publication. Initial work began several decades ago in his classroom where he was trying to teach the text, and so he started offering up his own translations of key passages for his students. Over time these translations were revised and added to until eventually he found he had enough to consider formal publication. The publication was held back for some time, but now is finally able to come to light, giving both seasoned and fresh readers of Heidegger a chance to read his work anew. Cyril Welch is professor emeritus of philosophy at Mount Allison University in New Brunswick, Canada. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

A full century ago, a young and relatively unknown philosophy instructor in a small town in Germany would publish a book that would be swiftly picked up and radically reshape the intellectual landscape around it. Everything published before could now be reread in a new light, while everything after would often be seen as a sort of development in response to this book. Its author was Martin Heidegger, and the book was his Being and Time (Yale UP, 2026), one of the most important and influential works in the history of philosophy. Due to the difficulty of the text, filled with dense neologisms or unconventional uses of common terms, Heidegger's work has proven a consistent challenge for any translator trying to render him in English. The first attempt was by John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson in 1962, with a repeated attempt by one of Heidegger's students, Joan Stambaugh, arriving in 1995, with revisions by Dennis Schmidt in 2010. Now in 2026, Cyril Welch has brought his own translation to publication. Initial work began several decades ago in his classroom where he was trying to teach the text, and so he started offering up his own translations of key passages for his students. Over time these translations were revised and added to until eventually he found he had enough to consider formal publication. The publication was held back for some time, but now is finally able to come to light, giving both seasoned and fresh readers of Heidegger a chance to read his work anew. Cyril Welch is professor emeritus of philosophy at Mount Allison University in New Brunswick, Canada. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

A full century ago, a young and relatively unknown philosophy instructor in a small town in Germany would publish a book that would be swiftly picked up and radically reshape the intellectual landscape around it. Everything published before could now be reread in a new light, while everything after would often be seen as a sort of development in response to this book. Its author was Martin Heidegger, and the book was his Being and Time (Yale UP, 2026), one of the most important and influential works in the history of philosophy. Due to the difficulty of the text, filled with dense neologisms or unconventional uses of common terms, Heidegger's work has proven a consistent challenge for any translator trying to render him in English. The first attempt was by John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson in 1962, with a repeated attempt by one of Heidegger's students, Joan Stambaugh, arriving in 1995, with revisions by Dennis Schmidt in 2010. Now in 2026, Cyril Welch has brought his own translation to publication. Initial work began several decades ago in his classroom where he was trying to teach the text, and so he started offering up his own translations of key passages for his students. Over time these translations were revised and added to until eventually he found he had enough to consider formal publication. The publication was held back for some time, but now is finally able to come to light, giving both seasoned and fresh readers of Heidegger a chance to read his work anew. Cyril Welch is professor emeritus of philosophy at Mount Allison University in New Brunswick, Canada. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory

A full century ago, a young and relatively unknown philosophy instructor in a small town in Germany would publish a book that would be swiftly picked up and radically reshape the intellectual landscape around it. Everything published before could now be reread in a new light, while everything after would often be seen as a sort of development in response to this book. Its author was Martin Heidegger, and the book was his Being and Time (Yale UP, 2026), one of the most important and influential works in the history of philosophy. Due to the difficulty of the text, filled with dense neologisms or unconventional uses of common terms, Heidegger's work has proven a consistent challenge for any translator trying to render him in English. The first attempt was by John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson in 1962, with a repeated attempt by one of Heidegger's students, Joan Stambaugh, arriving in 1995, with revisions by Dennis Schmidt in 2010. Now in 2026, Cyril Welch has brought his own translation to publication. Initial work began several decades ago in his classroom where he was trying to teach the text, and so he started offering up his own translations of key passages for his students. Over time these translations were revised and added to until eventually he found he had enough to consider formal publication. The publication was held back for some time, but now is finally able to come to light, giving both seasoned and fresh readers of Heidegger a chance to read his work anew. Cyril Welch is professor emeritus of philosophy at Mount Allison University in New Brunswick, Canada. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

Stāsta komponists un kontrabasists Kristaps Pētersons; pārraides producente – Rūta Paula  "Laimas" konfekškaste vai šokolādīte, "Rīgas Melnais balzams" vai vienkārši polšs, cigaretes, puķes, nauda, medus, pašu audzēti augļi vai dārzeņi un pazīšanās – gribi tirgoties, zini, kas kam ģeldēs. Subdominante – dominante – tonika – pilnās kadences tad nu ir tās, kas padara katru darījumu saprotamu. Bez harmoniskā plāna struktūras klaritātes pat valstis brūk kopā. Kad runājam par tirgošanās mākslu un ar to saistāmo ideju iemiesošanu mūzikā, starp paraugiem pirmajā vietā, manuprāt, ierindojams Georgs Frīdrihs Hendelis [1]. Īpaši krāšņi viņa filigrānās harmoniju secības atklājas, kad dzirdamas to instrumentu balsīs, kurām autors pats rakstījis. Ņem, kuru skaņdarbu gribi – kaut vai 5. svītas Mimažorā, HWV 430 4. daļu – āriju ar variācijām klavesīnam vienam pašam. Vērtējot Hendeļa prasmes, minama ne vien tirgošanās, bet arī aizņemšanās māksla – leģendāra ir viņa atbilde jautātājam, kurš gribējis zināt, kāpēc Hendelis uzdod cita autora darbu kā savu – tas gabals esot tam komponistam par labu, jo viņš nezinot, ko ar to iesākt! Nu ir pagājuši daži gadsimti un tolaik nabagais komponists, no kura Hendelis aizņēmās, patlaban dabū savu darbu no Hendeļa atpakaļ ar solīdiem procentiem. Piemēram, Tēlemanis [2], kura "Postillons" – 4. daļa no Uvertīras jeb Svītas Sibemol mažorā, TWV 55:B1 – nokļuva Hendeļa oratorijas "Baltazars", HWV 61 otrā cēliena otrajā ainā kā sinfonija "Allegro Postillons" (tas ir brīdis, kad karalis Baltazars izsauc savus astrologus un gudrajos, lai tie izskaidro uz sienas parādījušos uzrakstu – “מנא מנא תקל ופרסין”, transliterējot no aramiešu valodas – "Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin" [3]). Vienā vārdā – valsti veidojot – tirgoties un aizņemties jāmācās no labiem piemēriem, un bez muzikālās dzirdes un dziedāšanas prasmes to varēs īstenot, iemācoties spēlēt kādu mūzikas instrumentu. Citādi pie mērķa – Hendeļa paraugi – tikt grūti. Kad profesors Romualds Kalsons [4] 2000. gada 8. janvārī bijušajā Valmieras Komercskolā [5] IX Senās mūzikas festivāla ietvaros brīdi pēc plkst. 19 pirmatskaņoja savu miniatūru ciklu "Lielā Baha pavēnī", "Banka Baltija" jau sešus gadus kā bija bankrotējusi. Arī "Smashing Pumpkins" [6] jau 7. janvārī bija nospēlējuši savu koncertu Stokholmas cirka arēnā un atpūtās pirms ceļa uz Kopenhāgenu. Tajā pašā koncertā izskanēja arī šo rindu autora skaņdarbi, kurus profesors noklausījās un pēc koncerta sarunā uzaicināja atbraukt uz Mūzikas akadēmijas [7] kompozīcijas konsultācijām. Pirmajā stundā profesors izteica savu slaveno frāzi: "Kristap, mākslā – par visu naudu!" Šim viņa izteikumam bija gruntīgs segums. Profesors "Bankā Baltija" bija zaudējis honorāru par savu mūža darbu – operu "Pazudušais dēls". Pedagogs, kurš šādi testējis savu mācību stiprību, manuprāt, droši var mācīt citus. Es kļuvu par viņa skolnieku. Naudas man bija vien tik, cik apēšanai, bet "Laimas" konfekšu kastes, konjaks vai dolāri – pie profesora Kalsona nekas no tā nebija vajadzīgs. Bija vajadzīgs mācīties no labiem paraugiem un eksperimentēt, kaut uguņošanu sarīkojot, kad bez tās garlaicīgi. Radās šī iespēja vienkārša principa dēļ. Senās mūzikas festivālā Valmierā kopā ar izcilākajiem sava aroda meistariem uzstājās arī mācekļi – pat tādi, kas tikko sākuši spert pirmos soļus mūzikā. Šis ir paraugs, kas arī lietojams valsts pārvaldē – meistari un mācekļi kopā vienā koncertā – gluži kā senos laikos gleznotājs Van Deiks [8] ar savu mācekļu svītu. Bet Valmierā visi – pat vismazākie dalībnieki – tika arī nosaukti vārdā, jo citādi būtu garlaicīgi – visu laiku tikai es, es, es. "Die tiefe Langeweile in den Abgrundendes Daseins wie ein schweigender Nebel hin- und herziehend, ruckt alle Dinge, Menschen und einen selbst mit ihnen in eine merkwurdige Gleichgultigkeit zusammen. Diese Langeweile offenbart das Seiende im Ganzen." (Martins Heidegers) [9] "Dziļa garlaicība, kas klīst mūsu eksistences bezdibeņos kā klusināta migla, ieskauj lietas un cilvēkus, arī mūsu patību, īstenā vienaldzībā. Šī garlaicība atklāj esamību tās pilnībā." [11] Avoti Raksts sagatavots, izmantojot Oksfordas mūzikas vārdnīcas, portāla concertarchives.org, Valmieras integrētās bibliotēkas, Valmieras zonālā Valsts arhīva un Valmieras muzeja materiālus [1] Händel, Georg Friedrich (dzimis Hallē 1685. g. – miris Londonā 1759. g.) vācu izcelsmes komponists un ērģelnieks, britu pilsonis [2] Telemann, Georg Philipp (dzimis Magdeburgā 1681. g. – miris Hamburgā 1767. g.) vācu komponists un ērģelnieks [3] tulkojumā – "Skaitīts, skaitīts, svērts, dalīts" [4] Kalsons, Romualds (dzimis Rīgā 1936. g. – miris Rīgā 2024. g.) viens no izcilākajiem latviešu komponistiem, viņš darbojies teju visos akadēmiskās mūzikas žanros, īpaša vieta viņa daiļradē latviešu folklorai un latviskai tēlainībai vispār, viens no izcilākajiem instrumentācijas meistariem, fenomenāls pedagogs [5] tagad Valmieras 5. vidusskola [6] amerikāņu rokgrupa no Čikāgas, izveidojusies 1988. g. [7] pašreizējais nosaukums – Jāzepa Vītola Latvijas Mūzikas akadēmija – iegūts ar LPSR Ministru Padomes 24.08.1990. lēmumu, pirms tam to sauca – Jāzepa Vītola Latvijas Valsts konservatorija [8] van Dyck, Anthony (dzimis Antverpenē 1599. g. – miris Londonā 1641. g.) flāmu gleznotājs [9] Heidegger, Martin (dzimis Meskirhē 1889. g. – miris Freiburgā 1976. g.) vācu filozofs, viens no vācu eksistenciālisma pamatlicējiem; citāts no Heidegger M. lekcijas "Kas ir metafizika", 1929 ("Was ist Metaphysik?", 1929, Wegmarken (GA 9)) [10] Ievas Ginteres tulkojums

Piše Andraž Stevanovski, bereta Aleksander Golja in Eva Longyka Marušič. Pesniška zbirka Stojana Špegla Levitev tišine se umešča v tisti del sodobne slovenske poezije, ki zavestno zavrača komunikativnost, izpovednost in potrebo po razlagi. Špeglova lirika nagovarja bralca izjemno subtilno, saj mu ne ponuja vstopne točke, pač pa vzpostavi zadržan, skoraj zaprt prostor jezika. Njena govorica je krožna, umirjena in slogovno izrazito poenotena. Ta poenotenost zbirki hkrati omogoča natančnost in jo omejuje. Zbirko zaznamuje ponavljanje sorodnih motivov – pepela, vetra, zemlje, ptice, svetlobe in vilinskega konjička –, ki se razporejajo v rahlo spremenjenih razmerjih v organskem razvojnem loku. Pesmi ne delujejo kot zaporedje stanj ali misli, temveč kot dolgotrajno vztrajanje v istem območju zaznave. Bralec je postavljen pred vprašanje, koliko variacij je še mogočih znotraj enega registra in kdaj se ponavljanje začne zapirati samo vase. Prav tu se pokaže temeljna kritiška dilema zbirke: ali ponavljanje še odpira pomen ali pa ga že utrjuje? Takšna poetika se približuje tistemu, kar je Heidegger razumel kot razkrivanje biti, ki se nikoli ne pokaže v celoti, saj se hkrati kaže in umika. Jezik v Levitvi tišine ni sredstvo poimenovanja, ampak je prostor zadržka. Zbirka je tako nekakšna hiša jezika, v kateri je svet zgolj nakazan. A če Heidegger v tem umiku vidi možnost resnice, se ob tej zbirki lahko porodi vprašanje, ali se zadržek ves čas še kaže kot ontološki pogoj ali pa na določeni točki že začne delovati kot estetska zaščita pred drznostjo. Na primer v verzih: »jutranjica objema grebene, / – molk – / solze dreves razkoljejo kamen, / vsi drobci na tleh / so bili nekoč gora«. Takšni verzi vzpostavijo pomen kot nekaj izmuzljivega in nestabilnega. Beseda ne zapre pomena, temveč nasprotno: ga pusti odprtega, kar se lahko bere v navezavi na Derridajevo misel sledi, po kateri pomen nikoli ni v celoti prisoten, temveč se vedno odmika lastni polnosti in tvornosti, kar pomeni, da ostaja v gibanju in razliki. Je pa to hkrati tudi hoja po tankem ledu, saj ob dosledni repeticiji podobnih postopkov ta izmik lahko začne postajati prepoznaven slogovni znak, kar pa lahko potem postane vprašanje bralčeve vztrajnosti. Takšna slogovna suspenzija, kot nam jo podaja Špeglova Levitev tišine, je izraz izjemne discipline. V tej izčiščeno izpisani zbirki ni odvečnih potez ali naključnih mest. Vsak verz deluje premišljeno, skoraj izmerjeno. In prav ta ostrina razlikuje Špeglovo pisavo od številnih sodobnih poskusov hermetičnosti, ki pogosto zdrsnejo v meglenost ali arbitrarno zaprtost. Špegel je slog v zbirki dosledno in precizno izpilil, izrezal. To zahteva velikanski nadzor nad jezikom in podobami. In v tem smislu zbirka deluje zrelo in suvereno, saj ne tipa meje, ampak jasno ve, kje se želi ustaviti. Pomembno je tudi to, da narava v zbirki ni metafora notranjega sveta. Ne gre za romantično projiciranje čustev v pokrajino, kot smo nekako navajeni v zgodovini poezije, pač pa se zgodi obrat perspektive: človek se pojavi kot ena izmed oblik naravnega dogajanja, brez privilegiranega položaja. Subjekt ni središče smisla, ampak le sled; govor ni izraz notranjosti, ampak je le odziv na pritisk sveta, ki obstaja neodvisno od človekove volje. Torej kot nekaj, kar se zgodi, ne kot nekaj, kar bi človek nadzoroval. Ta odločitev je dosledna in premišljena, vendar hkrati na nek način tvegana, saj se lahko bere tudi kot zožitev razpona možnih napetosti. Pomembno je tudi vprašanje časovnosti. Zbirka Levitev tišine gradi napetost skozi kroženje. Čas kot da v zbirki zgolj je. Branje tako daje občutek neznanskega trajanja, ki se ne izteče v sklep. To zahteva bralni režim, ki od bralca terja potrpežljivost in pripravljenost na počasnost, obenem pa omeji možnost, da bi se pomen vzpostavil skozi kontrast ali preskok. Avtorjeva likovna izkušnja – Špegel je namreč likovni umetnik – je v zbirki jasno zaznavna. Pesmi so komponirane kot izjemno izostrene vizualne enote. Verz pogosto deluje kot rez v prostoru in času, kjer pride do izraza gibanje v naravi, kar je sicer pogosto prezrto. To daje zbirki arhitekturno stabilnost in hkrati meditativno dinamiko. So si pa pesmi tako sorodne, da proti koncu zbirke ni več povsem jasno, ali nova pesem še odpira razmerje ali zgolj potrjuje že vzpostavljeno metodo. V kontekstu sodobne slovenske poezije, ki pogosto išče bodisi izrazito izpovednost bodisi neposredno družbeno gesto, zavzema Levitev tišine izrazito drugačno držo. Neangažiranost zbirke ni brezbrižnost, temveč zavrnitev instrumentalnega govora. A tudi ta zavrnitev ima svojo ceno: zbirka se umakne iz dialoga s sedanjostjo in ostaja zaprta v lastno problemsko polje, ki pa razmišljujočemu bralcu kljub temu lahko odpre prostor za razmislek ali kontemplacijo o biti vsega, kar je. Levitev tišine je zato zbirka, ki zavestno tvega zamejitev. Njena doslednost je rezultat odločitve, in ne pomanjkanja. Ta odločitev sicer pomeni, da zbirka ostaja v enem samem tonalnem območju, brez večjega notranjega nihanja, kar bo za nekatere naslovnike znak zrelosti in resnosti, za druge pa omejitev, ki preprečuje, da bi se poetika resnično preizkusila. Pri tem se zastavi tudi vprašanje bralne etike, ki jo zbirka implicira. Levitev tišine od bralca ne zahteva samo tankočutne pozornosti, temveč tudi določeno odpoved – predvsem odpoved pričakovanju, da bo besedilo vodilo, razlagalo ali usmerjalo branje. Branje postane vaja v zadržku, kar ni nevtralna odločitev. Zbirka s tem predpostavlja izurjenega bralca, ki je pripravljen sprejeti, da se pomen ne razpira v razlagi, temveč v ponavljanju. Ta zahteva je legitimna, a tudi izključujoča, saj se besedilo zavestno odreka dialogu z manj potrpežljivim ali manj teoretsko podkovanim naslovnikom. V tem smislu zbirka ni elitistična po intenci, temveč po učinku, to pa je pomembna, a redko eksplicitno naslovljena razsežnost neke poetike. Špeglova Levitev tišine je poezija, ki ne išče odziva in ne ponuja razlage. Njena vrednost je v vztrajanju in natančnosti, njena šibkost pa v tem, da vztrajanje ne prerašča v tveganje. Levitev tišine ostaja premišljena, arhitekturno stabilna in resna zbirka, ki pa se zavestno odpoveduje možnosti, da bi lastno doslednost tudi resno preizkusila.

The German philosopher Martin Heidegger argued that human existence is grounded in meaningful relationships to things. When we lose these relationships, we lose nothing less than the world.... 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/

En un contexto marcado por la prisa, la hiperconexión y una ventana de atención cada vez más estrecha, dedicamos estas recomendaciones culturales de febrero a pensar el encierro no como castigo, sino como condición cultural y creativa. A partir de libros, películas, música y experiencias personales, Tommaso Koch, Sergio C. Fanjul y Jimena Marcos conversan sobre la posibilidad (y el privilegio) de parar el mundo para pensar, escribir o simplemente... estar. Desde las cabañas de filósofos como Wittgenstein o Heidegger hasta los encierros forzados para componer música o que sirven como inspiración para videojuegos. La conversación se amplía con las aportaciones de la diseñadora gráfica Laura Millán para descubrirnos el “ephemera” en el cine y la periodista Selva Vargas trasladará el debate a otros lenguajes y soportes. ¿Quién puede permitirse el tiempo y el silencio necesarios para crear? ¿qué queda dentro y fuera del encierro? Algunas de las recomendaciones que encontrarás en el podcast: Coloquio de invierno (Tusquets) de Luis Landero Los ensayos (Editorial Acantilado) de Michel de Montaigne suma noche (Ediciones Godall) de Blanca Morel El videojuego Blue Prince Un cuarto propio conectado: (ciber) espacio y (auto)gestión del yo (Fórcola Ediciones) de Remedios Zafra Saída Game de Arthur Moura Campos CRÉDITOS: Realizan: Tommaso Koch y Jimena Marcos Diseño de sonido: Nicolás Tsabertidis Coordina: José Juan Morales Dirige: Ana Alonso Sintonía: Jorge Magaz Si tienes quejas, dudas o sugerencias, escribe a defensora@elpais.es o manda un audio a +34 649362138 (no atiende llamadas).

Langeweile gilt oft als belangloses Gefühl oder als persönliches Versagen. Doch was, wenn sie ein ernstzunehmendes Signal ist? In dieser Pudelkern-Folge sprechen Albert und Jan mit der Soziologin und Langeweile-Forscherin Dr. Silke Ohlmeier über ein Gefühl, das unangenehm ist und gerade deshalb viel über unser Leben verrät. Silke erklärt, warum Langeweile nicht einfach „nichts zu tun haben“ bedeutet, sondern entsteht, wenn wir tätig sein wollen, es aber nicht können: wenn Sinn, Selbstwirksamkeit und innere Stimmigkeit fehlen. Im Gespräch geht es um situative und chronische Langeweile, um ihre psychologischen und gesellschaftlichen Ursachen und um die Frage, warum Langeweile ungleich verteilt ist. Die Philosophie liefert dabei Tiefenschärfe: von der existenziellen Leere bei Kierkegaard und Heidegger bis zur stoischen Kunst, Unvermeidliches auszuhalten. Eine Folge über Sinnverlust und Sinnsuche, über Muße und Überforderung und darüber, warum Langeweile kein Makel ist, sondern ein Hinweis darauf, dass etwas Wesentliches fehlt.

Sheldon, Tom and Jeff are back for another awesome episode of the podcast! I absolutely love hosting these guys! We spoke about how death awareness quietly shapes human behaviour, culture, and politics, drawing on their decades of research and insights from The Worm at the Core. We explored societal instability, economic inequality, and theories of cultural collapse, including Peter Turchin's work on income inequality and relative deprivation, and how shrinking opportunities and mass media fuel dissatisfaction and ideological division. Then we turned to Heidegger's ideas on authenticity, inauthenticity, and how humans respond to mortality—whether through flight from death or living with what he called anticipatory resoluteness. From there, we discussed emerging neuroscience research on death reminders, and the role of practices like mindfulness and meditation in shaping our responses to mortality.From a therapeutic perspective, we spoke about death anxiety in psychotherapy, whether it tends to appear directly in the therapy room or remain embedded in cultural, religious, and ideological belief systems. We explored whether practices like meditation or psychedelic therapy can genuinely transform our relationship with death, or whether fear of death is something humans continually manage rather than overcome. Finally, we spoke about the broader implications of Terror Management Theory—how cultural worldviews help us cope with mortality, but can also lead to rigidity, conflict, and dehumanisation when threatened. We closed with reflections on existential maturity, humility, and whether cultivating pro-social values offers a more humane way of living with the knowledge that we will die.***Sheldon Solomon is a social psychologist and Professor Emeritus at Skidmore College. He is one of the co-founders of Terror Management Theory and has spent over four decades researching how awareness of death influences human behaviour, morality, and culture. He is co-author of The Worm at the Core: On the Role of Death in Life.Jeff Greenberg is a social psychologist and Professor Emeritus at the University of Arizona. As a co-founder of Terror Management Theory, his research explores the psychological functions of self-esteem, cultural worldviews, and meaning in the face of mortality. He is also co-author of The Worm at the Core.Tom Pyszczynski is a social psychologist and Professor Emeritus at the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs. A co-founder of Terror Management Theory, his work focuses on how existential anxiety shapes ideology, prejudice, and self-regulation. He has published extensively on death anxiety, worldview defence, and existential motivation.***The Mind Mate Podcast explores the human condition at the intersection of philosophy and psychotherapy. Hosted by counsellor and psychotherapist Tom Ahern, the podcast engages deeply with questions of meaning, anxiety, freedom, identity, death, love, and what it means to live authentically in the modern world. Find out more here: https://ahern.blog/

Många har grubblat över existensens själva existens. Helena Granström ansluter sig skaran. Lyssna på alla avsnitt i Sveriges Radios app. ESSÄ: Detta är en text där skribenten reflekterar över ett ämne eller ett verk. Åsikter som uttrycks är skribentens egna.Om man ska tro filosofen Arthur Schopenhauer, erbjuder universum en lika pockande som gäckande gåta för varje tänkande person: ”Ju lägre stående en människa är i intellektuellt avseende, desto mindre förbryllande och mystisk ter sig själva existensen för henne.” Det vill säga: Har man bara något bakom pannbenet, så inser man att tillvaron är obegriplig: inte bara till sin natur, utan i det att den alls finns.Ska man tro honom? Tja, den som önskar belägg för hans tes kan i alla fall utan svårighet finna en uppsjö av intellektuellt ambitiösa personer som upptagits just av bryderier över existensens själva existens.1700-talstänkaren Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, till exempel, som efter att ha fastslagit sin berömda princip att varje sakförhållande också kan ges en fullständig förklaring, konstaterade att den första fråga som därpå infann sig var: ”Varför finns det något, snarare än ingenting?”En formulering som drygt två sekler senare ekade hos hans tyske kollega Martin Heidegger som också han ansattes av frågan: ”Varför är överhuvudtaget något varande, och inte snarare intet?”Han man väl låtit sig upptas av denna undran, bleknar alla andra gåtor bort i dess bländande sken. Som ett annat högstående intellekt vid namn Ludvig Wittgenstein formulerat det är det mystiska ”inte hur världen är, utan att den är”.Och varför är den då?Det visar sig att frågan har minst lika många svar som den har möjliga invändningar mot de givna svaren – som den har möjliga underkännanden av själva frågan.Till att börja med kan man ju undra hur ett tillfredsställande svar skulle kunna se ut? Vilken orsak till världens existens skulle inte i sin tur kräva en orsak, så att man i slutändan inte hade åstadkommit något alls?Leibniz själv tyckte sig kunna besvara frågan så snart han ställt den: Orsaken till världens existens är Gud.Jaha. Men vad är i så fall orsaken till att Gud finns?Jo, svarar Leibniz, det är Gud.Vilket är det som i Leibniz mening skiljer Gud och universum åt: Universum hade lika gärna inte kunnat existera, och därför kräver dess existens en förklaring. Gud, däremot, utgör sin egen nödvändighet: I Guds identitet, ingår egenskapen att han existerar. Orsaken till att Gud finns är Gud.Ett besläktat argument är det som går under det arabiska namnet Kalam, och som gör gällande att universum behöver förklaras eftersom det en gång har uppstått, medan Gud är ett tidlöst väsen som alltid har funnits, och som sådant kan förbli oförklarat.Utifrån ett sådant resonemang kan den kosmologiska teorin om världsalltets födelse i Big Bang för knappt 14 miljarder år sedan med en del god vilja betraktas som belägg för en övernaturlig varelses inblandning. Men å andra sidan kan man invända att de flesta varianter av Big Bang-modellen gör gällande att tiden uppstod först i och med ursmällen, så att universum faktiskt visst alltid har existerat, om man med alltid menar ”vid alla ögonblick i tiden”.Och därmed har man gett sig in på fysikernas försök att besvara den uppenbarligen svårbesvarade frågan om orsaken till världens existens. Varför något snarare än intet? Vad sägs om svaret: ”Därför att ett instabilt vakuum uppstod som en fluktuation i den absoluta intigheten, som i fysikaliska termer kan beskrivas som en sluten fyrdimensionell rumtid med radien noll. Detta vakuum genomsyrades av kvantfält vars fluktuationer i sin tur sådde fröet till det universum vi ser idag”?Ja, det får åtminstone mig att undra om allt ståhej kring frågan om existensens orsak åtminstone till viss del är ett resultat av de högtstående intellektens tendens att intellektualisera lite för mycket?För hur mycket har det intet som enligt Heidegger gör sig påmint i stunder av bottenlös förtvivlan eller oförstörd lycka, egentligen att göra med den teoretiska fysikens bild av ett universum som ännu inte finns? Kanske faktiskt nästan – intet?Men en sak kan man i alla fall säga om fysikernas rumtid utan utsträckning: Den är verkligen intet, mer intet än en tom rumtid, mer intet än ett tomt rum utan tid, mer intet än – ja, det mesta. Det enda som måste sägas ha funnits från början i denna modell är de naturlagar som tillåter ett kvantfält att tunnla fram ur detta totala intet. Men på vilket sätt fanns i så fall de?Frågan om varför det finns något för oss alltså oförhappandes vidare till frågan om huruvida fysikens lagar existerar inte bara oberoende av den mänskliga tanken, utan till och med oberoende av att det finns någon fysikalisk tillvaro som de kan beskriva. Och där har vi hamnat utan att vad det verkar ha kommit så särskilt mycket närmare ett svar på frågan om varför något existerar alls.Och ju mer man tänker på saken, desto mindre uppenbart tycks det att upptagenheten vid denna fråga är tecken på intellektuell finess. Är den i själva verket inte, som redan Immanuel Kant ville göra gällande, bara en effekt av att ha utvidgat idén om orsak och verkan längre än vad som är rimligt? Oavsett hur naturlig kausaliteten ter sig för oss, finns det nämligen mycket som tyder på att den inte gäller på de minsta partiklarnas kvantmekaniska nivå, och att universums födelse var en händelse då kvantmekaniken spelade roll har vi mycket goda skäl att tro. Och dessutom: Om tiden uppstod först i och med den stora smällen, hur är det möjligt att tala om en orsak som föregår den? Är det något som behövs för att orsakssamband ska kunna upprättas är det väl tid.För den som vill gå ännu djupare i sin kritik av frågan om varför något istället för intet, finns inte heller några hinder. Varför tycker vi exempelvis att existensen av något behöver motiveras, men inte existensen av intet? Varför ska intigheten på detta vis betraktas som ett naturligt grundtillstånd? Enligt filosofen Adolf Grünbaum är det ingen slump att frågan började ställas först i den moderna eran: De gamla grekerna upptogs inte av den, och inte heller antika indiska tänkare. Skälet? De var inte fostrade i den kristna tro som postulerar en skapelse ur intet, ex nihilo. Först i och med den kristna läran om en allsmäktig gud som häver existensen upp ur intet och därefter oupphörligt verkar för att upprätthålla den, skulle vi inte vara så övertygade om att varje avvikelse från intigheten kräver en förklaring. Detta alltså enligt Grünbaum. Som matematiker är jag också frestad att inflika att det finns många fler sätt att existera på, än det finns att inte existera på, vilket väl i sig är en sorts statistiskt argument för någontinget. Kanske är frågan om varför världen är i själva verket ett skenproblem?Ja, vem vet. Men hur som helst finns det också, vad Schopenhauer än påstod, tänkande personer som intar en helt annan hållning till problematiken än den djupsinnigt grubblande. Som exempelvis filosofen Sidney Morgenbesser, som när den eviga frågan ställdes till honom helt sonika snäste ifrån: ”Äsch! Även om det fanns intet skulle ni säkert inte vara nöjda ändå!”Helena Granströmförfattare med bakgrund inom fysik och matematikLitteraturJim Holt – Why does the world exist? (Liveright, 2012) Niayesh Afshordi och Phil Halper – Battle of the big bang (University of Chicago Press, 2025) Thomas Hertog – Om tidens uppkomst (Fri Tanke, 2023) Philip Goff – Meningen med universum (Fri Tanke, 2025)

Professor Mazviita Chirimuuta joins us for a fascinating deep dive into the philosophy of neuroscience and what it really means to understand the mind.*What can neuroscience actually tell us about how the mind works?* In this thought-provoking conversation, we explore the hidden assumptions behind computational theories of the brain, the limits of scientific abstraction, and why the question of machine consciousness might be more complicated than AI researchers assume.Mazviita, author of *The Brain Abstracted,* brings a unique perspective shaped by her background in both neuroscience research and philosophy. She challenges us to think critically about the metaphors we use to understand cognition — from the reflex theory of the late 19th century to today's dominant view of the brain as a computer.*Key topics explored:**The problem of oversimplification* — Why scientific models necessarily leave things out, and how this can sometimes lead entire fields astray. The cautionary tale of reflex theory shows how elegant explanations can blind us to biological complexity.*Is the brain really a computer?* — Mazviita unpacks the philosophical assumptions behind computational neuroscience and asks: if we can model anything computationally, what makes brains special? The answer might challenge everything you thought you knew about AI.*Haptic realism* — A fresh way of thinking about scientific knowledge that emphasizes interaction over passive observation. Knowledge isn't about reading the "source code of the universe" — it's something we actively construct through engagement with the world.*Why embodiment matters for understanding* — Can a disembodied language model truly understand? Mazviita makes a compelling case that human cognition is deeply entangled with our sensory-motor engagement and biological existence in ways that can't simply be abstracted away.*Technology and human finitude* — Drawing on Heidegger, we discuss how the dream of transcending our physical limitations through technology might reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be a knower.This conversation is essential viewing for anyone interested in AI, consciousness, philosophy of mind, or the future of cognitive science. Whether you're skeptical of strong AI claims or a true believer in machine consciousness, Mazviita's careful philosophical analysis will give you new tools for thinking through these profound questions.---TIMESTAMPS:00:00:00 The Problem of Generalizing Neuroscience00:02:51 Abstraction vs. Idealization: The "Kaleidoscope"00:05:39 Platonism in AI: Discovering or Inventing Patterns?00:09:42 When Simplification Fails: The Reflex Theory00:12:23 Behaviorism and the "Black Box" Trap00:14:20 Haptic Realism: Knowledge Through Interaction00:20:23 Is Nature Protean? The Myth of Converging Truth00:23:23 The Computational Theory of Mind: A Useful Fiction?00:27:25 Biological Constraints: Why Brains Aren't Just Neural Nets00:31:01 Agency, Distal Causes, and Dennett's Stances00:37:13 Searle's Challenge: Causal Powers and Understanding00:41:58 Heidegger's Warning & The Experiment on Children---REFERENCES:Book:[00:01:28] The Brain Abstractedhttps://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262548045/the-brain-abstracted/[00:11:05] The Integrated Action of the Nervous Systemhttps://www.amazon.sg/integrative-action-nervous-system/dp/9354179029[00:18:15] The Quest for Certainty (Dewey)https://www.amazon.com/Quest-Certainty-Relation-Knowledge-Lectures/dp/0399501916[00:19:45] Realism for Realistic People (Chang)https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/realism-for-realistic-people/ACC93A7F03B15AA4D6F3A466E3FC5AB7---RESCRIPT:https://app.rescript.info/public/share/A6cZ1TY35p8ORMmYCWNBI0no9ChU3-Kx7dPXGJURvZ0PDF Transcript:https://app.rescript.info/api/public/sessions/0fb7767e066cf712/pdf

Je pojem duše dnes ešte adekvátny, alebo je presnejšie hovoriť o slobode a determinizme? Aký je rozdiel medzi filozofiou a vedou a prečo Heidegger tvrdil, že len filozofia myslí, zatiaľ čo veda nie? V čom je problematická karteziánska predstava tela a duše ako dvoch radikálne odlišných vecí a čo nové nás naučila v tejto veci plasticita mozgu? O týchto a ďalších otázkach sa Jakub rozpráva s českým filozofom Petrom Koubom.----more----

Since 2020 there has been a sizeable reconfiguration of political lines, with new poles shaping up to replace left and right. Specifically, differing strains of a kind of conservative nationalism replacing the traditional right and liberalised globalism replacing the traditional left.We discuss those emerging configurations, the new American empire's tendency towards realism, Heidegger, and technology as the central question of modernity, as well as how concepts like ‘human rights' and ‘moral relativism' are out of date, with potentially even ‘democracy' soon for the chopping block.Plus, Gen Z's realist approach to transgendersism, the recognition of Somaliland, human rights law's failure around sanctions, Ed Miliband as future PM, monarchy, anti-sexist workshops for boys in school, and having to wait years for institutions to catch-up with discourse already evident via technology.

Are we living in the moment? Are we really free? How can we transcend the constant anxieties of our mind? Throughout history, certain people in the West and the East have claimed that the human mind could reach states of so-called higher consciousness. In the twentieth century, several thinkers like Heidegger and Nietzsche returned to this possibility, trying to find the higher regions of the mind. Join Oxford philosopher Jessica Frazier as she explores tales of higher states of mind, and debates whether these experiences are scientific, spiritual, or pure esoteric imagination.Please do email us at podcast@iai.tv with any of your thoughts or questions on the episode!To witness such debates live buy tickets for our upcoming festival: https://howthelightgetsin.org/festivals/And visit our website for many more articles, videos, and podcasts like this one: https://iai.tv/You can find everything we referenced here: https://linktr.ee/philosophyforourtimesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The Story Science Forgot: Why Psychotherapy Needs Narrative More Than Ever by Joel Blackstock LICSW-S MSW PIP no. 4135C-S | Dec 15, 2025 | 0 comments Joseph Campbell is arguably one of the most influential intellectuals of the twentieth century. If you have watched a Marvel movie or read a modern fantasy novel or sat in a screenwriter's workshop you have encountered his fingerprints. George Lucas explicitly credited Campbell's The Hero with a Thousand Faces as the structural backbone of Star Wars. Every major Hollywood studio has copies of his work floating around their development offices. Even filmmakers who actively deconstruct his monomyth model still have to be in conversation with Campbell to do so. You cannot escape him if you are telling stories in the Western tradition. But here is the thing about Joseph Campbell that we need to hold in our minds when we think about what psychology has become. He was a showman. He was a legitimate scholar but also someone who understood that the truth sometimes needs a little theatrical assistance. The Showman and the Bear Bones One of Campbell's favorite presentation techniques involved showing an image of ancient bear bones that were perhaps two million years old and discovered in a cave. The bones had been arranged in a particular way with pieces shoved back into the bear's mouth. Campbell would present this with his characteristic gravitas and explain that the ancients understood that nature must eat of itself. They knew that to take life is to participate in a cyclical loop of giving and receiving. The bear consuming itself was a ritual recognition that we are all food for something else. It is a beautiful interpretation. It is probably even partially true. We know through depth psychology and early anthropology that prehistoric humans were almost certainly trying to make meaning of existential realities. Ritual practices around death and consumption are well documented across cultures. Campbell was not fabricating this from nothing. But also come on Campbell. These are two million year old bones shoved in a hole. Maybe the jaw just collapsed that way. Maybe soil shifted. Maybe an animal disturbed them centuries after burial. He did not know. He could not know. And yet he presented it with the confidence of revealed truth. Here is why this matters. Campbell's influence is incalculable despite his methodological looseness. He told a story that resonated so deeply with something in the human psyche that it became the invisible architecture of our entire entertainment industry. He was not objectively right about those bear bones but he was pointing at something real about how humans make meaning. The story he told about that meaning making was more powerful than any peer reviewed paper could have been. We need to remember this when we think about psychotherapy and what it has become. The Dream I Had and the World I Found When I first entered the field of psychotherapy I had a fantasy. I thought I was going to be Joseph Campbell. I was going to find my way to someplace like Berkeley and immerse myself in the grand conversation between psychology and mythology and anthropology and philosophy. I imagined something like the Esalen Institute in the 1970s where Fritz Perls developed Gestalt therapy and where researchers and mystics and clinicians sat together in hot springs and argued about the nature of consciousness. Those places barely exist anymore. What I found instead was a competitive model built on H-indexes and impact factors. I found academic departments that had been siloed into increasingly narrow specializations. Each department defended its territorial boundaries against incursion from neighboring disciplines. The institute model where a psychologist might spend an afternoon talking to an anthropologist about ritual has been systematically dismantled. What we have instead are specialists who do not read outside their sub specialty and researchers whose entire careers depend on defending one narrow hypothesis. We have an incentive structure that actively punishes the kind of cross pollination that leads to genuine discovery. The Hollow Room: How the Biomedical Model Fails This is not just an academic inconvenience. It is a catastrophe for the human sciences and for the actual treatment of patients. There is a reason Freud stuck around. It is not because psychoanalysis was rigorously validated through randomized controlled trials. It is because as the science writer John Horgan observed old paradigms die only when better paradigms replace them. Freud lives on because science has not produced a theory of and therapy for the mind potent enough to render psychoanalysis obsolete once and for all. The biomedical model promised us a better story. It told us that humans are biological machines and that suffering is just a mechanical malfunction. It promised that if we could just find the right neurotransmitter or the right gene we could fix the machine. But look at what that looks like in practice. It looks like the 15 minute medication management appointment. A person comes in with their life falling apart. They are grieving a divorce or wrestling with the trauma of their childhood or facing a crisis of meaning. And the doctor looks at a checklist. They ask about sleep. They ask about appetite. They ask about energy levels. They treat the symptoms like check engine lights on a dashboard. They prescribe a pill to dim the lights and they send the person away. It looks like manualized Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. This is the gold standard of evidence based treatment. But in the vacuum of a manual it becomes absurd. A patient might be crying about the loss of a child and a therapist who is strictly adhering to the protocol has to redirect them to the agenda for Module 3 which is identifying cognitive distortions. The model has no room for the tragedy of the situation. It only has room for the erroneous thought that the patient is having about the tragedy. The result is that by most measures we are not actually helping people more effectively than we were fifty years ago. To understand the depth of this failure, we must look at the “smoking gun” of the psychiatric establishment: the STAR*D study. For nearly two decades, this massive, taxpayer-funded study was held up as the irrefutable proof that the “medication merry-go-round” worked. It cost $35 million and was cited thousands of times to justify the idea that if a patient didn't get better on one antidepressant, you simply switched them to another, and then another. The study claimed a “cumulative remission rate” of 67%. It told us that two-thirds of people would be cured if they just complied with the protocol. This was a lie built on methodological quicksand. A forensic re-analysis of the data (Pigott et al., 2023) revealed that the researchers had inflated their success rates through a series of stunning methodological sleights of hand. The original design called for the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) to be the primary outcome measure. But when that scale wasn't showing the numbers they wanted, investigators switched to a secondary, unblinded, self-report questionnaire (the QIDS-SR) which painted a rosier picture. Furthermore, the re-analysis exposed that hundreds of patients who dropped out due to side effects were excluded from the failure count, effectively scrubbing the negative data. Even worse, over 900 patients who didn't even meet the minimum severity for depression were included to boost the numbers. When the data was re-analyzed using the study's original criteria and including all participants, the cumulative remission rate plummeted from 67% to 35%. But the most damning statistic is the sustained recovery rate. Of the 4,041 patients who entered the trial, only a tiny fraction achieved remission and actually stayed well. When accounting for dropouts and relapses over the one-year follow-up period, a mere 108 patients achieved remission and stayed well without relapsing. That is a sustained recovery rate of 2.7%. If a heart surgery or cancer treatment had a failure rate of 97.3%, it would be abandoned. Yet, this study was championed by investigators with deep financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry, and the results were codified into clinical guidelines that still rule the profession today. This is the indictment: we have built an entire system of care on a statistical fabrication, prioritizing the protection of the model over the healing of the human. I have big problems with Freud. I have big problems with classical psychoanalysis. I am more of a Jungian. But here is what the depth psychologists understood that the biomedical model forgot. Humans are not just biological machines. We are meaning making creatures who navigate the world through story. When you take away our stories you do not make us more rational. You make us lost. The Flock of Dodos This separation of science from narrative has hurt the researchers too. In his book The Ghost Lab journalist Matt Hongoltz-Hetling uses the flock of dodos metaphor to describe this phenomenon. He argues that specialized creatures that are perfectly adapted to narrow environments become extinct when conditions change. Academic science has become a flock of dodos. A neuroscientist studies one particular brain region. A psychologist studies one particular therapeutic intervention. An anthropologist studies one particular culture. Nobody is allowed to step back and ask what all of this means together. When you silo information into separate academic disciplines instead of organizing it into a holistic understanding you kill the narratives that are already there. You cannot see the story until you step back far enough to recognize the pattern. Heidegger and the AI Bubble One of the primary functions of a subjective narrative in an objective field like psychotherapy is that it lets us start with things we consider self evident. These are things that do not need evidence because they are the ground upon which evidence stands. Things like humanity is important. Things like we contain multiplicities and conflicting parts. Things like consciousness is a mystery. The biomedical model has no way to accommodate these self evident truths because they are not measurable. You cannot run a randomized controlled trial on human dignity. Martin Heidegger understood this trajectory. He warned that science and technology were becoming self justifying systems that asked only whether something could be done and never whether it should be done. We are watching this play out right now with Large Language Models and Artificial Intelligence. The tech industry is boiling seawater and consuming enormous amounts of our remaining resources to build ever larger systems. As Ed Zitron has documented the current AI boom is likely a bubble that will crash and burn. It may leave us with a Google monopoly on Gemini that will not actually help anybody. Should we be doing this? Should we be fundamentally restructuring our economy around technology whose benefits are speculative at best? The Heideggerian answer is that we are not even capable of asking these questions properly because we have lost the narrative framework within which “should” makes sense. When everything is reduced to capability and efficiency the concept of values disappears. The Perennial and the Possible Can we just recognize that having a livable planet is probably a self evidencing goal? Can we recognize that having a psychotherapy willing to engage with perennial philosophy might be more valuable than another meta analysis demonstrating small effect sizes for manualized interventions? This is what I mean by reintroducing narrative. I do not mean replacing evidence with myth. I mean recognizing that the facts do not speak for themselves. Data requires interpretation. Interpretation requires a framework. And frameworks are stories about what matters. The story science forgot is the story of science itself. It is the story of how inquiry emerged from human communities trying to understand their world. We can recover this story. We can rebuild the connections that the academic silos have severed. The path is there. It always has been. We just need to be brave enough to walk it. The Exodus of the Sick If academic science has become a flock of dodos clinical practice has become something arguably worse. It has become a reenactment of the Milgram experiment where the system plays the role of the authority figure and the patient plays the victim. We often remember Stanley Milgram's famous 1961 study as a lesson about the capacity for evil but its deeper lesson was about the capacity for distance. When the subject had to physically touch the victim compliance with the order to harm them dropped to 30 percent. The White Coat only retained its authority when it created a buffer between the human actions and their consequences.   Modern psychotherapy has built a massive administrative White Coat that separates the healer from the healed. This is not just a metaphor. It is a structural reality that is actively driving patients out of the profession and into the arms of pseudoscience. The Bureaucracy as Trauma For a patient in crisis the Evidence Based system often functions as a machine of exclusion. A study on healthcare administrative burdens reveals that the psychological cost of navigating billing and insurance denials and intake forms acts as a friction that hits the most vulnerable the hardest. We ask trauma survivors to retell their stories to three different intake coordinators before they ever see a therapist. This process is itself retraumatizing. When they finally reach a provider they are often met with the biomedical gaze which is a checklist driven assessment that reduces their complex narrative of suffering to a code for billing. As the Australian Psychological Society has noted the chemical imbalance theory and the medicalization of distress have failed to reduce stigma and have instead left patients feeling defective and unheard. The result is a profound Low Trust environment. Theodore Porter in his book Trust in Numbers argues that we only rely on strict mechanical numbers when we do not trust people. We use the DSM and manualized protocols because insurers do not trust clinicians to judge and clinicians do not trust themselves to deviate. The Great Split: Why Research and Practice Are Divorcing This creates a fundamental schism that explains why the profession feels like it is cracking in half. On one side you have the academic researchers who are incentivized by grant funding and publication metrics. To get these rewards they must isolate variables and create reproducible manualized protocols. This means they must strip away the very thing that makes therapy work which is the messy and unrepeatable human relationship. On the other side you have the clinicians who are incentivized by patient outcomes. They are in the room with the messiness. They see that the manualized protocol fails the complex trauma patient so they improvise. They integrate. They use intuition. The academic looks at the clinician and sees a cowboy who ignores the data. The clinician looks at the academic and sees a bureaucrat who has never treated a suicidal patient. This is why the research is no longer informing the practice. We have created two different languages. The researcher speaks in p-values and population averages while the clinician speaks in case studies and individual breakthroughs. Why Pseudoscience Wins the Trust War This low trust environment creates a vacuum that wellness influencers are all too happy to fill. We often mock the public for turning to unverified supplements and TikTok diagnosticians and quantum mysticism. But we have to ask what these influencers are providing that we are not. They are providing narrative. They are providing connection. They are providing a. parasocial yes but still, High Trust experience. A recent analysis suggests that wellness fads thrive not because people are stupid but because the influencers offer a feeling of personal validation that the medical system denies. Even AI chatbots are now being described by users as more humane than doctors because the AI listens to the whole story without looking at a watch or a checklist. When a patient is told by a doctor that their pain is idiopathic or psychosomatic because it does not show up on a lab test and then an influencer tells them I see you and I believe you and here is a story about why this is happening the patient will choose the influencer every time. The trust gap drives them away from care that might actually help and toward solutions that feel good but do nothing. The Clinician's Moral Injury This leaves the ethical psychotherapist in a state of moral injury. We are forced to participate in a system that we know is alienating the very people we are trying to help. We are trained to value the therapeutic alliance or the bond of trust above all else yet we work in a system designed to sever it with paperwork and time limits and standardized protocols. We have to put down the White Coat of administrative distance. We have to stop hiding behind the Evidence Based label when that label is being used to deny the reality of the person in front of us. Proposals for a Unified Future If we want to stop this exodus and heal the split we need specific structural changes. We cannot just hope for better insurance reimbursement. We need to change what we consider valid science. First we must re-legitimize the systematic case study. For a century the detailed narrative of a single patient was the gold standard of learning. We replaced it with the aggregate data of the randomized controlled trial. We need to bring it back. We need journals that publish rigorous detailed accounts of what actually happens in the room when a patient gets better. Second we need to build open source repositories for clinical observation. Currently the wisdom of the field is locked behind for profit paywalls or lost in the private notes of isolated therapists. We need a Wikipedia of Clinical Practice where thousands of clinicians can document what they are seeing in real time. If ten thousand therapists report that somatic processing helps complex trauma that is a data set that rivals any RCT. Third we need to teach philosophy and narrative in graduate school again. We are training technicians when we should be training healers. A therapist who knows how to read a spreadsheet but does not know how to understand a story is useless to a human being in crisis. If we do not offer a therapy that is human and narrative and deeply relational we will continue to lose our patients to those who do even if what they are offering is a lie. The Mirror and the Map: Why Math is a Story We often treat mathematics as if it were the bedrock of reality itself. We act as though a p-value is a piece of the universe, like a rock or a proton. But we must remember that math is not the thing itself. It is a representation of the thing. It is a map, not the territory. It is a mirror, not the face. Theodore Porter's work in Trust in Numbers reminds us that we reach for these mirrors when we do not trust our own eyes. But the mirror is useless without someone to look into it and interpret the reflection. Data by itself is pointless. It is a pile of bricks without an architect. It requires interpretation to become meaning, and interpretation is fundamentally a narrative act. When we try our best to make a purely objective study, we are still telling a story. We are saying, “These numbers represent this phenomenon.” Then another researcher comes along, looks at the same numbers, and tells a different story: “No, they represent that.” This conflict isn't a failure of science; it is science. The Storytellers of Science The greatest breakthroughs in history did not come from people who just crunched numbers. They came from people who could see the story the numbers were trying to tell. These stories are really damn interesting, often stranger and more beautiful than fiction. Consider August Kekulé. He didn't discover the structure of the benzene molecule by staring at a spreadsheet. He discovered it by dreaming of a snake eating its own tail—the Ouroboros. His subjective, narrative brain provided the image that unlocked the objective chemical reality. The data was there, but it needed a myth to make it intelligible. Look at Quantum Physics. The raw math of quantum mechanics is cold and abstract. But when physicists like Erwin Schrödinger or Werner Heisenberg looked at that data, they saw a story about uncertainty, about cats that are both alive and dead, about a universe that only decides what it is when it is observed. They didn't just calculate; they interpreted. They told a story about reality that was so radical it changed how we understand existence. Even in psychology, the data of the “talking cure” was messy and anecdotal until Freud and Jung gave us the language of the Unconscious and the Archetype. Were they objectively “right” in every detail? No. But they gave us a framework—a story—that allowed us to navigate the chaos of the human mind. They provided the map that allowed us to enter the territory. The Final Integration We have spent the last fifty years trying to strip this storytelling capacity out of our profession in a misguided attempt to be taken seriously by the “hard” sciences. In doing so, we have thrown away our most powerful tool. The brain is a story-processing machine. To treat it with checklists and spreadsheets is to deny its fundamental nature. We need to be brave enough to pick up the mirror again. We need to be brave enough to look at the data—whether it's the 2.7% recovery rate of STAR*D or the trembling pupil of a trauma patient—and ask, “What is the story here?” The path forward isn't about choosing between science and narrative. It is about realizing that science is a narrative. It is the grandest, most complex, most rigorous story we have ever tried to tell. And it is time we started telling it properly again.   More @ https://gettherapybirmingham.com/

In this episode of Chasing Leviathan, PJ and Dr. Harris Bechtol discuss the death of the other—and why Western philosophy has largely failed to take it seriously. Drawing from Bechtol's book A Death of the World: Surviving the Death of the Other, the conversation explores how grief, mourning, and loss are not merely private emotions but world-altering events that rupture time, memory, and meaning itself.Together, they examine Martin Heidegger's famous claim that when someone dies we are “merely nearby,” asking whether that view can really account for the lived reality of grief. Engaging thinkers like Heidegger, Derrida, Augustine, and Nicholas Wolterstorff, Dr. Bechtol reframes death as an event—an interruption that transforms the world for those who remain. The episode explores concepts like interruption, disruption, presence-of-absence, transactive memory, and why the loss of a loved one is never confined to a single moment in time.This conversation is especially relevant for anyone wrestling with grief, sudden loss, terminal illness, or the long aftermath of mourning. Rather than offering platitudes or stages to “get over” loss, Dr. Bechtol proposes an ethic of workless mourning—a way of living on after death that remains open to sorrow, surprise, and transformation. Philosophical yet deeply human, this episode speaks to theology, continental philosophy, grief studies, and the existential realities of surviving the death of someone you love.Make sure to check out Dr. Bechtol's book: A Death of the World: Surviving the Death of the Other

What does it mean when a radical understanding of National Socialism is inextricably embedded in the work of the twentieth century's most important philosopher? Martin Heidegger's sympathies for the conservative revolution and National Socialism have long been well known. As the rector of the University of Freiburg in the early 1930s, he worked hard to reshape the university in accordance with National Socialist policies. He also engaged in an all-out struggle to become the movement's philosophical preceptor, "to lead the leader." Yet for years, Heidegger's defenders have tried to separate his political beliefs from his philosophical doctrines. They argued, in effect, that he was good at philosophy but bad at politics. But with the 2014 publication of Heidegger's "Black Notebooks," it has become clear that he embraced a far more radical vision of the conservative revolution than previously suspected. His dissatisfaction with National Socialism, it turns out, was mainly that it did not go far enough.  The notebooks show that far from being separated from Nazism, Heidegger's philosophy was suffused with it. In Heidegger in Ruins: Between Philosophy and Ideology (Yale University Press, 2022), Richard Wolin explores what the notebooks mean for our understanding of arguably the most important philosopher of the twentieth century, and of his ideas--and why his legacy remains radically compromised. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

What does it mean when a radical understanding of National Socialism is inextricably embedded in the work of the twentieth century's most important philosopher? Martin Heidegger's sympathies for the conservative revolution and National Socialism have long been well known. As the rector of the University of Freiburg in the early 1930s, he worked hard to reshape the university in accordance with National Socialist policies. He also engaged in an all-out struggle to become the movement's philosophical preceptor, "to lead the leader." Yet for years, Heidegger's defenders have tried to separate his political beliefs from his philosophical doctrines. They argued, in effect, that he was good at philosophy but bad at politics. But with the 2014 publication of Heidegger's "Black Notebooks," it has become clear that he embraced a far more radical vision of the conservative revolution than previously suspected. His dissatisfaction with National Socialism, it turns out, was mainly that it did not go far enough.  The notebooks show that far from being separated from Nazism, Heidegger's philosophy was suffused with it. In Heidegger in Ruins: Between Philosophy and Ideology (Yale University Press, 2022), Richard Wolin explores what the notebooks mean for our understanding of arguably the most important philosopher of the twentieth century, and of his ideas--and why his legacy remains radically compromised. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/german-studies

What does it mean when a radical understanding of National Socialism is inextricably embedded in the work of the twentieth century's most important philosopher? Martin Heidegger's sympathies for the conservative revolution and National Socialism have long been well known. As the rector of the University of Freiburg in the early 1930s, he worked hard to reshape the university in accordance with National Socialist policies. He also engaged in an all-out struggle to become the movement's philosophical preceptor, "to lead the leader." Yet for years, Heidegger's defenders have tried to separate his political beliefs from his philosophical doctrines. They argued, in effect, that he was good at philosophy but bad at politics. But with the 2014 publication of Heidegger's "Black Notebooks," it has become clear that he embraced a far more radical vision of the conservative revolution than previously suspected. His dissatisfaction with National Socialism, it turns out, was mainly that it did not go far enough.  The notebooks show that far from being separated from Nazism, Heidegger's philosophy was suffused with it. In Heidegger in Ruins: Between Philosophy and Ideology (Yale University Press, 2022), Richard Wolin explores what the notebooks mean for our understanding of arguably the most important philosopher of the twentieth century, and of his ideas--and why his legacy remains radically compromised. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

What does it mean when a radical understanding of National Socialism is inextricably embedded in the work of the twentieth century's most important philosopher? Martin Heidegger's sympathies for the conservative revolution and National Socialism have long been well known. As the rector of the University of Freiburg in the early 1930s, he worked hard to reshape the university in accordance with National Socialist policies. He also engaged in an all-out struggle to become the movement's philosophical preceptor, "to lead the leader." Yet for years, Heidegger's defenders have tried to separate his political beliefs from his philosophical doctrines. They argued, in effect, that he was good at philosophy but bad at politics. But with the 2014 publication of Heidegger's "Black Notebooks," it has become clear that he embraced a far more radical vision of the conservative revolution than previously suspected. His dissatisfaction with National Socialism, it turns out, was mainly that it did not go far enough.  The notebooks show that far from being separated from Nazism, Heidegger's philosophy was suffused with it. In Heidegger in Ruins: Between Philosophy and Ideology (Yale University Press, 2022), Richard Wolin explores what the notebooks mean for our understanding of arguably the most important philosopher of the twentieth century, and of his ideas--and why his legacy remains radically compromised. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory

What does it mean when a radical understanding of National Socialism is inextricably embedded in the work of the twentieth century's most important philosopher? Martin Heidegger's sympathies for the conservative revolution and National Socialism have long been well known. As the rector of the University of Freiburg in the early 1930s, he worked hard to reshape the university in accordance with National Socialist policies. He also engaged in an all-out struggle to become the movement's philosophical preceptor, "to lead the leader." Yet for years, Heidegger's defenders have tried to separate his political beliefs from his philosophical doctrines. They argued, in effect, that he was good at philosophy but bad at politics. But with the 2014 publication of Heidegger's "Black Notebooks," it has become clear that he embraced a far more radical vision of the conservative revolution than previously suspected. His dissatisfaction with National Socialism, it turns out, was mainly that it did not go far enough.  The notebooks show that far from being separated from Nazism, Heidegger's philosophy was suffused with it. In Heidegger in Ruins: Between Philosophy and Ideology (Yale University Press, 2022), Richard Wolin explores what the notebooks mean for our understanding of arguably the most important philosopher of the twentieth century, and of his ideas--and why his legacy remains radically compromised. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/biography

What does it mean when a radical understanding of National Socialism is inextricably embedded in the work of the twentieth century's most important philosopher? Martin Heidegger's sympathies for the conservative revolution and National Socialism have long been well known. As the rector of the University of Freiburg in the early 1930s, he worked hard to reshape the university in accordance with National Socialist policies. He also engaged in an all-out struggle to become the movement's philosophical preceptor, "to lead the leader." Yet for years, Heidegger's defenders have tried to separate his political beliefs from his philosophical doctrines. They argued, in effect, that he was good at philosophy but bad at politics. But with the 2014 publication of Heidegger's "Black Notebooks," it has become clear that he embraced a far more radical vision of the conservative revolution than previously suspected. His dissatisfaction with National Socialism, it turns out, was mainly that it did not go far enough.  The notebooks show that far from being separated from Nazism, Heidegger's philosophy was suffused with it. In Heidegger in Ruins: Between Philosophy and Ideology (Yale University Press, 2022), Richard Wolin explores what the notebooks mean for our understanding of arguably the most important philosopher of the twentieth century, and of his ideas--and why his legacy remains radically compromised. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/european-studies

In Part 2 of our series on intellectualls, Daniel Tutt returns to talk  Bourdieu. Start with the feeling that “merit” is natural and fair—and then watch it fall apart. We take Pierre Bourdieu's sharpest tools—habitus, field, cultural capital, symbolic power—and use them to expose how universities, media, and taste quietly reproduce class while insisting it's all about talent. From Homo Academicus to Distinction to the Algeria studies, we clear up the biggest misconceptions: cultural capital is more than style, symbolic violence is more than rude behavior, and habitus is embodied history adapting to shifting fields.Our conversation travels through the crisis of the scholarly habitus—leisure packaged as labor, prestige buffered by adjunct exploitation—and the awkward truth that DEI can deepen stratification when it diverts resources and legitimizes existing hierarchies. We connect Bourdieu's hysteresis to today's culture wars: fields change fast, bodies adapt slow, and the resulting frustration feeds irrationalism. His study of Heidegger becomes a cautionary tale about stalled elites and seductive anti‑rational philosophies. Meanwhile the working class loses a stable habitus in a gigged‑out economy, making organizing harder and resentment easier to weaponize.We balance Bourdieu with a Marxist insistence on production and power. The best use of his map is practical: reveal the hidden rules, rebuild class independence, and design para‑academic and organizing projects that out‑perform the academy on rigor and relevance. Expect clear definitions, concrete examples, and straight talk on credentialism, elite infighting dressed as populism, and why making class legible again is the first step toward changing material life. If you've ever felt the system deny its own history while sorting your future, this conversation will give you language—and a plan—to push back.If this resonates, follow the show, share the episode with a friend, and leave a review with the sharpest insight you took away. Where do you see symbolic power at work today?Send us a text Musis by Bitterlake, Used with Permission, all rights to BitterlakeSupport the showCrew:Host: C. Derick VarnIntro and Outro Music by Bitter Lake.Intro Video Design: Jason MylesArt Design: Corn and C. Derick VarnLinks and Social Media:twitter: @varnvlogblue sky: @varnvlog.bsky.socialYou can find the additional streams on YoutubeCurrent Patreon at the Sponsor Tier: Jordan Sheldon, Mark J. Matthews, Lindsay Kimbrough, RedWolf, DRV, Kenneth McKee, JY Chan, Matthew Monahan, Parzival, Adriel Mixon, Buddy Roark, Daniel Petrovic,Julian

In this solo episode, I reflect on Lars von Trier's Melancholia—a film often described as dark or depressing, yet one I found strangely clarifying and alive.After briefly situating the film within von Trier's long career, I offer a grounded overview of its structure and themes before moving into deeper psychological and philosophical territory. Drawing on psychoanalysis and existential therapy, I explore how Melancholia portrays depression not simply as pathology, but as a slowing down—a descent into depth in a culture addicted to speed, optimism, and surface meaning.Using the work of James Hillman, Freud, Lacan, and existential thinkers like Kierkegaard and Heidegger, I reflect on melancholia as a confrontation with truth rather than something to be rushed past or fixed. The episode considers what the film can teach us about despair, authenticity, and what remains when familiar structures of meaning fall away.This is an episode about staying with difficult emotions long enough to listen—about refusing easy reassurance in favor of depth, honesty, and presence.

Aldo Intagliata"L'infinito dentro di noi"Sant'AgostinoFusta Editorewww.fustaeditore.itL'autore ha raccolto queste pagine per i numerosi messaggi che l'esperienza così ricca di S. Agostino, tutt'ora vivo, continua a trasmetterci.Sono messaggi validissimi per l'attualità non soltanto del pensiero, ma altresì della forma e del linguaggio sì da combaciare con la nostra esperienza quotidiana.Sui problemi eterni che hanno inquietato l'uomo, Egli ci è maestro e guida; ma anche sui problemi che emergono da particolari e contingenti situazioni, destinate a trascorrere.Nella drammaticità della nostra epoca, almeno in questo siamo privilegiati, perché abbiamo in Sant'Agostino quasi uno specchio che ci aiuta a rientrare in noi stessi, a riscoprire l'Amore che rende leggero tutto ciò che è pesante, rende degna e giustificabile ogni azione e liberi quando è retto.Aurelio Agostino è una delle menti più universali e feconde che la letteratura di ogni tempo e luogo presenti: ed è soprattutto il pensatore che chiude definitivamente l'evo antico ed inaugura l'età medievale e moderna. Ma S. Agostino è anche fuori del tempo e delle età, perchè ha voce perenne per tutti gli uomini, siano o non siano credenti.S. Agostino è “il Platone cristiano” (Chateaubriand, Il Genio del Cristianesimo, cap. III, 15).Aldo Davide Intagliata, allievo di f. Della Corte, di U. albini, di s. Piano e di e. Valgiglio, si è laureato nel 1980 presso l'Università di Genova discutendo una tesi in lingua e letteratura ebraica. È stato citato negli atti del ii Convegno internazionale (Genova, 1015 giugno 1984) nell'estratto da Italia Judaica a p. 290 per la metrica del Castigo dei reprobi, tradotto dall'ebraico, e a p. 293 per l'ampia analisi comparativa fra l'opera letteraria di Mosè Zacuto e l'oratoria sacra del seicento. Nel 1992 ha pubblicato il De oratione (La preghiera) di Tertulliano per Gribaudo come prima traduzione mondiale dell'opera. Ha avuto quattro citazioni internazionali per lo studio di Tertulliano stesso. È stato citato da M. Bettini in Letteratura latina e antropologia romana, vol. 3°, p. 541 (la Nuova italia, firenze 1995); da G. Pontiggia in Letteratura latina, vol. 3°, p. 608 (Principato, Milano 1998); da G. Cipriani in Letteratura latina, vol. 3°, p. 241, (einaudi scuola, Milano 2003); da G. Pontiggia e M.C. Grandi in Letteratura latina (Principato, Milano 2004). Ha pubblicato per Milano stampa: Satura. Il giudizio di E. Montale sul mondo contemporaneo (1996); La Vita Nova di Dante. Una proposta di lettura fra amore mistico e amore cortese (1997); La sfida femminista alla teologia e alla filosofia nel postmoderno (1998); Un mito geografico: il monte della calamita (1999); La New Age (2000). È stato citato dalla rivista internazionale «sapientia» per gli studi storico-filosofici-filologici su Tertulliano. Ha curato inoltre la pubblicazione Bernardino, il santo, il sito Mondovì (1999). Ha tradotto e commentato per Talìa editrice Somnium Scipionis di Cicerone (2001) e Pagine scelte di sant'agostino (2003). Nel 2009 ha pubblicato uno studio sul canto XXVi dell'Inferno di Dante e uno studio di letteratura greca riguardante il conflitto fra ragione e passione nella tragedia greca. Benemerito della Cultura Città di Ceva, medaglia d'oro, 2011. Ha fornito contributo anche per i volumi: Il senso del tragico e la tragedia e Il senso del comico, entrambi usciti per aracne, Roma 2010. È stato citato in seconda pagina come consulente da G. Baldi, s. Giusso, M. Razzetti, G. Zaccaria in I classici nostri contemporanei, Letteratura italiana in 6 volumi (Paravia Pearson, Torino 2016). agli stessi autori ha fornito contributo di consulenza disciplinare e didattica per l'edizione in 4 volumi. G. Garbarino, l. Pasquariello, Dulce ridentem, cultura e letteratura latina, 3 volumi, Paravia Pearson, Torino 2016. P. Biglia, P. Manfredi, a. Terrile, Un incontro inatteso (antologia per il primo biennio, con un ringraziamento particolare ad aldo intagliata con la consulenza, 3 volumi, Paravia Pearson, Torino 2017. A. Terrile, P. Biglia, C. Terrile, Una grande esperienza di sé, Letteratura Italiana, 6 volumi, Paravia Pearson, Torino 2018. A. Terrile, P. Biglia, C. Terrile, Zefiro, Letteratura italiana, 5 volumi, Paravia Pearson, Torino 2018. Per Fusta Editore ha curato la nuova edizione del De oratione, Tertulliano (2009, ristampa 2017); L'infinito dentro di noi, sant'agostino (2018); Somnium Scipionis, Cicerone (2018). Ha inoltre pubblicato un centinaio di articoli di varia cultura su settimanali locali. Diventa un supporter di questo podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/il-posto-delle-parole--1487855/support.IL POSTO DELLE PAROLEascoltare fa pensarehttps://ilpostodelleparole.it/

Science Fiction: Favorite Story “Dr. Heidegger's Experiment” 3/18/48 NBC, X Minus One “Lulugameena” 5/26/56 NBC.

Massimo Salvati"Oblio mucido"Alter Ego Edizioniwww.alteregoedizioni.itGli occhi di Simone sono opachi, segnati da profonde occhiaie, cercano la traccia di qualcosa mentre la muffa invade le pareti e si prende tutto; una notte soltanto e non resterà più niente di visibile, neanche un dettaglio a cui aggrapparsi, neppure una parola che possa far cominciare una storia sempre uguale, ogni volta diversa. Lo specchio non restituisce la realtà, solo la finzione dà conforto: il tempo passato si avvicina, accavallandosi a un presente contaminato da spore bianche dove il futuro non esiste.Salvati apre una finestra sulla psiche, gli enigmi si confondono alle sequenze oniriche sfidando la narrazione tradizionale. L'ambiguità genera una costante inquietudine, un senso di mistero e surrealismo alla David Lynch, un disagio strisciante che non deriva da eventi spaventosi ma dalla percezione che ci sia una verità oscura sotto la superficie delle cose.“La memoria, così come il controllo, è un'utopia: storica e individuale, non fa differenza. Ogni storia è costruita nella menzogna”. In questa crepa tra realtà e finzione si muove il racconto, lasciando che sia il lettore a colmare i vuoti e a scegliere quale sia la sua verità.Massimo Salvati è nato nel 1996. Suoi racconti sono apparsi su “Nazione Indiana”, “Narrandom”, “Rivista Grado Zero” e “Calvario rivista”. Oblio mucido è il suo primo romanzo.Diventa un supporter di questo podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/il-posto-delle-parole--1487855/support.IL POSTO DELLE PAROLEascoltare fa pensarehttps://ilpostodelleparole.it/

Vinicius Lorenzetti é psicanalista, especialista em Psicologia Analítica e Mitologias Comparadas, com formação em Arts & Humanities nos Estados Unidos.Ex-atleta de alta performance, ele transformou sua própria jornada de depressão e reinvenção em um método profundo de autoconhecimento.Vinicius une a filosofia de Heidegger e a psicologia de Jung para explorar o vazio existencial moderno.Ele revela como a "pedra de Sísifo" e a quebra das expectativas familiares podem ser, na verdade, o único caminho para encontrar um sentido real para a vida em uma sociedade ansiosa e desconectada.Patrocinador:Na Rupto ajudamos a suavizar as dores do crescimento e aumentar a margem líquida. Clique no link e veja como implementamos isso.Link: https://rebrand.ly/consultoria-excepcionais-269Disponível no YouTubeLink: https://youtu.be/aw3ECxcLJOoSiga o Dr. Vinicius no Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/viniciuslorenzetti_Nos SigaMarcelo Toledo: https://instagram.com/marcelotoledoInstagram: https://instagram.com/excepcionaispodcastTikTok: https://tiktok.com/@excepcionaispodcast

durée : 00:27:28 - Les Nuits de France Culture - par : Albane Penaranda, Mathias Le Gargasson, Antoine Dhulster - Par Jean Amrouche - Présentation Pierre Desgraupes - Avec Jean Hyppolite (philosophe, spécialiste de Hegel), Maurice Merleau-Ponty (philosophe) et Jean Beaufret (philosophe, spécialiste de Heidegger) - réalisation : Rafik Zénine, Vincent Abouchar, Emily Vallat

What good is aesthetics in a time of ecological crisis? Toward a Premodern Posthumanism: Anarchic Ontologies of Earthly Life in Early Modern France (Northwestern UP, 2025) shows that philosophical aesthetics contains unheeded potentialities for challenging the ontological subjection of nature to the human subject. Drawing on deconstructive, ecological, and biopolitical thought, Chad Córdova uncovers in aesthetics something irreducible to humanist metaphysics: an account of how beings emerge and are interrelated, responsive, and even response-able without reason or why.This anarchic and atelic ontology, recovered from Kant, becomes the guiding thread for a new, premodern trajectory of posthumanism. Charting a path from Aristotle to Heidegger to today's plant-thinking, with new readings of Montaigne, Pascal, Diderot, Rousseau, and others along the way, this capacious study reveals the untimely relevance of pre-1800 practices of writing, science, and art. Enacting a multitemporal mode of reading, Córdova offers a defense and illustration of the importance of returning to early modern texts as a way to rethink nature, art, ethics, and politics in a time when these concepts are in flux and more contentious than ever. Author Chad Córdova is Assistant Professor in the Department of Romance Studies at Cornell University where he is also affiliated faculty in the Department of Environment and Sustainability. In addition to this new book, he is the author of many articles on figures and concepts that appear in this book, such as Montaigne, Kant, and Heidegger—most recently in Essais: Revue interdisciplinaire d'humanités and The Comparitist. Host Gina Stamm is Associate Professor of French at The University of Alabama. Their research is concentrated on the environmental humanities and speculative literatures of the 20th and 21st centuries, from surrealism to contemporary science fiction and feminist utopias, in Metropolitan France and the francophone Caribbean. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

What good is aesthetics in a time of ecological crisis? Toward a Premodern Posthumanism: Anarchic Ontologies of Earthly Life in Early Modern France (Northwestern UP, 2025) shows that philosophical aesthetics contains unheeded potentialities for challenging the ontological subjection of nature to the human subject. Drawing on deconstructive, ecological, and biopolitical thought, Chad Córdova uncovers in aesthetics something irreducible to humanist metaphysics: an account of how beings emerge and are interrelated, responsive, and even response-able without reason or why.This anarchic and atelic ontology, recovered from Kant, becomes the guiding thread for a new, premodern trajectory of posthumanism. Charting a path from Aristotle to Heidegger to today's plant-thinking, with new readings of Montaigne, Pascal, Diderot, Rousseau, and others along the way, this capacious study reveals the untimely relevance of pre-1800 practices of writing, science, and art. Enacting a multitemporal mode of reading, Córdova offers a defense and illustration of the importance of returning to early modern texts as a way to rethink nature, art, ethics, and politics in a time when these concepts are in flux and more contentious than ever. Author Chad Córdova is Assistant Professor in the Department of Romance Studies at Cornell University where he is also affiliated faculty in the Department of Environment and Sustainability. In addition to this new book, he is the author of many articles on figures and concepts that appear in this book, such as Montaigne, Kant, and Heidegger—most recently in Essais: Revue interdisciplinaire d'humanités and The Comparitist. Host Gina Stamm is Associate Professor of French at The University of Alabama. Their research is concentrated on the environmental humanities and speculative literatures of the 20th and 21st centuries, from surrealism to contemporary science fiction and feminist utopias, in Metropolitan France and the francophone Caribbean. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory

What good is aesthetics in a time of ecological crisis? Toward a Premodern Posthumanism: Anarchic Ontologies of Earthly Life in Early Modern France (Northwestern UP, 2025) shows that philosophical aesthetics contains unheeded potentialities for challenging the ontological subjection of nature to the human subject. Drawing on deconstructive, ecological, and biopolitical thought, Chad Córdova uncovers in aesthetics something irreducible to humanist metaphysics: an account of how beings emerge and are interrelated, responsive, and even response-able without reason or why.This anarchic and atelic ontology, recovered from Kant, becomes the guiding thread for a new, premodern trajectory of posthumanism. Charting a path from Aristotle to Heidegger to today's plant-thinking, with new readings of Montaigne, Pascal, Diderot, Rousseau, and others along the way, this capacious study reveals the untimely relevance of pre-1800 practices of writing, science, and art. Enacting a multitemporal mode of reading, Córdova offers a defense and illustration of the importance of returning to early modern texts as a way to rethink nature, art, ethics, and politics in a time when these concepts are in flux and more contentious than ever. Author Chad Córdova is Assistant Professor in the Department of Romance Studies at Cornell University where he is also affiliated faculty in the Department of Environment and Sustainability. In addition to this new book, he is the author of many articles on figures and concepts that appear in this book, such as Montaigne, Kant, and Heidegger—most recently in Essais: Revue interdisciplinaire d'humanités and The Comparitist. Host Gina Stamm is Associate Professor of French at The University of Alabama. Their research is concentrated on the environmental humanities and speculative literatures of the 20th and 21st centuries, from surrealism to contemporary science fiction and feminist utopias, in Metropolitan France and the francophone Caribbean. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/environmental-studies

What good is aesthetics in a time of ecological crisis? Toward a Premodern Posthumanism: Anarchic Ontologies of Earthly Life in Early Modern France (Northwestern UP, 2025) shows that philosophical aesthetics contains unheeded potentialities for challenging the ontological subjection of nature to the human subject. Drawing on deconstructive, ecological, and biopolitical thought, Chad Córdova uncovers in aesthetics something irreducible to humanist metaphysics: an account of how beings emerge and are interrelated, responsive, and even response-able without reason or why.This anarchic and atelic ontology, recovered from Kant, becomes the guiding thread for a new, premodern trajectory of posthumanism. Charting a path from Aristotle to Heidegger to today's plant-thinking, with new readings of Montaigne, Pascal, Diderot, Rousseau, and others along the way, this capacious study reveals the untimely relevance of pre-1800 practices of writing, science, and art. Enacting a multitemporal mode of reading, Córdova offers a defense and illustration of the importance of returning to early modern texts as a way to rethink nature, art, ethics, and politics in a time when these concepts are in flux and more contentious than ever. Author Chad Córdova is Assistant Professor in the Department of Romance Studies at Cornell University where he is also affiliated faculty in the Department of Environment and Sustainability. In addition to this new book, he is the author of many articles on figures and concepts that appear in this book, such as Montaigne, Kant, and Heidegger—most recently in Essais: Revue interdisciplinaire d'humanités and The Comparitist. Host Gina Stamm is Associate Professor of French at The University of Alabama. Their research is concentrated on the environmental humanities and speculative literatures of the 20th and 21st centuries, from surrealism to contemporary science fiction and feminist utopias, in Metropolitan France and the francophone Caribbean. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/french-studies

In this episode of Chasing Leviathan, PJ and Dr. Lambert Zuidervaart discuss his book, Adorno, Heidegger, and the Politics of Truth, tracing how his decades of work on Adorno led to a deep exploration of truth, art, and society. Dr. Zuidervaart explains why Adorno believed art reveals forms of truth that science and philosophy often miss—and how these insights expose what is “untrue” in modern capitalist culture.They unpack Adorno's critique of Hegel's idea that “the true is the whole,” his early engagement with Kierkegaard, and his fierce opposition to Heidegger's language of authenticity. The conversation highlights how education, the culture industry, and advertising shape identity, conformity, and our sense of what is possible.PJ and Dr. Zuidervaart also explore the connections between Adorno and Foucault on truth and power, discuss Freud's influence on Adorno's views of repression and sublimation, and consider whether a more truthful, humane society is still possible. Dr. Zuidervaart closes with an invitation to reflect on what in our society is truly worthwhile—and what must change for human flourishing.Make sure to check out Dr. Zuidervaart's book: Adorno, Heidegger, and the Politics of Truth

Nuestro filósofo Toño Fraguas se detiene a pensar en algo tan esencial como el acto de preguntar. En 1984, el grupo Siniestro Total lanzó una batería de interrogantes que nos invitan a avanzar: ¿Quiénes somos? ¿De dónde venimos? ¿A dónde vamos? ¿Dónde estamos antes de nacer? ¿Dónde vamos después de morir? Preguntas que podrían ocupar toda una vida en busca de respuestas. Sin embargo, hoy el reto es aún más complejo: reflexionar sobre qué significa preguntar en sí mismo.En este camino aparece Martin Heidegger, filósofo alemán tan controvertido como inevitable. En una conferencia pronunciada en 1953 en la Academia Bávara de Bellas Artes, titulada La pregunta por la técnica, Heidegger afirmaba que “preguntar es estar construyendo un camino” y que “ese camino es un camino del pensar”.Escuchar audio

Some academics go into the office every day; some are rarely ever seen on campus. Is one way better than the other? Who better to ask than the brilliant Ella Hafermalz who spent her career on the topic of remote work and its implications for belonging, community, collaboration, and performance. She points out that academia has always been a distributed and flexible profession. Researchers need flexibility and freedom to figure out their own best way of solving problems and doing their work, some of which may mean sitting at a desk, but maybe also involve lab or field work. On the other hand, pure freedom for individual academics makes a university nothing more than a collection of hired guns without a true community. How do we find the best balance and what is a good balance to begin with? Episode reading list Chang, S. (2025): China's unemployed young adults who are pretending to have jobs. BBC News, 11 August 2025, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdd3ep76g3go. Hafermalz, E., & Riemer, K. (2021). Productive and Connected While Working from Home: What Client-facing Remote Workers can Learn from Telenurses about 'Belonging Through Technology'. European Journal of Information Systems, 30(1), 89-99. Huysman, M. (2025). Studying AI in the Wild: Reflections from the AI@Work Research Group. Journal of Management Studies, https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.70021. The Professor and the Madman. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5932728/. Hafermalz, E. (2021). Out of the Panopticon and into Exile: Visibility and Control in Distributed New Culture Organizations. Organization Studies, 42(5), 697–717. Rovelli, C. (2022). Helgoland: The Strange and Beautiful Story of Quantum Physics. Penguin Books. Carroll, S. (2019). Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of Spacetime. Dutton. Sting, F. J., Tarakci, M., & Recker, J. (2024). Performance Implications of Digital Disruption in Strategic Competition. MIS Quarterly, 48(3), 1263-1278. Archive.org: Philosophy 185 Heidegger: Lectures from the course Philosophy 185 Heidegger by Hubert Dreyfus. https://fourble.co.uk/podcast/philosophy185heidegger. Baudrillard, J. (1981). Simulacra and Simulation. University of Michigan Press. Retkowsky, J., Hafermalz, E., & Huysman, M. (2024). Managing a ChatGPT-empowered Workforce: Understanding its Affordances and Side Effects. Business Horizons, 67(5), 511-523. Haubrich, G. F., Soekijad, M., & Hafermalz, E. (2025). 'What's Up with Work?'Bringing Screens into a Theory of Hybrid Working Situations. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.5465/AMPROC.2025.10670abstract. Tekeste, M. (2025). Under Pressure: Becoming the Good Enough Academic. Organization, https://doi.org/10.1177/13505084251383285. LinkedIn Community: The Digital Visibility Group: https://www.linkedin.com/groups/13346086/.

In this episode, Breht speaks with Dr. Richard Wolin, author of Heidegger in Ruins: Between Philosophy and Ideology, about the dark entanglement between Martin Heidegger's philosophy and his lifelong commitment to National Socialism. Heidegger is often hailed as the most important philosopher of the 20th century, yet his work was deeply shaped by the reactionary politics of his time. Wolin explains how Heidegger's central ideas -- Being, Dasein, authenticity, rootedness, and the "decline of the West" -- became intertwined with fascist notions of destiny, hierarchy, and belonging. They discuss the long history of attempts to sanitize Heidegger's record, what the Black Notebooks reveal about his true convictions, the interwar period in Germany and the conservative revolution, Heidegger's spiritual racism, and how the same civilizational despair and longing for renewal echo through today's far-right political movements. This conversation explores how the search for meaning and authenticity, when divorced from solidarity and democracy, can turn toward reactionary myth-making, hierarchical exclusion, and fascist authoritarianism. Check out Dr. Wolin's articles in the LA Review of Books HERE   ---------------------------------------------------- Support Rev Left and get access to bonus episodes: www.patreon.com/revleftradio Make a one-time donation to Rev Left at BuyMeACoffee.com/revleftradio Follow, Subscribe, & Learn more about Rev Left Radio https://revleftradio.com/

In this episode of the podcast, which is a companion to ⁠Affiliate links, personalized ads, and chatbot revenue optimization⁠, I discuss the need for OpenAI to discover a scalable, durable revenue model, given its status as the avatar for artificial intelligence as a transformative economic and social force. I then make the case for why personalized, conversion-optimized advertising is a superior business model for chatbots than affiliate distribution.Thanks to the sponsors of this week's episode of the Mobile Dev Memo podcast:Xsolla. With the Xsolla Web Shop, you can create a direct storefront, cut fees down to as low as 5%, and keep players engaged with bundles, rewards, and analytics.INCRMNTAL⁠⁠. True attribution measures incrementality, always on.Universal Ads is Comcast's self-serve TV ads platform that lets you launch campaigns in minutes across premium inventory from NBC, Paramount, Warner Bros. Discovery, Roku, and more.Interested in sponsoring the Mobile Dev Memo podcast? Contact ⁠Marketecture⁠.

“Olvidamos estar presentes, como un pez que no es consciente del agua en la que nada.”

******Support the channel******Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thedissenterPayPal: paypal.me/thedissenterPayPal Subscription 1 Dollar: https://tinyurl.com/yb3acuuyPayPal Subscription 3 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ybn6bg9lPayPal Subscription 5 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ycmr9gpzPayPal Subscription 10 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y9r3fc9mPayPal Subscription 20 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y95uvkao ******Follow me on******Website: https://www.thedissenter.net/The Dissenter Goodreads list: https://shorturl.at/7BMoBFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/thedissenteryt/Twitter: https://x.com/TheDissenterYT This show is sponsored by Enlites, Learning & Development done differently. Check the website here: http://enlites.com/ Dr. David Cooper is Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at Durham University. He has published across a broad range of philosophical subjects, including philosophy of language, philosophy of education, ethics, aesthetics, environmental philosophy, animal ethics, philosophy of technology, philosophy of religion, history of both Western philosophy and Asian philosophy, and modern European philosophy, especially Heidegger, Nietzsche, and Wittgenstein. He is the author of several books, the most recent one being Pessimism, Quietism and Nature as Refuge. In this episode, we focus on Pessimism, Quietism and Nature as Refuge. We start by discussing what is misanthropy, what is pessimism, and how pessimism combines with misanthropy. We talk about the human condition, and whether it can be improved. We then get into quietism, nature as refuge, and preserving nature.--A HUGE THANK YOU TO MY PATRONS/SUPPORTERS: PER HELGE LARSEN, JERRY MULLER, BERNARDO SEIXAS, ADAM KESSEL, MATTHEW WHITINGBIRD, ARNAUD WOLFF, TIM HOLLOSY, HENRIK AHLENIUS, ROBERT WINDHAGER, RUI INACIO, ZOOP, MARCO NEVES, COLIN HOLBROOK, PHIL KAVANAGH, SAMUEL ANDREEFF, FRANCIS FORDE, TIAGO NUNES, FERGAL CUSSEN, HAL HERZOG, NUNO MACHADO, JONATHAN LEIBRANT, JOÃO LINHARES, STANTON T, SAMUEL CORREA, ERIK HAINES, MARK SMITH, JOÃO EIRA, TOM HUMMEL, SARDUS FRANCE, DAVID SLOAN WILSON, YACILA DEZA-ARAUJO, ROMAIN ROCH, DIEGO LONDOÑO CORREA, YANICK PUNTER, CHARLOTTE BLEASE, NICOLE BARBARO, ADAM HUNT, PAWEL OSTASZEWSKI, NELLEKE BAK, GUY MADISON, GARY G HELLMANN, SAIMA AFZAL, ADRIAN JAEGGI, PAULO TOLENTINO, JOÃO BARBOSA, JULIAN PRICE, HEDIN BRØNNER, DOUGLAS FRY, FRANCA BORTOLOTTI, GABRIEL PONS CORTÈS, URSULA LITZCKE, SCOTT, ZACHARY FISH, TIM DUFFY, SUNNY SMITH, JON WISMAN, WILLIAM BUCKNER, LUKE GLOWACKI, GEORGIOS THEOPHANOUS, CHRIS WILLIAMSON, PETER WOLOSZYN, DAVID WILLIAMS, DIOGO COSTA, ALEX CHAU, CORALIE CHEVALLIER, BANGALORE ATHEISTS, LARRY D. LEE JR., OLD HERRINGBONE, MICHAEL BAILEY, DAN SPERBER, ROBERT GRESSIS, JEFF MCMAHAN, JAKE ZUEHL, BARNABAS RADICS, MARK CAMPBELL, TOMAS DAUBNER, LUKE NISSEN, KIMBERLY JOHNSON, JESSICA NOWICKI, LINDA BRANDIN, VALENTIN STEINMANN, ALEXANDER HUBBARD, BR, JONAS HERTNER, URSULA GOODENOUGH, DAVID PINSOF, SEAN NELSON, MIKE LAVIGNE, JOS KNECHT, LUCY, MANVIR SINGH, PETRA WEIMANN, CAROLA FEEST, MAURO JÚNIOR, 航 豊川, TONY BARRETT, NIKOLAI VISHNEVSKY, STEVEN GANGESTAD, TED FARRIS, HUGO B., JAMES, JORDAN MANSFIELD, CHARLOTTE ALLEN, PETER STOYKO, DAVID TONNER, LEE BECK, PATRICK DALTON-HOLMES, NICK KRASNEY, AND RACHEL ZAK!A SPECIAL THANKS TO MY PRODUCERS, YZAR WEHBE, JIM FRANK, ŁUKASZ STAFINIAK, TOM VANEGDOM, BERNARD HUGUENEY, CURTIS DIXON, BENEDIKT MUELLER, THOMAS TRUMBLE, KATHRINE AND PATRICK TOBIN, JONCARLO MONTENEGRO, NICK GOLDEN, CHRISTINE GLASS, IGOR NIKIFOROVSKI, PER KRAULIS, AND JOSHUA WOOD!AND TO MY EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS, MATTHEW LAVENDER, SERGIU CODREANU, ROSEY, AND GREGORY HASTINGS!

Neste episódio, Marcos Carvalho Lopes rebebe Diego Diehl para uma conversa sobre Enrique Dussel. Nesta edição, exploramos a trajetória rica e transformadora de Dussel, um dos maiores filósofos do nosso tempo. Nascido na Argentina, ele começou influenciado por Heidegger e… Leia mais → O post #236 – Enrique Dussel, com Diego Diehl apareceu primeiro em filosofia pop.

What does Gulliver's Travels have to do with the development of the modern education system? Why does classical scholarship see renewed interests in periods of philosophical interest? Why spend 70 pages on one chapter detailing various components of philosophic history before getting to your point on education? Find out as we continue discussing Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind!Follow us on X!Give us your opinions here!

The British author and journalist Oliver Burkeman has spent decades pondering what it means to live a meaningful life, both in his former Guardian column “This Column WIll Change Your Life” and across several books—most recently, Meditations for Mortals, out in paperback this October. That's why he brings a healthy dose of skepticism to so-called “time management” systems and productivity hacks as a means toward true fulfillment. Burkeman's compelled by the notion that, rather than being separate from time, human beings are time. If people faced the reality of their limited time on the planet head on, he believes there's a real chance to experience greater, more engaged feelings of aliveness.On the episode—our Season 12 kick-off—Burkeman discusses why he's eschewing  perfectionism and finding unexpected liberation in the premise that, to some extent, the worst has already happened, and the best may still be ahead.Special thanks to our Season 11 presenting sponsor, Van Cleef & Arpels.Show notes:Oliver Burkeman[4:26] “Meditations for Mortals” (2024)[6:48] Donald Winnicott[7:46] Martin Heidegger[7:46] "Technics and Civilization" (2010)[7:46] “Being and Time” (1927)[7:46] “Time Warrior” (2011)[7:46] “Time Surfing” (2017)[7:46] “Anti-Time Management” (2022)[10:14] Medieval peasants[10:14] “The 4-Hour Workweek”[13:18] Alicja Kwade[19:23] “Ichi-go, ichi-e” (“one time, one meeting”)[22:00] Eckhart Tolle[22:36] Agnes Martin[23:28] “The Road Not Taken”[40:03] “This Column Will Change Your Life”[51:00] Nicholas Carr[51:00] Clay Shirky[53:40] Jennifer Roberts[59:04] Pomodoro Technique [59:13] Kanban[1:01:33] James Hollis[1:02:40] Alfred Adler[1:02:40] “The Courage to Be Disliked” (2024)[1:06:24] Stoicism

On this episode of International Horizons, RBI Acting Director, Eli Karetny talks with Richard Wolin (Distinguished Professor, CUNY Graduate Center) about the intellectual roots of today's anti-liberal right. Tracing a line from Germany's “conservative revolutionaries” (Carl Schmitt, Oswald Spengler, Ernst Jünger, Heidegger) to France's nouvelle droite and “great replacement” rhetoric, Wolin shows how cultural critiques of egalitarianism and “decadence” resurface in contemporary movements—from the manosphere and Bronze Age Pervert to tech-elite flirtations with political theology and the “state of exception.” The conversation connects these currents to U.S. figures like Peter Thiel and JD Vance, exploring why myths of decline, warrior brotherhoods, and friend-enemy politics have regained appeal—and what that means for liberal democracy now. A bracing tour through ideas shaping our moment, and a call to understand them clearly before they reshape our institutions. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Four elderly friends, given a miraculous second chance at youth by the mysterious Dr. Heidegger's fountain water, prove that some people are doomed to repeat the follies of their past no matter how many chances they get.SOURCES AND RESOURCES FROM THE EPISODE…“Dr. Heidegger's Experiment” by Nathanial Hawthorne: http://www.public-library.uk/ebooks/30/33.pdf=====(Over time links may become invalid, disappear, or have different content. I always make sure to give authors credit for the material I use whenever possible. If I somehow overlooked doing so for a story, or if a credit is incorrect, please let me know and I will rectify it in these show notes immediately. Some links included above may benefit me financially through qualifying purchases.)= = = = ="I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness." — John 12:46= = = = =WeirdDarkness® is a registered trademark. Copyright ©2025, Weird Darkness.=====Originally aired: July 10, 2025

When four aging guests drink from a mysterious fountain promising youth, their second chance at life reveals they've learned nothing from the first. | #RetroRadio EP0453Join the DARKNESS SYNDICATE: https://weirddarkness.com/syndicateCHAPTERS & TIME STAMPS (All Times Approximate)…00:00:00.000 = Show Open00:01:50.000 = CBS Radio Mystery Theater, “Free The Beast” (June 10, 1976)00:46:14.259 = Dark Venture, “Coverup” (February 24, 1947)01:16:13.453 = The Weird Circle, “Phantom Picture” (1944)01:43:47.664 = The Whistler, “Blind Alley” (September 24, 1943)02:13:14.789 = Witch's Tale, “King Shark God” (August 14, 1935) ***WD02:38:30.692 = X Minus One, “A Pail of Air” (March 28, 1956)03:06:45.763 = ABC Mystery Time, “The Picture of Dorian Gray” (1957) ***WD (LQ)03:30:58.121 = Strange Adventure, “Thin Ice” (1945) ***WD03:34:17.064 = Appointment With Fear, “The Deep Shuddered” (November 20, 1945) ***WD04:00:12.620 = BBC's Ghost Story, “The Boat Hook” (April 15, 1992)04:44:29.341 = Beyond The Green Door, “Morton Gale, Vacation in Maine” (1966) ***WD04:48:02.708 = Box 13, “Death Is No Joke” (May 22, 1949)05:14:43.583 = CBC Mystery Theater, “Dr. Heidegger's Experiment” (1968) ***WD05:44:12.528 = Chet Chetter's Tales From The Morgue, “Highway of Death” (1990-1992)06:12:36.491 = The Clock, “Gus Fowler” (July 21, 1947)06:39:26.444 = Confession, “Anna Carlson” (July 19, 1953)07:09:14.802 = Creeps By Night, “The Final Reckoning” (July 12, 1944) ***WD07:37:25.188 = The Crime Club, “Fear Came First” (March 13, 1947) ***WD08:07:33.842 = Sounds of Darkness, “Big Track” (August 18, 1970)08:32:40.923 = The Devil and Mr. O, “Vacation With Death” (November 26, 1971) ***WD09:01:34.570 = Dimension X, “Universe” (August 02, 1951)09:31:22.801 = The Strange Dr. Weird, “Tiger Cat” (January 02, 1945)09:42:40.534 = Show Close(ADU) = Air Date Unknown(LQ) = Low Quality***WD = Remastered, edited, or cleaned up by Weird Darkness to make the episode more listenable. Audio may not be pristine, but it will be better than the original file which may have been unusable or more difficult to hear without editing.Weird Darkness theme by Alibi Music LibraryABOUT WEIRD DARKNESS: Weird Darkness is a true crime and paranormal podcast narrated by professional award-winning voice actor, Darren Marlar. Seven days per week, Weird Darkness focuses on all thing strange and macabre such as haunted locations, unsolved mysteries, true ghost stories, supernatural manifestations, urban legends, unsolved or cold case murders, conspiracy theories, and more. On Thursdays, this scary stories podcast features horror fiction along with the occasional creepypasta. Weird Darkness has been named one of the “Best 20 Storytellers in Podcasting” by Podcast Business Journal. Listeners have described the show as a cross between “Coast to Coast” with Art Bell, “The Twilight Zone” with Rod Serling, “Unsolved Mysteries” with Robert Stack, and “In Search Of” with Leonard Nimoy.= = = = ="I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness." — John 12:46= = = = =WeirdDarkness® is a registered trademark. Copyright ©2025, Weird Darkness.= = = = =CUSTOM WEBPAGE: https://weirddarkness.com/WDRR0453