Podcasts about Hume

Continuing on An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (1751), talking about justice (i.e. property laws), why utility is pleasing and what all it includes, sympathy, utility vs. beauty, and more. Get more at partiallyexaminedlife.com. Visit partiallyexaminedlife.com/support to get ad-free episodes and tons of bonus discussion.

Here we're focusing on the changes that took place in Britain after Supermac (Harold Macmillan) stood down as Prime Minister.A lot of how that went depended on the Opposition formed by the Labour Party. Initially it was led by Hugh Gaitskell from the right of the party, with Aneurin Bevan giving him a bad time from the left, while a serious threat was growing from Harold Wilson, formerly of the left which he'd deserted, now of the right which wasn't sure it could trust him. An object of suspicion across most of the parliamentary party, Wilson was nonetheless appreciated for his ability and for his excellent rapport with voters.Then two key figures died. Bevan, the man seen by so many, for so long, as the leader in waiting, died in 1960. Then, in 1962, it was the turn of Gaitskell himself. All of a sudden, the way was clear for Wilson to forge ahead. Though not fully trusted by either wing of the party, both saw him as something of a least bad option – the left felt he at least had roots amongst them, the right that he'd at least worked with Gaitskell. Wilson secured the leadership with exactly as many MPs voting against him and voted for him, winning only because neither of the other two candidates could take more votes than he did.Wilson showed his skill in the last months of Macmillan's government, giving him a bad time over such matters as the Profumo scandal. Over that row, Wilson played his cards with great intelligence, enhancing his stature while Macmillan lost his credibility and eventually stood down. He was succeeded by Alec Douglas Home (pronounced Hume), cheating RAB Butler of the prize yet again.As a result, both main parties went into the 1964 general election under new leaders. Home gave Wilson a heck of a run for him money, but in the end Labour won though by a painfully small majority in the Commons. So small that Wilson would be under constant threat of being brought down if a small number of his MPs turned against him.It was clear there would have to be another election pretty soon.Illustration: Harold Wilson by Walter Bird, 25 May 1962National Portrait Gallery x45598, and Alec Douglas Home, unknown photographer, circa 1955, National Portrait Gallery x136159Music: Bach Partita #2c by J Bu licensed under an Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives (aka Music Sharing) 3.0 International License

On David Hume's An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (1751). What is morality, and how can we know it? Hume claims that we simply find ourselves with sentiments morally approving and disapproving of various things. Characterizing these post hoc, we can say that in general we approve of what brings utility, and this explains the existence of most laws and mores. These may vary by culture because conditions change the utility calculation in different environments. Get more at partiallyexaminedlife.com. Visit partiallyexaminedlife.com/support to get ad-free episodes and tons of bonus discussion. Sponsor: Get a $1/month e-commerce trial at shopify.com/pel.

Chaos in and out of the studio but the lads get the Ep done - featuring Culcairn coach Brendan Way talking about Dane Swan appearance v Henty, six new players added to the H2H 25 Year Hume Reserves Team of Century squad, Mason umpiring comes under fire, Bealey the target in Mailbag - however the big news surrounds the end of season Team of Century Celebration --- going to be huge - enjoy Ep 8 

We put our recent episodes on moral phenomenology into perspective, anticipating our upcoming Hume discussion and going through some other options to enrich this study of sentiment vs. rational intuition. Plus, more potential author-guests and recent philosophy book coverage. If you're not hearing the full version of this discussion, sign up via one of the options described at partiallyexaminedlife.com/support.

In this week's episode the boys name the first seven players into the squad for the H2H Hume Reserve Grade Team of the Century (last 25 yrs) as planning starts for a gala function to celebrate the final team announcement, Billabong Crows coaching legend Bec O'Connell jumps on for a chat while another big name cops the CollKaneo and a political party gets Tool of the Week while a cracking edition of the mailbag unfolds - enjoy ! 

When I was a new mom, I wanted to be a supermom like the ones portrayed in the media- 10 hands and doing something different and supposedly productive with each of them. I found it powerful without realizing that it was actually stressing me out. Realistically koi bhi itni sari cheezen ek time pe nahi kar sakta hai- bachche ka dhyan rakho, khana banao, ghar dekho, family ka dhyan rakho, relax karo, workout karo aur phir jab bachcha bada ho jaye to uske school se leke after school activities dekho aur baki sab to karna hi hai. Oh and if you have a job besides all of this unpaid work, consider the load doubled. Hume lagta hai ki wah humare paas to superpower hai hum sab kar lenge par isse hota hai burnout, stress and lots of other mental and physical health issues.This is one of those discussions that never gets old and when done right provides good takeaways. I am discussing all of this with author Bhakti Mathur. If you are an Indian mother, you are probably familiar with Bhakti Mathur's Amma tell Me series. It's a series of children's picture books about Indian festivals and mythology. After a long stint as a banker, she now juggles her time between her writing, her passion for yoga and long-distance running, and her family. She lives in Hong Kong with her husband, their two children and two dogs. She is also the author of Amma, Take Me Series. The latest addition to the series is Amma, Take Me to the Hill Forts of Rajasthan which my daughter loved and so did I.In this episode, Bhakti and I talk about the idea of a good mother, mom-guilt, equal marriage, mental load and how to overcome the overwhelm of it all.Help me bring more such conversations to you, please follow Little Fixes on your podcast app, rate us and share with your mom-friends.Connect with Bhakti Mathur- https://www.instagram.com/bhaktimathur98/Episode Webpage- https://littlefixescollective.com/192/Use my special link https://zencastr.com/?via=maitri to save 30% off your first month of any Zencastr paid plan.Support the Podcast- https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maitrivermaConnect with @littlefixespodcast on Instagram https://www.instagram.com/littlefixespodcast/ Email me- littlefixespodcast@gmail.comDisclaimer- This podcast is only for educational and entertainment purposes. It doesn't intend to replace the guidance of trained professionals like doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists and coaches etc.Music Credit- Epidemic Sound

Miracle Claims Vs. Hume And as we wind down our takedown of Hume, we take one final look at Miracle Claims vs. Hume. We address the valid question about competing miracle claims as well as looking at if the Western worldview has outpaced the belief in miracles. Is it over? Have miracles been knocked out of the picture? Well - I didn't hear no bell. Timeline: 00:00 - Introduction 00:58 - We Wouldn't Want Hume To Be Biased - Right? 01:52 - What About Competing Miracle Claims? 03:05 - Answering The Objection About Competing Claims 05:59 - Contemporary Of Hume Critical 07:07 - Not All Systems Claim Miracles 07:53 - Not All Miracle Claims Are Equal 12:05 - We Should First Check Our Presuppositions Before We Deny Miracle Claims 15:33 - A Shift In The Western Worldview Against Miracles 22:39 - Do Modern People Even Believe In Miracles? 26:29 - Modern Academia Needs To Recognize Its Bias 28:58 - Conclusion LINK: 11:15 - Duane Miller Miracle BOOK LINKS: Main Book - Miracles by Craig Keener: Kindle Hardcover Logos ChristianBook.com     Other Book - Miracles Today by Craig Keener: Kindle Paperback Audible Logos ChristianBook.com All episodes, short clips, & blog - https://www.cavetothecross.com

Send us a textSusan Nancarrow shares her journey from podiatrist to healthcare workforce revolutionary, explaining how invisible structures maintain inefficiencies while restricting innovation. She explains the need for healthcare workforce transformation, challenging outdated professional boundaries that have defined our system since the Industrial Revolution. • Healthcare's professional boundaries are among the most socially entrenched structures in our society• Current systems create unnecessary bottlenecks, such as requiring GP referrals to access specialized mental health services• Artificial intelligence is democratizing medical knowledge, shifting power from practitioners to patients• Traditional workforce pipelines are being disrupted as AI takes over entry-level tasks• Dual career pathways can recognize skills developed on-the-job while creating progression opportunities• Communities of practice across countries enable leaders to share challenges and build confidence to drive change• More flexible workforce models organized around competencies rather than professional identities can better serve patient needsThe impact of AI on professional rolesFrom Bureaucratic Closure to Algorithmic Governance: AI and the Neo-Weberian Crisis of the ProfessionsHow we unpack the professions through a managerialist framework - which could result in the end of the professions as we currently know themThe Two-Sided Ledger: Managerialism, AI and the Unmaking of the Professions The Reimagined Workforce podcast is brought to you by Workforce Transformations Australia Pty. Ltd.All opinions expressed are the speaker's and not the organisations they represent.If you have a story about a workforce transformation to share and would like to be a guest on this podcast, please contact us at kathhume@workforcetransformations.com.au.Connect with Kath Hume on LinkedInPurchase Kath's book Learn Solve Thrive: Making a difference that matters in a fast and complex world:Learn Solve Thrive: Making a difference that matters in a fast and complex world : Hume, Kathryn Lee: Amazon.com.au: Books

A big episode 6 with Mason live from the Holden Centre stalking his beloved Collingwood train. Jindera coach Tayla Lloyd chats all things netball, another big name cops the CollKaneo and Tool(s) of the Week get announced while Bealey recalls his fathers rather checked goal umpiring career plus a look at results and round 4 of Hume.

Hume's Biased Naturalism Coming into the final episodes of this book, we go after Hume's naturalism being viewed as unbiased science. In fact, it is biased, can't help but be biased, and by claiming not to want to take sides in religious debates...takes sides in religious debates. Hume's biased naturalism has been unchallenged in academia, but not here on this highly, HIGHLY respected show. Timeline: 00:00 - Introduction 01:11 - The Biased Naturalism In-Group Of History Keeps Out Miracle Claims 03:54 - Biased Naturalism Don't Even See Their Own Presuppositions 05:37 - Naturalists & Miracles Should Meet Each Other On Their Presuppositions 09:00 - Naturalists Don't Want To Accept Others' Experiences 12:58 - History Bringing In Those Scary Religious Nuts 16:14 - Critiquing Not Letting Miracles Into History Explanations 23:28 - Conclusion BOOK LINKS: Main Book - Miracles by Craig Keener: Kindle Hardcover Logos ChristianBook.com     Other Book - Miracles Today by Craig Keener: Kindle Paperback Audible Logos ChristianBook.com All episodes, short clips, & blog - https://www.cavetothecross.com

Preview: Professor Samuel Gregg Explains the Presumed Friction Between New Natural Law Theory and Hume-Derived Liberalism in the Modern Age. More 1920 ST. PETER'S BASILICA

Occam's Razor: The simplest answer is often the answer. Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.Hitchen's Razor: I must provide evidence for my claim, rather than demand you provide evidence against it. and Hume's Guillotine: You can't derive a moral imperative from a factual description of nature. THE SOURCES: The Philosophical Razors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_razorHitchen's Razor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razorHanlon's Razor: https://thedecisionlab.com/reference-guide/philosophy/hanlons-razorHanlon's Razor Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razorHume's Guillotine Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problemReddit "Humes Guillotine" https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/r1v09x/eli5_humes_guillotine/Reddit "is-ought" problem: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-is-ought-problem-in-simple-understandable-termsDonate to Palestinian Children's Relief Fund::www.pcrf.netDonate to Mutual Aid Funds: https://www.folxhealth.com/library/mutual-aid-fundsGET AN OCCASIONAL PERSONAL EMAIL FROM ME: www.makeyourdamnbedpodcast.comTUNE IN ON INSTAGRAM FOR COOL CONTENT: www.instagram.com/mydbpodcastOR BE A REAL GEM + TUNE IN ON PATREON: www.patreon.com/MYDBpodcastOR WATCH ON YOUTUBE: www.youtube.com/juliemerica The opinions expressed by Julie Merica and Make Your Damn Bed Podcast are intended for entertainment purposes only. Make Your Damn Bed podcast is not intended or implied to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Get bonus content on PatreonSupport this show http://supporter.acast.com/make-your-damn-bed. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, we chat with Andrew Hume, the MD of Thor Energy, a dual-listed exploration company (ASX and AIM) focused on natural hydrogen and helium, with a significant footprint in the highly prospective South Australian region. In addition to their clean energy focus, they maintain a diversified portfolio of strategic metal projects in uranium, copper, nickel, tungsten, lithium, and gold across Australia and the US, offering investors exposure to a range of key commodities. A geologist by background, Andrew has a 27-year career in the energy sector, holding key roles in multinational companies across business and technical disciplines, principally in the USA, Australia, Denmark, and the UK. After joining the company at the beginning of the year, Andrew gives us an overview of the company, news on the hydrogen and helium market, updates on their projects, and plans for the future. KEY TAKEAWAYS Thor Energy is rationalising its portfolio to concentrate on key assets, particularly in natural hydrogen and helium, while also maintaining a diverse range of strategic metal projects. This strategic focus aims to enhance the company's growth potential and market positioning. The natural hydrogen and helium market is viewed as having significant growth potential, with increasing demand for hydrogen in various industrial applications and the unique advantages of natural hydrogen as a cleaner energy source compared to traditional methods. Thor Energy plans to employ innovative exploration techniques, such as soil air analysis with gas chromatography, to better understand subsurface potential. This approach aims to enhance the accuracy and efficiency of identifying hydrogen and helium deposits. The recent Maiden Prospective Resource Assessment for the High Range project indicated promising figures, with substantial estimated volumes of hydrogen and helium. This assessment provides a strong foundation for future exploration and potential commercialisation efforts. BEST MOMENTS "Natural hydrogen and helium... has some of those same sort of hallmarks that the oil and gas industry would have had 100, 150 years ago... This really could be part of the global energy solution going forward." "The geology in our areas is really very interesting... We've got known discovered natural hydrogen and helium very close by... So we know we're in a very good place geologically." "Hydrogen... is almost the cleanest energy source, right? It's coming out of the ground. We're not having to put any energy into it to produce the hydrogen." "We're going to be looking at some other esoteric techniques... to better understand the right places to eventually drill." VALUABLE RESOURCES Mail: rob@mining-international.org LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rob-tyson-3a26a68/ X: https://twitter.com/MiningRobTyson YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/DigDeepTheMiningPodcast Web: http://www.mining-international.org This episode is sponsored by Hawcroft, leaders in property risk management since 1992. They offer: Insurance risk surveys recognised as an industry standard Construction risk reviews Asset criticality assessments and more Working across over 600 sites globally, Hawcroft supports mining, processing, smelting, power, refining, ports, and rail operations. For bespoke property risk management services, visit www.hawcroft.com GUEST SOCIALS https://thorenergyplc.com/ https://www.linkedin.com/company/thor-energy-plc https://x.com/ThorEnergyPLC ABOUT THE HOST Rob Tyson is the Founder and Director of Mining International Ltd, a leading global recruitment and headhunting consultancy based in the UK specialising in all areas of mining across the globe from first-world to third-world countries from Africa, Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and Australia. We source, headhunt, and discover new and top talent through a targeted approach and search methodology and have a proven track record in sourcing and positioning exceptional candidates into our clients' organisations in any mining discipline or level. Mining International provides a transparent, informative, and trusted consultancy service to our candidates and clients to help them develop their careers and business goals and objectives in this ever-changing marketplace. CONTACT METHOD rob@mining-international.org https://www.linkedin.com/in/rob-tyson-3a26a68/ Podcast Description Rob Tyson is an established recruiter in the mining and quarrying sector and decided to produce the “Dig Deep” The Mining Podcast to provide valuable and informative content around the mining industry. He has a passion and desire to promote the industry and the podcast aims to offer the mining community an insight into people’s experiences and careers covering any mining discipline, giving the listeners helpful advice and guidance on industry topics.

A big Easter edition features big plans for the 25 Year Hume Reserves Team of the Century team to become a charity fundraiser for a local charity, the lads need the nominations to keep coming in. Mason reflects back on his time as a Bushpig while Bealey reflects back on "the Miracle" Crows win over Osborne a few yrs back - a cameo visit from a club coach and interleague coaching member - no Tool of the Week or CollKaneo and no Netball but plenty of banter ! 

So what, exactly, was “The Enlightenment”? According to the Princeton historian David A. Bell, it was an intellectual movement roughly spanning the early 18th century through to the French Revolution. In his Spring 2025 Liberties Quarterly piece “The Enlightenment, Then and Now”, Bell charts the Enlightenment as a complex intellectual movement centered in Paris but with hubs across Europe and America. He highlights key figures like Montesquieu, Voltaire, Kant, and Franklin, discussing their contributions to concepts of religious tolerance, free speech, and rationality. In our conversation, Bell addresses criticisms of the Enlightenment, including its complicated relationship with colonialism and slavery, while arguing that its principles of freedom and reason remain relevant today. 5 Key Takeaways* The Enlightenment emerged in the early 18th century (around 1720s) and was characterized by intellectual inquiry, skepticism toward religion, and a growing sense among thinkers that they were living in an "enlightened century."* While Paris was the central hub, the Enlightenment had multiple centers including Scotland, Germany, and America, with thinkers like Voltaire, Rousseau, Kant, Hume, and Franklin contributing to its development.* The Enlightenment introduced the concept of "society" as a sphere of human existence separate from religion and politics, forming the basis of modern social sciences.* The movement had a complex relationship with colonialism and slavery - many Enlightenment thinkers criticized slavery, but some of their ideas about human progress were later used to justify imperialism.* According to Bell, rather than trying to "return to the Enlightenment," modern society should selectively adopt and adapt its valuable principles of free speech, religious tolerance, and education to create our "own Enlightenment."David Avrom Bell is a historian of early modern and modern Europe at Princeton University. His most recent book, published in 2020 by Farrar, Straus and Giroux, is Men on Horseback: The Power of Charisma in the Age of Revolution. Described in the Journal of Modern History as an "instant classic," it is available in paperback from Picador, in French translation from Fayard, and in Italian translation from Viella. A study of how new forms of political charisma arose in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the book shows that charismatic authoritarianism is as modern a political form as liberal democracy, and shares many of the same origins. Based on exhaustive research in original sources, the book includes case studies of the careers of George Washington, Napoleon Bonaparte, Toussaint Louverture and Simon Bolivar. The book's Introduction can be read here. An online conversation about the book with Annette Gordon-Reed, hosted by the Cullman Center of the New York Public Library, can be viewed here. Links to material about the book, including reviews in The New York Review of Books, The Guardian, Harper's, The New Republic, The Nation, Le Monde, The Los Angeles Review of Books and other venues can be found here. Bell is also the author of six previous books. He has published academic articles in both English and French and contributes regularly to general interest publications on a variety of subjects, ranging from modern warfare, to contemporary French politics, to the impact of digital technology on learning and scholarship, and of course French history. A list of his publications from 2023 and 2024 can be found here. His Substack newsletter can be found here. His writings have been translated into French, Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese, Hebrew, Swedish, Polish, Russian, German, Croatian, Italian, Turkish and Japanese. At the History Department at Princeton University, he holds the Sidney and Ruth Lapidus Chair in the Era of North Atlantic Revolutions, and offers courses on early modern Europe, on military history, and on the early modern French empire. Previously, he spent fourteen years at Johns Hopkins University, including three as Dean of Faculty in its School of Arts and Sciences. From 2020 to 2024 he served as Director of the Shelby Cullom Davis Center for Historical Studies at Princeton. He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a corresponding fellow of the British Academy. Bell's new project is a history of the Enlightenment. A preliminary article from the project was published in early 2022 by Modern Intellectual History. Another is now out in French History.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children. FULL TRANSCRIPTAndrew Keen: Hello everybody, in these supposedly dark times, the E word comes up a lot, the Enlightenment. Are we at the end of the Enlightenment or the beginning? Was there even an Enlightenment? My guest today, David Bell, a professor of history, very distinguished professor of history at Princeton University, has an interesting piece in the spring issue of It is One of our, our favorite quarterlies here on Keen on America, Bell's piece is The Enlightenment Then and Now, and David is joining us from the home of the Enlightenment, perhaps Paris in France, where he's on sabbatical hard life. David being an academic these days, isn't it?David Bell: Very difficult. I'm having to suffer the Parisian bread and croissant. It's terrible.Andrew Keen: Yeah. Well, I won't keep you too long. Is Paris then, or France? Is it the home of the Enlightenment? I know there are many Enlightenments, the French, the Scottish, maybe even the English, perhaps even the American.David Bell: It's certainly one of the homes of the Enlightenment, and it's probably the closest that the Enlightened had to a center, absolutely. But as you say, there were Edinburgh, Glasgow, plenty of places in Germany, Philadelphia, all those places have good claims to being centers of the enlightenment as well.Andrew Keen: All the same David, is it like one of those sports games in California where everyone gets a medal?David Bell: Well, they're different metals, right, but I think certainly Paris is where everybody went. I mean, if you look at the figures from the German Enlightenment, from the Scottish Enlightenment from the American Enlightenment they all tended to congregate in Paris and the Parisians didn't tend to go anywhere else unless they were forced to. So that gives you a pretty good sense of where the most important center was.Andrew Keen: So David, before we get to specifics, map out for us, because everyone is perhaps as familiar or comfortable with the history of the Enlightenment, and certainly as you are. When did it happen? What years? And who are the leaders of this thing called the Enlightenment?David Bell: Well, that's a big question. And I'm afraid, of course, that if you ask 10 historians, you'll get 10 different answers.Andrew Keen: Well, I'm only asking you, so I only want one answer.David Bell: So I would say that the Enlightenment really gets going around the first couple of decades of the 18th century. And that's when people really start to think that they are actually living in what they start to call an Enlightenment century. There are a lot of reasons for this. They are seeing what we now call the scientific revolution. They're looking at the progress that has been made with that. They are experiencing the changes in the religious sphere, including the end of religious wars, coming with a great deal of skepticism about religion. They are living in a relative period of peace where they're able to speculate much more broadly and daringly than before. But it's really in those first couple of decades that they start thinking of themselves as living in an enlightened century. They start defining themselves as something that would later be called the enlightenment. So I would say that it's, really, really there between maybe the end of the 17th century and 1720s that it really gets started.Andrew Keen: So let's have some names, David, of philosophers, I guess. I mean, if those are the right words. I know that there was a term in French. There is a term called philosoph. Were they the founders, the leaders of the Enlightenment?David Bell: Well, there is a... Again, I don't want to descend into academic quibbling here, but there were lots of leaders. Let me give an example, though. So the year 1721 is a remarkable year. So in the year, 1721, two amazing events happened within a couple of months of each other. So in May, Montesquieu, one of the great philosophers by any definition, publishes his novel called Persian Letters. And this is an incredible novel. Still, I think one of greatest novels ever written, and it's very daring. It is the account, it is supposedly a an account written by two Persian travelers to Europe who are writing back to people in Isfahan about what they're seeing. And it is very critical of French society. It is very of religion. It is, as I said, very daring philosophically. It is a product in part of the increasing contact between Europe and the rest of the world that is also very central to the Enlightenment. So that novel comes out. So it's immediately, you know, the police try to suppress it. But they don't have much success because it's incredibly popular and Montesquieu doesn't suffer any particular problems because...Andrew Keen: And the French police have never been the most efficient police force in the world, have they?David Bell: Oh, they could be, but not in this case. And then two months later, after Montesquieu published this novel, there's a German philosopher much less well-known than Montesqiu, than Christian Bolz, who is a professor at the Universität Haller in Prussia, and he gives an oration in Latin, a very typical university oration for the time, about Chinese philosophy, in which he says that the Chinese have sort of proved to the world, particularly through the writings of Confucius and others, that you can have a virtuous society without religion. Obviously very controversial. Statement for the time it actually gets him fired from his job, he has to leave the Kingdom of Prussia within 48 hours on penalty of death, starts an enormous controversy. But here are two events, both of which involving non-European people, involving the way in which Europeans are starting to look out at the rest of the world and starting to imagine Europe as just one part of a larger humanity, and at the same time they are starting to speculate very daringly about whether you can have. You know, what it means to have a society, do you need to have religion in order to have morality in society? Do you need the proper, what kind of government do you need to to have virtuous conduct and a proper society? So all of these things get, you know, really crystallize, I think, around these two incidents as much as anything. So if I had to pick a single date for when the enlightenment starts, I'd probably pick that 1721.Andrew Keen: And when was, David, I thought you were going to tell me about the earthquake in Lisbon, when was that earthquake?David Bell: That earthquake comes quite a bit later. That comes, and now historians should be better with dates than I am. It's in the 1750s, I think it's the late 1750's. Again, this historian is proving he's getting a very bad grade for forgetting the exact date, but it's in 1750. So that's a different kind of event, which sparks off a great deal of commentary, because it's a terrible earthquake. It destroys most of the city of Lisbon, it destroys other cities throughout Portugal, and it leads a lot of the philosophy to philosophers at the time to be speculating very daringly again on whether there is any kind of real purpose to the universe and whether there's any kind divine purpose. Why would such a terrible thing happen? Why would God do such a thing to his followers? And certainly VoltaireAndrew Keen: Yeah, Votav, of course, comes to mind of questioning.David Bell: And Condit, Voltaire's novel Condit gives a very good description of the earthquake in Lisbon and uses that as a centerpiece. Voltair also read other things about the earthquake, a poem about Lisbon earthquake. But in Condit he gives a lasting, very scathing portrait of the Catholic Church in general and then of what happens in Portugal. And so the Lisbon Earthquake is certainly another one of the events, but it happens considerably later. Really in the middle of the end of life.Andrew Keen: So, David, you believe in this idea of the Enlightenment. I take your point that there are more than one Enlightenment in more than one center, but in broad historical terms, the 18th century could be defined at least in Western and Northern Europe as the period of the Enlightenment, would that be a fair generalization?David Bell: I think it's perfectly fair generalization. Of course, there are historians who say that it never happened. There's a conservative British historian, J.C.D. Clark, who published a book last summer, saying that the Enlightenment is a kind of myth, that there was a lot of intellectual activity in Europe, obviously, but that the idea that it formed a coherent Enlightenment was really invented in the 20th century by a bunch of progressive reformers who wanted to claim a kind of venerable and august pedigree for their own reform, liberal reform plans. I think that's an exaggeration. People in the 18th century defined very clearly what was going on, both people who were in favor of it and people who are against it. And while you can, if you look very closely at it, of course it gets a bit fuzzy. Of course it's gets, there's no single, you can't define a single enlightenment project or a single enlightened ideology. But then, I think people would be hard pressed to define any intellectual movement. You know, in perfect, incoherent terms. So the enlightenment is, you know by compared with almost any other intellectual movement certainly existed.Andrew Keen: In terms of a philosophy of the Enlightenment, the German thinker, Immanuel Kant, seems to be often, and when you describe him as the conscience or the brain or a mixture of the conscience and brain of the enlightenment, why is Kant and Kantian thinking so important in the development of the Enlightenment.David Bell: Well, that's a really interesting question. And one reason is because most of the Enlightenment was not very rigorously philosophical. A lot of the major figures of the enlightenment before Kant tended to be writing for a general public. And they often were writing with a very specific agenda. We look at Voltaire, Diderot, Rousseau. Now you look at Adam Smith in Scotland. We look David Hume or Adam Ferguson. You look at Benjamin Franklin in the United States. These people wrote in all sorts of different genres. They wrote in, they wrote all sorts of different kinds of books. They have many different purposes and very few of them did a lot of what we would call rigorous academic philosophy. And Kant was different. Kant was very much an academic philosopher. Kant was nothing if not rigorous. He came at the end of the enlightenment by most people's measure. He wrote these very, very difficult, very rigorous, very brilliant works, such as The Creek of Pure Reason. And so, it's certainly been the case that people who wanted to describe the Enlightenment as a philosophy have tended to look to Kant. So for example, there's a great German philosopher and intellectual historian of the early 20th century named Ernst Kassirer, who had to leave Germany because of the Nazis. And he wrote a great book called The Philosophy of the Enlightened. And that leads directly to Immanuel Kant. And of course, Casir himself was a Kantian, identified with Kant. And so he wanted to make Kant, in a sense, the telos, the end point, the culmination, the fulfillment of the Enlightenment. But so I think that's why Kant has such a particularly important position. You're defining it both ways.Andrew Keen: I've always struggled to understand what Kant was trying to say. I'm certainly not alone there. Might it be fair to say that he was trying to transform the universe and certainly traditional Christian notions into the Enlightenment, so the entire universe, the world, God, whatever that means, that they were all somehow according to Kant enlightened.David Bell: Well, I think that I'm certainly no expert on Immanuel Kant. And I would say that he is trying to, I mean, his major philosophical works are trying to put together a system of philosophical thinking which will justify why people have to act morally, why people act rationally, without the need for Christian revelation to bolster them. That's a very, very crude and reductionist way of putting it, but that's essentially at the heart of it. At the same time, Kant was very much aware of his own place in history. So Kant didn't simply write these very difficult, thick, dense philosophical works. He also wrote things that were more like journalism or like tablets. He wrote a famous essay called What is Enlightenment? And in that, he said that the 18th century was the period in which humankind was simply beginning to. Reach a period of enlightenment. And he said, he starts the essay by saying, this is the period when humankind is being released from its self-imposed tutelage. And we are still, and he said we do not yet live in the midst of a completely enlightened century, but we are getting there. We are living in a century that is enlightening.Andrew Keen: So the seeds, the seeds of Hegel and maybe even Marx are incant in that German thinking, that historical thinking.David Bell: In some ways, in some ways of course Hegel very much reacts against Kant and so and then Marx reacts against Hegel. So it's not exactly.Andrew Keen: Well, that's the dialectic, isn't it, David?David Bell: A simple easy path from one to the other, no, but Hegel is unimaginable without Kant of course and Marx is unimagineable without Hegel.Andrew Keen: You note that Kant represents a shift in some ways into the university and the walls of the universities were going up, and that some of the other figures associated with the the Enlightenment and Scottish Enlightenment, human and Smith and the French Enlightenment Voltaire and the others, they were more generalist writers. Should we be nostalgic for the pre-university period in the Enlightenment, or? Did things start getting serious once the heavyweights, the academic heavyweighs like Emmanuel Kant got into this thing?David Bell: I think it depends on where we're talking about. I mean, Adam Smith was a professor at Glasgow in Edinburgh, so Smith, the Scottish Enlightenment was definitely at least partly in the universities. The German Enlightenment took place very heavily in universities. Christian Vodafoy I just mentioned was the most important German philosopher of the 18th century before Kant, and he had positions in university. Even the French university system, for a while, what's interesting about the French University system, particularly the Sorbonne, which was the theology faculty, It was that. Throughout the first half of the 18th century, there were very vigorous, very interesting philosophical debates going on there, in which the people there, particularly even Jesuits there, were very open to a lot of the ideas we now call enlightenment. They were reading John Locke, they were reading Mel Pench, they were read Dekalb. What happened though in the French universities was that as more daring stuff was getting published elsewhere. Church, the Catholic Church, started to say, all right, these philosophers, these philosophies, these are our enemies, these are people we have to get at. And so at that point, anybody who was in the university, who was still in dialog with these people was basically purged. And the universities became much less interesting after that. But to come back to your question, I do think that I am very nostalgic for that period. I think that the Enlightenment was an extraordinary period, because if you look between. In the 17th century, not all, but a great deal of the most interesting intellectual work is happening in the so-called Republic of Letters. It's happening in Latin language. It is happening on a very small circle of RUD, of scholars. By the 19th century following Kant and Hegel and then the birth of the research university in Germany, which is copied everywhere, philosophy and the most advanced thinking goes back into the university. And the 18th century, particularly in France, I will say, is a time when the most advanced thought is being written for a general public. It is being in the form of novels, of dialogs, of stories, of reference works, and it is very, very accessible. The most profound thought of the West has never been as accessible overall as in the 18 century.Andrew Keen: Again, excuse this question, it might seem a bit naive, but there's a lot of pre-Enlightenment work, books, thinking that we read now that's very accessible from Erasmus and Thomas More to Machiavelli. Why weren't characters like, or are characters like Erasmuus, More's Utopia, Machiavell's prints and discourses, why aren't they considered part of the Enlightenment? What's the difference between? Enlightened thinkers or the supposedly enlightened thinkers of the 18th century and thinkers and writers of the 16th and 17th centuries.David Bell: That's a good question, you know, I think you have to, you, you know, again, one has to draw a line somewhere. That's not a very good answer, of course. All these people that you just mentioned are, in one way or another, predecessors to the Enlightenment. And of course, there were lots of people. I don't mean to say that nobody wrote in an accessible way before 1700. Obviously, lots of the people you mentioned did. Although a lot of them originally wrote in Latin, Erasmus, also Thomas More. But I think what makes the Enlightened different is that you have, again, you have a sense. These people have have a sense that they are themselves engaged in a collective project, that it is a collective project of enlightenment, of enlightening the world. They believe that they live in a century of progress. And there are certain principles. They don't agree on everything by any means. The philosophy of enlightenment is like nothing more than ripping each other to shreds, like any decent group of intellectuals. But that said, they generally did believe That people needed to have freedom of speech. They believed that you needed to have toleration of different religions. They believed in education and the need for a broadly educated public that could be as broad as possible. They generally believed in keeping religion out of the public sphere as much as possible, so all those principles came together into a program that we can consider at least a kind of... You know, not that everybody read it at every moment by any means, but there is an identifiable enlightenment program there, and in this case an identifiable enlightenment mindset. One other thing, I think, which is crucial to the Enlightenment, is that it was the attention they started to pay to something that we now take almost entirely for granted, which is the idea of society. The word society is so entirely ubiquitous, we assume it's always been there, and in one sense it has, because the word societas is a Latin word. But until... The 18th century, the word society generally had a much narrower meaning. It referred to, you know, particular institution most often, like when we talk about the society of, you know, the American philosophical society or something like that. And the idea that there exists something called society, which is the general sphere of human existence that is separate from religion and is separate from the political sphere, that's actually something which only really emerged at the end of the 1600s. And it became really the focus of you know, much, if not most, of enlightenment thinking. When you look at someone like Montesquieu and you look something, somebody like Rousseau or Voltaire or Adam Smith, probably above all, they were concerned with understanding how society works, not how government works only, but how society, what social interactions are like beginning of what we would now call social science. So that's yet another thing that distinguishes the enlightened from people like Machiavelli, often people like Thomas More, and people like bonuses.Andrew Keen: You noted earlier that the idea of progress is somehow baked in, in part, and certainly when it comes to Kant, certainly the French Enlightenment, although, of course, Rousseau challenged that. I'm not sure whether Rousseaut, as always, is both in and out of the Enlightenment and he seems to be in and out of everything. How did the Enlightement, though, make sense of itself in the context of antiquity, as it was, of Terms, it was the Renaissance that supposedly discovered or rediscovered antiquity. How did many of the leading Enlightenment thinkers, writers, how did they think of their own society in the context of not just antiquity, but even the idea of a European or Western society?David Bell: Well, there was a great book, one of the great histories of the Enlightenment was written about more than 50 years ago by the Yale professor named Peter Gay, and the first part of that book was called The Modern Paganism. So it was about the, you know, it was very much about the relationship between the Enlightenment and the ancient Greek synonyms. And certainly the writers of the enlightenment felt a great deal of kinship with the ancient Greek synonymous. They felt a common bond, particularly in the posing. Christianity and opposing what they believed the Christian Church had wrought on Europe in suppressing freedom and suppressing free thought and suppassing free inquiry. And so they felt that they were both recovering but also going beyond antiquity at the same time. And of course they were all, I mean everybody at the time, every single major figure of the Enlightenment, their education consisted in large part of what we would now call classics, right? I mean, there was an educational reformer in France in the 1760s who said, you know, our educational system is great if the purpose is to train Roman centurions, if it's to train modern people who are not doing both so well. And it's true. I mean they would spend, certainly, you know in Germany, in much of Europe, in the Netherlands, even in France, I mean people were trained not simply to read Latin, but to write in Latin. In Germany, university courses took part in the Latin language. So there's an enormous, you know, so they're certainly very, very conversant with the Greek and Roman classics, and they identify with them to a very great extent. Someone like Rousseau, I mean, and many others, and what's his first reading? How did he learn to read by reading Plutarch? In translation, but he learns to read reading Plutach. He sees from the beginning by this enormous admiration for the ancients that we get from Bhutan.Andrew Keen: Was Socrates relevant here? Was the Enlightenment somehow replacing Aristotle with Socrates and making him and his spirit of Enlightenment, of asking questions rather than answering questions, the symbol of a new way of thinking?David Bell: I would say to a certain extent, so I mean, much of the Enlightenment criticizes scholasticism, medieval scholastic, very, very sharply, and medieval scholasticism is founded philosophically very heavily upon Aristotle, so to that extent. And the spirit of skepticism that Socrates embodied, the idea of taking nothing for granted and asking questions about everything, including questions of oneself, yes, absolutely. That said, while the great figures of the Red Plato, you know, Socrates was generally I mean, it was not all that present as they come. But certainly have people with people with red play-doh in the entire virus.Andrew Keen: You mentioned Benjamin Franklin earlier, David. Most of the Enlightenment, of course, seems to be centered in France and Scotland, Germany, England. But America, many Europeans went to America then as a, what some people would call a settler colonial society, or certainly an offshoot of the European world. Was the settling of America and the American Revolution Was it the quintessential Enlightenment project?David Bell: Another very good question, and again, it depends a bit on who you talk to. I just mentioned this book by Peter Gay, and the last part of his book is called The Science of Freedom, and it's all about the American Revolution. So certainly a lot of interpreters of the Enlightenment have said that, yes, the American revolution represents in a sense the best possible outcome of the American Revolution, it was the best, possible outcome of the enlightened. Certainly there you look at the founding fathers of the United States and there's a great deal that they took from me like Certainly, they took a great great number of political ideas from Obviously Madison was very much inspired and drafting the edifice of the Constitution by Montesquieu to see himself Was happy to admit in addition most of the founding Fathers of the united states were you know had kind of you know We still had we were still definitely Christians, but we're also but we were also very much influenced by deism were very much against the idea of making the United States a kind of confessional country where Christianity was dominant. They wanted to believe in the enlightenment principles of free speech, religious toleration and so on and so forth. So in all those senses and very much the gun was probably more inspired than Franklin was somebody who was very conversant with the European Enlightenment. He spent a large part of his life in London. Where he was in contact with figures of the Enlightenment. He also, during the American Revolution, of course, he was mostly in France, where he is vetted by some of the surviving fellows and were very much in contact for them as well. So yes, I would say the American revolution is certainly... And then the American revolutionary scene, of course by the Europeans, very much as a kind of offshoot of the enlightenment. So one of the great books of the late Enlightenment is by Condor Say, which he wrote while he was hiding actually in the future evolution of the chariot. It's called a historical sketch of the progress of the human spirit, or the human mind, and you know he writes about the American Revolution as being, basically owing its existence to being like...Andrew Keen: Franklin is of course an example of your pre-academic enlightenment, a generalist, inventor, scientist, entrepreneur, political thinker. What about the role of science and indeed economics in the Enlightenment? David, we're going to talk of course about the Marxist interpretation, perhaps the Marxist interpretation which sees The Enlightenment is just a euphemism, perhaps, for exploitative capitalism. How central was the growth and development of the market, of economics, and innovation, and capitalism in your reading of The Enlightened?David Bell: Well, in my reading, it was very important, but not in the way that the Marxists used to say. So Friedrich Engels once said that the Enlightenment was basically the idealized kingdom of the bourgeoisie, and there was whole strain of Marxist thinking that followed the assumption that, and then Karl Marx himself argued that the documents like the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, which obviously were inspired by the Enlightment, were simply kind of the near, or kind of. Way that the bourgeoisie was able to advance itself ideologically, and I don't think that holds much water, which is very little indication that any particular economic class motivated the Enlightenment or was using the Enlightment in any way. That said, I think it's very difficult to imagine the Enlightement without the social and economic changes that come in with the 18th century. To begin with globalization. If you read the great works of the Enlightenment, it's remarkable just how open they are to talking about humanity in general. So one of Voltaire's largest works, one of his most important works, is something called Essay on Customs and the Spirit of Nations, which is actually History of the World, where he talks learnedly not simply about Europe, but about the Americas, about China, about Africa, about India. Montesquieu writes Persian letters. Christian Volpe writes about Chinese philosophy. You know, Rousseau writes about... You know, the earliest days of humankind talks about Africa. All the great figures of the Enlightenment are writing about the rest of the world, and this is a period in which contacts between Europe and the rest the world are exploding along with international trade. So by the end of the 18th century, there are 4,000 to 5,000 ships a year crossing the Atlantic. It's an enormous number. And that's one context in which the enlightenment takes place. Another is what we call the consumer revolution. So in the 18th century, certainly in the major cities of Western Europe, people of a wide range of social classes, including even artisans, sort of somewhat wealthy artisians, shopkeepers, are suddenly able to buy a much larger range of products than they were before. They're able to choose how to basically furnish their own lives, if you will, how they're gonna dress, what they're going to eat, what they gonna put on the walls of their apartments and so on and so forth. And so they become accustomed to exercising a great deal more personal choice than their ancestors have done. And the Enlightenment really develops in tandem with this. Most of the great works of the Enlightment, they're not really written to, they're treatises, they're like Kant, they're written to persuade you to think in a single way. Really written to make you ask questions yourself, to force you to ponder things. They're written in the form of puzzles and riddles. Voltaire had a great line there, he wrote that the best kind of books are the books that readers write half of themselves as they read, and that's sort of the quintessence of the Enlightenment as far as I'm concerned.Andrew Keen: Yeah, Voltaire might have been comfortable on YouTube or Facebook. David, you mentioned all those ships going from Europe across the Atlantic. Of course, many of those ships were filled with African slaves. You mentioned this in your piece. I mean, this is no secret, of course. You also mentioned a couple of times Montesquieu's Persian letters. To what extent is... The enlightenment then perhaps the birth of Western power, of Western colonialism, of going to Africa, seizing people, selling them in North America, the French, the English, Dutch colonization of the rest of the world. Of course, later more sophisticated Marxist thinkers from the Frankfurt School, you mentioned these in your essay, Odorno and Horkheimer in particular, See the Enlightenment as... A project, if you like, of Western domination. I remember reading many years ago when I was in graduate school, Edward Said, his analysis of books like The Persian Letters, which is a form of cultural Western power. How much of this is simply bound up in the profound, perhaps, injustice of the Western achievement? And of course, some of the justice as well. We haven't talked about Jefferson, but perhaps in Jefferson's life and his thinking and his enlightened principles and his... Life as a slave owner, these contradictions are most self-evident.David Bell: Well, there are certainly contradictions, and there's certainly... I think what's remarkable, if you think about it, is that if you read through works of the Enlightenment, you would be hard-pressed to find a justification for slavery. You do find a lot of critiques of slavery, and I think that's something very important to keep in mind. Obviously, the chattel slavery of Africans in the Americas began well before the Enlightment, it began in 1500. The Enlightenment doesn't have the credit for being the first movement to oppose slavery. That really goes back to various religious groups, especially the Fakers. But that said, you have in France, you had in Britain, in America even, you'd have a lot of figures associated with the Enlightenment who were pretty sure of becoming very forceful opponents of slavery very early. Now, when it comes to imperialism, that's a tricky issue. What I think you'd find in these light bulbs, you'd different sorts of tendencies and different sorts of writings. So there are certainly a lot of writers of the Enlightenment who are deeply opposed to European authorities. One of the most popular works of the late Enlightenment was a collective work edited by the man named the Abbe Rinal, which is called The History of the Two Indies. And that is a book which is deeply, deeply critical of European imperialism. At the same time, at the same of the enlightenment, a lot the works of history written during the Enlightment. Tended, such as Voltaire's essay on customs, which I just mentioned, tend to give a kind of very linear version of history. They suggest that all societies follow the same path, from sort of primitive savagery, hunter-gatherers, through early agriculture, feudal stages, and on into sort of modern commercial society and civilization. And so they're basically saying, okay, we, the Europeans, are the most advanced. People like the Africans and the Native Americans are the least advanced, and so perhaps we're justified in going and quote, bringing our civilization to them, what later generations would call the civilizing missions, or possibly just, you know, going over and exploiting them because we are stronger and we are more, and again, we are the best. And then there's another thing that the Enlightenment did. The Enlightenment tended to destroy an older Christian view of humankind, which in some ways militated against modern racism. Christians believed, of course, that everyone was the same from Adam and Eve, which meant that there was an essential similarity in the world. And the Enlightenment challenged this by challenging the biblical kind of creation. The Enlightenment challenges this. Voltaire, for instance, believed that there had actually been several different human species that had different origins, and that can very easily become a justification for racism. Buffon, one of the most Figures of the French Enlightenment, one of the early naturalists, was crucial for trying to show that in fact nature is not static, that nature is always changing, that species are changing, including human beings. And so again, that allowed people to think in terms of human beings at different stages of evolution, and perhaps this would be a justification for privileging the more advanced humans over the less advanced. In the 18th century itself, most of these things remain potential, rather than really being acted upon. But in the 19th century, figures of writers who would draw upon these things certainly went much further, and these became justifications for slavery, imperialism, and other things. So again, the Enlightenment is the source of a great deal of stuff here, and you can't simply put it into one box or more.Andrew Keen: You mentioned earlier, David, that Concorda wrote one of the later classics of the... Condorcet? Sorry, Condorcets, excuse my French. Condorcès wrote one the later Classics of the Enlightenment when he was hiding from the French Revolution. In your mind, was the revolution itself the natural conclusion, climax? Perhaps anti-climax of the Enlightenment. Certainly, it seems as if a lot of the critiques of the French Revolution, particularly the more conservative ones, Burke comes to mind, suggested that perhaps the principles of in the Enlightment inevitably led to the guillotine, or is that an unfair way of thinking of it?David Bell: Well, there are a lot of people who have thought like that. Edmund Burke already, writing in 1790, in his reflections on the revolution in France, he said that everything which was great in the old regime is being dissolved and, quoting, dissolved by this new conquering empire of light and reason. And then he said about the French that in the groves of their academy at the end of every vista, you see nothing but the gallows. Nothing but the Gallows. So there, in 1780, he already seemed to be predicting the reign of terror and blaming it. A certain extent from the Enlightenment. That said, I think, you know, again, the French Revolution is incredibly complicated event. I mean, you certainly have, you know, an explosion of what we could call Enlightenment thinking all over the place. In France, it happened in France. What happened there was that you had a, you know, the collapse of an extraordinarily inefficient government and a very, you know, in a very antiquated, paralyzed system of government kind of collapsed, created a kind of political vacuum. Into that vacuum stepped a lot of figures who were definitely readers of the Enlightenment. Oh so um but again the Enlightment had I said I don't think you can call the Enlightement a single thing so to say that the Enlightiment inspired the French Revolution rather than the There you go.Andrew Keen: Although your essay on liberties is the Enlightenment then and now you probably didn't write is always these lazy editors who come up with inaccurate and inaccurate titles. So for you, there is no such thing as the Enlighten.David Bell: No, there is. There is. But still, it's a complex thing. It contains multitudes.Andrew Keen: So it's the Enlightenment rather than the United States.David Bell: Conflicting tendencies, it has contradictions within it. There's enough unity to refer to it as a singular noun, but it doesn't mean that it all went in one single direction.Andrew Keen: But in historical terms, did the failure of the French Revolution, its descent into Robespierre and then Bonaparte, did it mark the end in historical terms a kind of bookend of history? You began in 1720 by 1820. Was the age of the Enlightenment pretty much over?David Bell: I would say yes. I think that, again, one of the things about the French Revolution is that people who are reading these books and they're reading these ideas and they are discussing things really start to act on them in a very different way from what it did before the French revolution. You have a lot of absolute monarchs who are trying to bring certain enlightenment principles to bear in their form of government, but they're not. But it's difficult to talk about a full-fledged attempt to enact a kind of enlightenment program. Certainly a lot of the people in the French Revolution saw themselves as doing that. But as they did it, they ran into reality, I would say. I mean, now Tocqueville, when he writes his old regime in the revolution, talks about how the French philosophes were full of these abstract ideas that were divorced from reality. And while that's an exaggeration, there was a certain truth to them. And as soon as you start having the age of revolutions, as soon you start people having to devise systems of government that will actually last, and as you have people, democratic representative systems that will last, and as they start revising these systems under the pressure of actual events, then you're not simply talking about an intellectual movement anymore, you're talking about something very different. And so I would say that, well, obviously the ideas of the Enlightenment continue to inspire people, the books continue to be read, debated. They lead on to figures like Kant, and as we talked about earlier, Kant leads to Hegel, Hegel leads to Marx in a certain sense. Nonetheless, by the time you're getting into the 19th century, what you have, you know, has connections to the Enlightenment, but can we really still call it the Enlightment? I would sayAndrew Keen: And Tocqueville, of course, found democracy in America. Is democracy itself? I know it's a big question. But is it? Bound up in the Enlightenment. You've written extensively, David, both for liberties and elsewhere on liberalism. Is the promise of democracy, democratic systems, the one born in the American Revolution, promised in the French Revolution, not realized? Are they products of the Enlightment, or is the 19th century and the democratic systems that in the 19th century, is that just a separate historical track?David Bell: Again, I would say there are certain things in the Enlightenment that do lead in that direction. Certainly, I think most figures in the enlightenment in one general sense or another accepted the idea of a kind of general notion of popular sovereignty. It didn't mean that they always felt that this was going to be something that could necessarily be acted upon or implemented in their own day. And they didn't necessarily associate generalized popular sovereignty with what we would now call democracy with people being able to actually govern themselves. Would be certain figures, certainly Diderot and some of his essays, what we saw very much in the social contract, you know, were sketching out, you knows, models for possible democratic system. Condorcet, who actually lived into the French Revolution, wrote one of the most draft constitutions for France, that's one of most democratic documents ever proposed. But of course there were lots of figures in the Enlightenment, Voltaire, and others who actually believed much more in absolute monarchy, who believed that you just, you know, you should have. Freedom of speech and freedom of discussion, out of which the best ideas would emerge, but then you had to give those ideas to the prince who imposed them by poor sicknesses.Andrew Keen: And of course, Rousseau himself, his social contract, some historians have seen that as the foundations of totalitarian, modern totalitarianism. Finally, David, your wonderful essay in Liberties in the spring quarterly 2025 is The Enlightenment, Then and Now. What about now? You work at Princeton, your president has very bravely stood up to the new presidential regime in the United States, in defense of academic intellectual freedom. Does the word and the movement, does it have any relevance in the 2020s, particularly in an age of neo-authoritarianism around the world?David Bell: I think it does. I think we have to be careful about it. I always get a little nervous when people say, well, we should simply go back to the Enlightenment, because the Enlightenments is history. We don't go back the 18th century. I think what we need to do is to recover certain principles, certain ideals from the 18 century, the ones that matter to us, the ones we think are right, and make our own Enlightenment better. I don't think we need be governed by the 18 century. Thomas Paine once said that no generation should necessarily rule over every generation to come, and I think that's probably right. Unfortunately in the United States, we have a constitution which is now essentially unamendable, so we're doomed to live by a constitution largely from the 18th century. But are there many things in the Enlightenment that we should look back to, absolutely?Andrew Keen: Well, David, I am going to free you for your own French Enlightenment. You can go and have some croissant now in your local cafe in Paris. Thank you so much for a very, I excuse the pun, enlightening conversation on the Enlightenment then and now, Essential Essay in Liberties. I'd love to get you back on the show. Talk more history. Thank you. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Hume Humiliated In History After looking at the science and philosophy of Hume, we now look at his take and impact on history. With looking at how the academy views the science of history we see that Hume is humiliated in history because he helped change what good history actually looks like. We discuss what that looks like and the repercussions here. Timeline: 00:00 - Introduction 03:39 - Answering The False Principle Of Analogy For Miracles 05:25 - Defining History To Exclude The Possibility Of Miracles 10:23 - Prejudging History Before Looking Into It 12:07 - A Naturalism Of The Gaps 14:08 - History Is A Series Of Unique Events Just Like Miracles 17:25 - The Problem With Ruling Out Miracles As A Unique Kind Of Event 23:16 - When Only Natural Scientists Try To Answer Why The Civil War Began 25:03 - Conclusion BOOK LINKS: Main Book - Miracles by Craig Keener: Kindle Hardcover Logos ChristianBook.com     Other Book - Miracles Today by Craig Keener: Kindle Paperback Audible Logos ChristianBook.com All episodes, short clips, & blog - https://www.cavetothecross.com

On Ch. 6 "Formalism and Person," in Max Scheler's most famous work, Formalism in Ethics and Non-Formal Ethics of Values (1916). Ethical Formalism is Kant: What makes something ethically correct is just something about the type of act and willing involved. Non-formalism pays attention to the content, e.g. our sentiments (a la Hume). As we've been studying on The Partially Examined Life, phenomenologists starting with Brentano sought to merge the two: Things in our experience just present themselves as intuitively praiseworthy, and this is sufficient to establish ethical obligations. We have been reading about how Scheler relies in his ethical theorizing on our experiences of sympathy and love, but we wanted to learn more about what it is about particular people that we love and respect: What is it to be a "person" in the moral sense? This book moves very slowly, so in this part he's still just distinguishing himself from Kant when it comes to saying some basic things about your relation to your own selfhood. Read along with us, starting on p. 370 (PDF p. 403). You can choose to watch this on video. To get future parts, subscribe at patreon.com/closereadsphilosophy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Our man Bealey is back in the studio and with his injury update, Mason in all sorts after his return to Adrenaline gym. Tool of the Week awarded to a legend of the Hume FL the Hume reserves Team of the Century gaining momentum - in on field news the Hume coaching panel named for interleague v Tallangatta FL and the Crows hit top of the table in netball 

The Whole FP Crew welcome contributor Humey, Iain Hume, to the pod for all the goods. What should Jesse Marsch do for the Gold Cup with Canada's National Men's side? Vancouver Whitecaps are still flying and TFC and CFMTL still immobile. Humey fills us in on The Indian Super League and then talks Liverpool and the rest of the Prem with the motleys. Plus NSL and Mbappe's leg-crusher. All this and more on Wonger's Birthday!GET IN!GET IN!Presenters: James Sharman, Craig Forrest, Jimmy Brennan, Amy Walsh & Dan WongHobo Wrangler: Jeff Cole, VO and Editor/ProducerThis podcast has content that may use words and share tales that offend, please feel free to use your best discretion.Parental discretion is advisedwearefootyprime.comX @footy_primeTikTok @FootyPrimePodcastYoutube @FootyPrimePodcastIG FootyPrimeIGFacebook Footy Prime The PodcastEmail footyprimepodcast@gmail.comONE BALL GIN https://www.nickel9distillery.com/products/footy-prime-one-ball-gin Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Agents Enter Into The Picture A little shorter episode this week as this section and the next section have two different focuses. We look at how Hume seems to carve out outside agents enter into the picture to save natural law. The only problem with that is then you leave out those pesky humans to be able to enter into the normal course of events to upset it all. Timeline: 00:00 - Introduction 00:15 - God Acting As Divine Acts Not Violations Of Nature 03:59 - Hume Has No Possibility Of Agents Enter Into Causes 06:39 - Miracles As Contingent Events 08:49 - Metaphysical Needs Over Scientific Language 11:16 - Conclusion BOOK LINKS: Main Book - Miracles by Craig Keener: Kindle Hardcover Logos ChristianBook.com     Other Book - Miracles Today by Craig Keener: Kindle Paperback Audible Logos ChristianBook.com All episodes, short clips, & blog - https://www.cavetothecross.com

A Rhodes Scholar from Nimmitabel with a Master of Philosophy in Economics from Cambridge. He cut his teeth at McKinsey before helping establish Fonterra, the Kiwi dairy co-op whose creation is now studied at Harvard Business School as one of the greatest feats of agribusiness strategy in the modern era. That should qualify him for the role of Federal Treasurer right? Now, he’s pitching nuclear power as the affordable answer to Australia’s energy future and facing the task of trying to win back government against significant headwinds. We ask is he the man from the high country who can win back Teal seats and bring the “colt from Old Regret” back into the fold? Or will the Canberra machine chew him up and spit him out? We talk policy, power bills, and political branding and why Treasurer Jim Chalmers reckons he’d be “shit”. You can judge that for yourself. Like any good country boy, he didn’t arrive at The Advocate’s newsroom empty handed. Angus came bearing hats, a branded mug with his famous self-congratulatory tweet on it, some notepads, shopping bags and stickers. We appreciate that. Good Job, Angus.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It's a small world. The great David Rieff came to my San Francisco studio today for in person interview about his new anti-woke polemic Desire and Fate. And half way through our conversation, he brought up Daniel Bessner's This Is America piece which Bessner discussed on yesterday's show. I'm not sure what that tells us about wokeness, a subject which Rieff and I aren't in agreement. For him, it's the thing-in-itself which make sense of our current cultural malaise. Thus Desire and Fate, his attempt (with a great intro from John Banville) to wake us up from Wokeness. For me, it's a distraction. I've included the full transcript below. Lots of good stuff to chew on. Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. 5 KEY TAKEAWAYS * Rieff views "woke" ideology as primarily American and post-Protestant in nature, rather than stemming solely from French philosophy, emphasizing its connections to self-invention and subjective identity.* He argues that woke culture threatens high culture but not capitalism, noting that corporations have readily embraced a "baudlerized" version of identity politics that avoids class discussions.* Rieff sees woke culture as connected to the wellness movement, with both sharing a preoccupation with "psychic safety" and the metaphorical transformation of experience in which "words” become a form of “violence."* He suggests young people's material insecurity contributes to their focus on identity, as those facing bleak economic prospects turn inward when they "can't make their way in the world."* Rieff characterizes woke ideology as "apocalyptic but not pessimistic," contrasting it with his own genuine pessimism which he considers more realistic about human nature and more cheerful in its acceptance of life's limitations. FULL TRANSCRIPTAndrew Keen: Hello everybody, as we digest Trump 2.0, we don't talk that much these days about woke and woke ideology. There was a civil war amongst progressives, I think, on the woke front in 2023 and 2024, but with Donald Trump 2.0 and his various escapades, let's just talk these days about woke. We have a new book, however, on the threat of woke by my guest, David Rieff. It's called Desire and Fate. He wrote it in 2023, came out in late 2024. David's visiting the Bay Area. He's an itinerant man traveling from the East Coast to Latin America and Europe. David, welcome to Keen on America. Do you regret writing this book given what's happened in the last few months in the United States?David Rieff: No, not at all, because I think that the road to moral and intellectual hell is trying to censor yourself according to what you think is useful. There's a famous story of Jean Paul Sartre that he said to the stupefaction of a journalist late in his life that he'd always known about the gulag, and the journalist pretty surprised said, well, why didn't you say anything? And Sartre said so as not to demoralize the French working class. And my own view is, you know, you say what you have to say about this and if I give some aid and comfort to people I don't like, well, so be it. Having said that, I also think a lot of these woke ideas have their, for all of Trump's and Trump's people's fierce opposition to woke, some of the identity politics, particularly around Jewish identity seems to me not that very different from woke. Strangely they seem to have taken, for example, there's a lot of the talk about anti-semitism on college campuses involves student safety which is a great woke trope that you feel unsafe and what people mean by that is not literally they're going to get shot or beaten up, they mean that they feel psychically unsafe. It's part of the kind of metaphorization of experience that unfortunately the United States is now completely in the grips of. But the same thing on the other side, people like Barry Weiss, for example, at the Free Press there, they talk in the same language of psychic safety. So I'm not sure there's, I think there are more similarities than either side is comfortable with.Andrew Keen: You describe Woke, David, as a cultural revolution and you associated in the beginning of the book with something called Lumpen-Rousseauism. As we joked before we went live, I'm not sure if there's anything in Rousseau which isn't Lumpen. But what exactly is this cultural revolution? And can we blame it on bad French philosophy or Swiss French?David Rieff: Well, Swiss-French philosophy, you know exactly. There is a funny anecdote, as I'm sure you know, that Rousseau made a visit to Edinburgh to see Hume and there's something in Hume's diaries where he talks about Rousseau pacing up and down in front of the fire and suddenly exclaiming, but David Hume is not a bad man. And Hume notes in his acerbic way, Rousseau was like walking around without his skin on. And I think some of the woke sensitivity stuff is very much people walking around without their skin on. They can't stand the idea of being offended. I don't see it as much - of course, the influence of that version of cultural relativism that the French like Deleuze and Guattari and other people put forward is part of the story, but I actually see it as much more of a post-Protestant thing. This idea, in that sense, some kind of strange combination of maybe some French philosophy, but also of the wellness movement, of this notion that health, including psychic health, was the ultimate good in a secular society. And then the other part, which again, it seems to be more American than French, which is this idea, and this is particularly true in the trans movement, that you can be anything you want to be. And so that if you feel yourself to be a different gender, well, that's who you are. And what matters is your own subjective sense of these things, and it's up to you. The outside world has no say in it, it's what you feel. And that in a sense, what I mean by post-Protestant is that, I mean, what's the difference between Protestantism and Catholicism? The fundamental difference is, it seems to me, that in Roman Catholic tradition, you need the priest to intercede with God, whereas in Protestant tradition, it is, except for the Anglicans, but for most of Protestantism, it's you and God. And in that sense it seems to me there are more of what I see in woke than this notion that some of the right-wing people like Chris Rufo and others have that this is cultural French cultural Marxism making its insidious way through the institutions.Andrew Keen: It's interesting you talk about the Protestant ethic and you mentioned Hume's remark about Rousseau not having his skin on. Do you think that Protestantism enabled people to grow thick skins?David Rieff: I mean, the Calvinist idea certainly did. In fact, there were all these ideas in Protestant culture, at least that's the classical interpretation of deferred gratification. Capitalism was supposed to be the work ethic, all of that stuff that Weber talks about. But I think it got in the modern version. It became something else. It stopped being about those forms of disciplines and started to be about self-invention. And in a sense, there's something very American about that because after all you know it's the Great Gatsby. It's what's the famous sentence of F. Scott Fitzgerald's: there are no second acts in American lives.Andrew Keen: This is the most incorrect thing anyone's ever said about America. I'm not sure if he meant it to be incorrect, did he? I don't know.David Rieff: I think what's true is that you get the American idea, you get to reinvent yourself. And this notion of the dream, the dream become reality. And many years ago when I was spending a lot of time in LA in the late 80s, early 90s, at LAX, there was a sign from the then mayor, Tom Bradley, about how, you know, if you can dream it, it can be true. And I think there's a lot in identitarian woke idea which is that we can - we're not constricted by history or reality. In fact, it's all the present and the future. And so to me again, woke seems to me much more recognizable as something American and by extension post-Protestant in the sense that you see the places where woke is most powerful are in the other, what the encampment kids would call settler colonies, Australia and Canada. And now in the UK of course, where it seems to me by DI or EDI as they call it over there is in many ways stronger in Britain even than it was in the US before Trump.Andrew Keen: Does it really matter though, David? I mean, that's my question. Does it matter? I mean it might matter if you have the good or the bad fortune to teach at a small, expensive liberal arts college. It might matter with some of your dinner parties in Tribeca or here in San Francisco, but for most people, who cares?David Rieff: It doesn't matter. I think it matters to culture and so what you think culture is worth, because a lot of the point of this book was to say there's nothing about woke that threatens capitalism, that threatens the neo-liberal order. I mean it's turning out that Donald Trump is a great deal bigger threat to the neoliberal order. Woke was to the contrary - woke is about talking about everything but class. And so a kind of baudlerized, de-radicalized version of woke became perfectly fine with corporate America. That's why this wonderful old line hard lefty Adolph Reed Jr. says somewhere that woke is about diversifying the ruling class. But I do think it's a threat to high culture because it's about equity. It's about representation. And so elite culture, which I have no shame in proclaiming my loyalty to, can't survive the woke onslaught. And it hasn't, in my view. If you look at just the kinds of books that are being written, the kinds of plays that are been put on, even the opera, the new operas that are being commissioned, they're all about representing the marginalized. They're about speaking for your group, whatever that group is, and doing away with various forms of cultural hierarchy. And I'm with Schoenberg: if it's for everybody, if it's art, Schoenberg said it's not for everybody, and if it's for everybody it's not art. And I think woke destroys that. Woke can live with schlock. I'm sorry, high culture can live with schlock, it always has, it always will. What it can't live with is kitsch. And by which I mean kitsch in Milan Kundera's definition, which is to have opinions that you feel better about yourself for holding. And that I think is inimical to culture. And I think woke is very destructive of those traditions. I mean, in the most obvious sense, it's destructive of the Western tradition, but you know, the high arts in places like Japan or Bengal, I don't think it's any more sympathetic to those things than it is to Shakespeare or John Donne or whatever. So yeah, I think it's a danger in that sense. Is it a danger to the peace of the world? No, of course not.Andrew Keen: Even in cultural terms, as you explain, it is an orthodoxy. If you want to work with the dominant cultural institutions, the newspapers, the universities, the publishing houses, you have to play by those rules, but the great artists, poets, filmmakers, musicians have never done that, so all it provides, I mean you brought up Kundera, all it provides is something that independent artists, creative people will sneer at, will make fun of, as you have in this new book.David Rieff: Well, I hope they'll make fun of it. But on the other hand, I'm an old guy who has the means to sneer. I don't have to please an editor. Someone will publish my books one way or another, whatever ones I have left to write. But if you're 25 years old, maybe you're going to sneer with your pals in the pub, but you're gonna have to toe the line if you want to be published in whatever the obvious mainstream place is and you're going to be attacked on social media. I think a lot of people who are very, young people who are skeptical of this are just so afraid of being attacked by their peers on various social media that they keep quiet. I don't know that it's true that, I'd sort of push back on that. I think non-conformists will out. I hope it's true. But I wonder, I mean, these traditions, once they die, they're very hard to rebuild. And, without going full T.S. Eliot on you, once you don't think you're part of the past, once the idea is that basically, pretty much anything that came before our modern contemporary sense of morality and fairness and right opinion is to be rejected and that, for example, the moral character of the artist should determine whether or not the art should be paid attention to - I don't know how you come back from that or if you come back from that. I'm not convinced you do. No, other arts will be around. And I mean, if I were writing a critical review of my own book, I'd say, look, this culture, this high culture that you, David Rieff, are writing an elegy for, eulogizing or memorializing was going to die anyway, and we're at the beginning of another Gutenbergian epoch, just as Gutenberg, we're sort of 20 years into Marshall McLuhan's Gutenberg galaxy, and these other art forms will come, and they won't be like anything else. And that may be true.Andrew Keen: True, it may be true. In a sense then, to extend that critique, are you going full T.S. Eliot in this book?David Rieff: Yeah, I think Eliot was right. But it's not just Eliot, there are people who would be for the wokesters more acceptable like Mandelstam, for example, who said you're part of a conversation that's been going on long before you were born, that's going to be going on after you are, and I think that's what art is. I think the idea that we make some completely new thing is a childish fantasy. I think you belong to a tradition. There are periods - look, this is, I don't find much writing in English in prose fiction very interesting. I have to say I read the books that people talk about because I'm trying to understand what's going on but it doesn't interest me very much, but again, there have been periods of great mediocrity. Think of a period in the late 17th century in England when probably the best poet was this completely, rightly, justifiably forgotten figure, Colley Cibber. You had the great restoration period and then it all collapsed, so maybe it'll be that way. And also, as I say, maybe it's just as with the print revolution, that this new culture of social media will produce completely different forms. I mean, everything is mortal, not just us, but cultures and civilizations and all the rest of it. So I can imagine that, but this is the time I live in and the tradition I come from and I'm sorry it's gone, and I think what's replacing it is for the most part worse.Andrew Keen: You're critical in the book of what you, I'm quoting here, you talk about going from the grand inquisitor to the grand therapist. But you're very critical of the broader American therapeutic culture of acute sensitivity, the thin skin nature of, I guess, the Rousseau in this, whatever, it's lumpen Rousseauanism. So how do you interpret that without psychologizing, or are you psychologizing in the book? How are you making sense of our condition? In other words, can one critique criticize therapeutic culture without becoming oneself therapeutic?David Rieff: You mean the sort of Pogo line, we've met the enemy and it is us. Well, I suppose there's some truth to that. I don't know how much. I think that woke is in some important sense a subset of the wellness movement. And the wellness movement after all has tens and tens of millions of people who are in one sense or another influenced by it. And I think health, including psychic health, and we've moved from wellness as corporal health to wellness as being both soma and psyche. So, I mean, if that's psychologizing, I certainly think it's drawing the parallel or seeing woke in some ways as one of the children of the god of wellness. And that to me, I don't know how therapeutic that is. I think it's just that once you feel, I'm interested in what people feel. I'm not necessarily so interested in, I mean, I've got lots of opinions, but what I think I'm better at than having opinions is trying to understand why people think what they think. And I do think that once health becomes the ultimate good in a secular society and once death becomes the absolutely unacceptable other, and once you have the idea that there's no real distinction of any great validity between psychic and physical wellness, well then of course sensitivity to everything becomes almost an inevitable reaction.Andrew Keen: I was reading the book and I've been thinking about a lot of movements in America which are trying to bring people together, dealing with America, this divided America, as if it's a marriage in crisis. So some of the most effective or interesting, I think, thinkers on this, like Arlie Hochschild in Berkeley, use the language of therapy to bring or to try to bring America back together, even groups like the Braver Angels. Can therapy have any value or that therapeutic culture in a place like America where people are so bitterly divided, so hateful towards one another?David Rieff: Well, it's always been a country where, on the one hand, people have been, as you say, incredibly good at hatred and also a country of people who often construe themselves as misfits and heretics from the Puritans forward. And on the other hand, you have that small-town American idea, which sometimes I think is as important to woke and DI as as anything else which is that famous saying of small town America of all those years ago which was if you don't have something nice to say don't say anything at all. And to some extent that is, I think, a very powerful ancestor of these movements. Whether they're making any headway - of course I hope they are, but Hochschild is a very interesting figure, but I don't, it seems to me it's going all the other way, that people are increasingly only talking to each other.Andrew Keen: What this movement seems to want to do is get beyond - I use this word carefully, I'm not sure if they use it but I'm going to use it - ideology and that we're all prisoners of ideology. Is woke ideology or is it a kind of post-ideology?David Rieff: Well, it's a redemptive idea, a restorative idea. It's an idea that in that sense, there's a notion that it's time for the victims, for the first to be last and the last to be first. I mean, on some level, it is as simple as that. On another level, as I say, I do think it has a lot to do with metaphorization of experience, that people say silence is violence and words are violence and at that point what's violence? I mean there is a kind of level to me where people have gotten trapped in the kind of web of their own metaphors and now are living by them or living shackled to them or whatever image you're hoping for. But I don't know what it means to get beyond ideology. What, all men will be brothers, as in the Beethoven-Schiller symphony? I mean, it doesn't seem like that's the way things are going.Andrew Keen: Is the problem then, and I'm thinking out loud here, is the problem politics or not enough politics?David Rieff: Oh, I think the problem is that now we don't know, we've decided that everything is part, the personal is the political, as the feminists said, 50, 60 years ago. So the personal's political, so the political is the personal. So you have to live the exemplary moral life, or at least the life that doesn't offend anybody or that conforms to whatever the dominant views of what good opinions are, right opinions are. I think what we're in right now is much more the realm of kind of a new set of moral codes, much more than ideology in the kind of discrete sense of politics.Andrew Keen: Now let's come back to this idea of being thin-skinned. Why are people so thin-skinned?David Rieff: Because, I mean, there are lots of things to say about that. One thing, of course, that might be worth saying, is that the young generations, people who are between, let's say, 15 and 30, they're in real material trouble. It's gonna be very hard for them to own a house. It's hard for them to be independent and unless the baby boomers like myself will just transfer every penny to them, which doesn't seem very likely frankly, they're going to live considerably worse than generations before. So if you can't make your way in the world then maybe you make your way yourself or you work on yourself in that sort of therapeutic sense. You worry about your own identity because the only place you have in the world in some way is yourself, is that work, that obsession. I do think some of these material questions are important. There's a guy you may know who's not at all woke, a guy who teaches at the University of Washington called Danny Bessner. And I just did a show with him this morning. He's a smart guy and we have a kind of ironic correspondence over email and DM. And I once said to him, why are you so bitter about everything? And he said, you want to know why? Because I have two children and the likelihood is I'll never get a teaching job that won't require a three hour commute in order for me to live anywhere that I can afford to live. And I thought, and he couldn't be further from woke, he's a kind of Jacobin guy, Jacobin Magazine guy, and if he's left at all, it's kind of old left, but I think a lot of people feel that, that they feel their practical future, it looks pretty grim.Andrew Keen: But David, coming back to the idea of art, they're all suited to the world of art. They don't have to buy a big house and live in the suburbs. They can become poets. They can become filmmakers. They can put their stuff up on YouTube. They can record their music online. There are so many possibilities.David Rieff: It's hard to monetize that. Maybe now you're beginning to sound like the people you don't like. Now you're getting to sound like a capitalist.Andrew Keen: So what? Well, I don't care if I sound like a capitalist. You're not going to starve to death.David Rieff: Well, you might not like, I mean, it's fine to be a barista at 24. It's not so fine at 44. And are these people going to ever get out of this thing? I don't know. I wonder. Look, when I was starting as a writer, as long as you were incredibly diligent, and worked really hard, you could cobble together at least a basic living by accepting every assignment and people paid you bits and bobs of money, but put together, you could make a living. Now, the only way to make money, unless you're lucky enough to be on staff of a few remaining media outlets that remain, is you have to become an impresario, you have become an entrepreneur of your own stuff. And again, sure, do lots of people manage that? Yeah, but not as many as could have worked in that other system, and look at the fate of most newspapers, all folding. Look at the universities. We can talk about woke and how woke destroyed, in my view anyway, a lot of the humanities. But there's also a level in which people didn't want to study these things. So we're looking at the last generation in a lot places of a lot of these humanities departments and not just the ones that are associated with, I don't know, white supremacy or the white male past or whatever, but just the humanities full stop. So I know if that sounds like, maybe it sounds like a capitalist, but maybe it also sounds like you know there was a time when the poets - you know very well, poets never made a living, poets taught in universities. That's the way American poets made their money, including pretty famous poets like Eric Wolcott or Joseph Brodsky or writers, Toni Morrison taught at Princeton all those years, Joyce Carol Oates still alive, she still does. Most of these people couldn't make a living of their work and so the university provided that living.Andrew Keen: You mentioned Barry Weiss earlier. She's making a fortune as an anti-woke journalist. And Free Press seems to be thriving. Yascha Mounk's Persuasion is doing pretty well. Andrew Sullivan, another good example, making a fortune off of Substack. It seems as if the people willing to take risks, Barry Weiss leaving the New York Times, Andrew Sullivan leaving everything he's ever joined - that's...David Rieff: Look, are there going to be people who thrive in this new environment? Sure. And Barry Weiss turns out to be this kind of genius entrepreneur. She deserves full credit for that. Although even Barry Weiss, the paradox for me of Barry Weiss is, a lot of her early activism was saying that she felt unsafe with these anti-Israeli teachers at Columbia. So in a sense, she was using some of the same language as the woke use, psychic safety, because she didn't mean Joseph Massad was gonna come out from the blackboard and shoot her in the eye. She meant that she was offended and used the language of safety to describe that. And so in that sense, again, as I was saying to you earlier, I think there are more similarities here. And Trump, I think this is a genuine counterrevolution that Trump is trying to mount. I'm not very interested in the fascism, non-fascism debate. I'm rather skeptical of it.Andrew Keen: As Danny Bessner is. Yeah, I thought Danny's piece about that was brilliant.David Rieff: We just did a show about it today, that piece about why that's all rubbish. I was tempted, I wrote to a friend that guy you may know David Bell teaches French history -Andrew Keen: He's coming on the show next week. Well, you see, it's just a little community of like-minded people.David Rieff: There you go. Well, I wrote to David.Andrew Keen: And you mentioned his father in the book, Daniel.David Rieff: Yeah, well, his father is sort of one of the tutelary idols of the book. I had his father and I read his father and I learned an enormous amount. I think that book about the cultural contradictions of capitalism is one of the great prescient books about our times. But I wrote to David, I said, I actually sent him the Bessner piece which he was quite ambivalent about. But I said well, I'm not really convinced by the fascism of Trump, maybe just because Hitler read books, unlike Donald Trump. But it's a genuine counterrevolution. And what element will change the landscape in terms of DI and woke and identitarianism is not clear. These people are incredibly ambitious. They really mean to change this country, transform it.Andrew Keen: But from the book, David, Trump's attempts to cleanse, if that's the right word, the university, I would have thought you'd have rather admired that, all these-David Rieff: I agree with some of it.Andrew Keen: All these idiots writing the same article for 30 years about something that no one has any interest in.David Rieff: I look, my problem with Trump is that I do support a lot of that. I think some of the stuff that Christopher Rufo, one of the leading ideologues of this administration has uncovered about university programs and all of this crap, I think it's great that they're not paying for it anymore. The trouble is - you asked me before, is it that important? Is culture important compared to destroying the NATO alliance, blowing up the global trade regime? No. I don't think. So yeah, I like a lot of what they're doing about the university, I don't like, and I am very fiercely opposed to this crackdown on speech. That seems to be grotesque and revolting, but are they canceling supporting transgender theater in Galway? Yeah, I think it's great that they're canceling all that stuff. And so I'm not, that's my problem with Trump, is that some of that stuff I'm quite unashamedly happy about, but it's not nearly worth all the damage he's doing to this country and the world.Andrew Keen: Being very generous with your time, David. Finally, in the book you describe woke as, and I thought this was a very sharp way of describing it, describe it as being apocalyptic but not pessimistic. What did you mean by that? And then what is the opposite of woke? Would it be not apocalyptic, but cheerful?David Rieff: Well, I think genuine pessimists are cheerful, I would put myself among those. The model is Samuel Beckett, who just thinks things are so horrible that why not be cheerful about them, and even express one's pessimism in a relatively cheerful way. You remember the famous story that Thomas McCarthy used to tell about walking in the Luxembourg Gardens with Beckett and McCarthy says to him, great day, it's such a beautiful day, Sam. Beckett says, yeah, beautiful day. McCarthy says, makes you glad to be alive. And Beckett said, oh, I wouldn't go that far. And so, the genuine pessimist is quite cheerful. But coming back to woke, it's apocalyptic in the sense that everything is always at stake. But somehow it's also got this reformist idea that cultural revolution will cleanse away the sins of the supremacist patriarchal past and we'll head for the sunny uplands. I think I'm much too much of a pessimist to think that's possible in any regime, let alone this rather primitive cultural revolution called woke.Andrew Keen: But what would the opposite be?David Rieff: The opposite would be probably some sense that the best we're going to do is make our peace with the trash nature of existence, that life is finite in contrast with the wellness people who probably have a tendency towards the apocalyptic because death is an insult to them. So everything is staving off the bad news and that's where you get this idea that you can, like a lot of revolutions, you can change the nature of people. Look, the communist, Che Guevara talked about the new man. Well, I wonder if he thought it was so new when he was in Bolivia. I think these are - people need utopias, this is one of them, MAGA is another utopia by the way, and people don't seem to be able to do without them and that's - I wish it were otherwise but it isn't.Andrew Keen: I'm guessing the woke people would be offended by the idea of death, are they?David Rieff: Well, I think the woke people, in this synchronicity, people and a lot of people, they're insulted - how can this happen to me, wonderful me? And this is those jokes in the old days when the British could still be savage before they had to have, you know, Henry the Fifth be played by a black actor - why me? Well, why not you? That's just so alien to and it's probably alien to the American idea. You're supposed to - it's supposed to work out and the truth is it doesn't work out. But La Rochefoucauld says somewhere no one can stare for too long at death or the sun and maybe I'm asking too much.Andrew Keen: Maybe only Americans can find death unacceptable to use one of your words.David Rieff: Yes, perhaps.Andrew Keen: Well, David Rieff, congratulations on the new book. Fascinating, troubling, controversial as always. Desire and Fate. I know you're writing a book about Oppenheimer, very different kind of subject. We'll get you back on the show to talk Oppenheimer, where I guess there's not going to be a lot of Lumpen-Rousseauism.David Rieff: Very little, very little love and Rousseau in the quantum mechanics world, but thanks for having me.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

You can send me a text if you have a comment or questionThe defense of England is reviewed in terms of manpower, construction and engineering and advanced technology.We start off with the empirical philosophy of Smith and Hume, look at the WWI level of mobilization Britain was able to achieve, a level of mobilization 3-4 times that of France.  This was the real Levee En Masse.  We get some scale for Britain's financial intervention and subsidization of her allies.

Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles and Shadow Finance Minister Jane Hume join Jacqui Felgate in the studio.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

An injury to Bealey has left the team one man down for Ep 3 and also ruined his Azzi medal hopes as his much anticipated return ends in tears, a big name gets Tool of the Week along with a repeat offender, big news for seconds footballers - selection honours await as plans go into play for the Hume FL 25 Yr Seconds Team of this period  plus its a family affair at Billabong Crows netball all in Ep 3 

Continuing on The Nature of Sympathy (1913/1922), Part I: "Fellow Feeling," Ch. 1-4. We look more closely at the text, getting further into how fellow feeling relates to ethics, and why the moral sentimentalists (like Hume) were wrong about this. Get more at partiallyexaminedlife.com. Visit partiallyexaminedlife.com/support to get ad-free episodes and tons of bonus discussion.

The Bad Effects Of Hume's Philosophy The bad effects of Hume's philosophy might not seem apparent on the surface; people have been disagreeing about miracles even as they happen. Yet, Hume supported locking people up in insane asylums who believed miracles happened. And while his support for his movement crumbled while failing to uphold its own standard, it led to religious studies being devalued and it helped in the lead up to liberalism in Christianity. Timeline: 00:00 - Introduction 01:22 - Hume's Philosophy On Miracles Is A Mess 02:56 - Hume Is Raised Up, Let's Cast Him Down 03:59 - The Effects Of Hume's Arguments 04:01 - Hume Wants All Religious People In Mental Hospitals 06:04 - Hume's Thinking Throughout Religious Studies From Consideration 08:34 - Hume's Logic Fails Its Own Standard & Wipes Out Other Areas Of Knowledge 11:32 - Scientists - Hume Is Dead, Long Live Hume 12:24 - The Effects Of Hume's Philosophical Skepticism 13:28 - Hume's Effect On Religion - The Rise Of Liberalism 19:56 - The Unsound Science Of Hume Is Unrealized Philosophy 22:26 - Conclusion BOOK LINKS: Main Book - Miracles by Craig Keener: Kindle Hardcover Logos ChristianBook.com     Other Book - Miracles Today by Craig Keener: Kindle Paperback Audible Logos ChristianBook.com All episodes, short clips, & blog - https://www.cavetothecross.com

A healthy church honors its leaders, cares for one another with patience and wisdom, and pursues good in all circumstances as a reflection of Christ's love.

Both the Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles and Shadow Finance Minister Jane Hume spoke about the campaign trail on Wednesday. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week Bealey is under the pump from Mason copping a CollKano about his trip to Yackandandah, a Giants teammate wins Tool of the Week, the longest ever Mailbag question and the young superstar from Culcairn Iilysh is our Hot Property winner plus a look at round one in both football and netball - enjoy ! 

Senator Jane Hume took a stab at Abbie and fellow influencers who are backing certain political parties. Abbie has BEEF. Also, the budget. LINKS Check out @itsalotpod on IG at https://bit.ly/itsalot-instagram . Review the podcast on Apple Podcasts https://bit.ly/ial-review Follow LiSTNR Entertainment on IG @listnrentertainment Follow LiSTNR Entertainment on TikTok @listnrentertainment Get instructions on how to access transcripts on Apple podcasts https://bit.ly/3VQbKXY CREDITS Host: Abbie Chatfield @abbiechatfield Executive Producer: Lem Zakharia @lemzakhariaDigital and Social Producer: Oscar Gordon @oscargordon Recording Engineer: Ben Charlesworth @curly.charlesworthSocial and Video Producer: Zoe Panaretos @zoepanaretosIt's A Lot Social Media Manager: Julia ToomeyManaging Producer: Sam Cavanagh Find more great podcasts like this at www.listnr.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Circular David Hume & His Critics Finishing up looking at David Hume's Philosophy and we see that Hume is being so circular that you'll find yourself dizzy. While he redefines miracles, provides circular arguments, and then begs the question, Hume won't even allow the possibility of a miracle claim to be presented to be considered. Ol' circular David Hume is not being a good philosopher and he's being a bit lazy. Timeline: 00:00 - Introduction 02:20 - Hume's Circular Argument Is Enough To Make Your Head Spin 04:30 - Hume Might Have Argued Slightly - Racistly 05:42 - Hume's Being Lazy Even Though He Claimed An Inductive Argument 08:32 - Critics Of Hume During His Day 08:58 - William Paley's Hume Smackdown 11:11 - James B. Mozley On Hume Not Allowing For Evidence To Be Presented 14:11 - People Today Are More Against Hume Than Ever Before 15:10 - Hume's Circular Arguments Begs The Question Of Miracles 18:25 - Conclusion BOOK LINKS: Main Book - Miracles by Craig Keener: Kindle Hardcover Logos ChristianBook.com     Other Book - Miracles Today by Craig Keener: Kindle Paperback Audible Logos ChristianBook.com All episodes, short clips, & blog - https://www.cavetothecross.com

In this episode of the Other Side Lifestyle Podcast, Jim and Aram engage with Jenna Hume, a nurse practitioner specializing in obesity medicine. They discuss the Six Pillars of Health, misconceptions about metabolism, the impact of yo-yo dieting, and the importance of emotional health in weight management. Jenna emphasizes the need for a comprehensive approach to health that includes body composition analysis and understanding the psychological aspects of eating. The conversation also touches on the challenges of weight loss during hormonal changes and the significance of addressing inflammation and health markers. In this conversation, Jenna Hume discusses the complexities of dieting, emotional factors affecting weight loss, and the role of medications like GLP-1s in weight management. The dialogue explores the importance of understanding body composition, the challenges posed by insurance companies regarding medication access, and the need for personalized approaches in dietary strategies. The speakers emphasize the psychological aspects of eating and the necessity of addressing emotional eating to achieve sustainable health outcomes. In this conversation, Jenna Hume discusses the complexities of healthcare, particularly in relation to medication access, ethical prescribing, and the importance of patient education. The dialogue explores the challenges patients face in obtaining necessary treatments, the long-term implications of medication use, and the role of nutrition and digestive health in overall wellness. The speakers emphasize the need for a patient-centric approach in healthcare, advocating for better communication and support systems to facilitate successful treatment outcomes.   Follow Jenna on IG: @sixpillarshealth   If you are a coach, sign up now for The Real Coaches Summit 2025 in Las Vegas this April, organized by yours truly - Aram Grigorian.  The speaker lineup is insane, and don't forget macro friendly breakfast, lunch, and dinner is provided, as well as a top shelf open bar happy hour each evening to network and meet the speakers.  No VIP - we are all equals at this event!     You can find us on Instagram: Aram: @4weeks2thebeach Jim: @jimmynutrition   Grab some Serenity Gummies: CuredNutrition.com Code: OSL for 20% OFF Get some t-shirts/tanks/hoodies at:   https://www.othersidelifestyle.com/shop If you'd like to reach out to Aram, you can find him at:  https://www.4weeks2thebeach.com/work-with-me If you'd like to reach out to Jim, you can find him at:  https://www.othersidelifestyle.com/schedule Go get some supplements: www.legionathletics.com, use code: ARAM

Jane Hume spoke following her heated TV interview on Wednesday morning. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Highway to Hume crew are back and in good form recapping the off season -  the good, the bad and the forgettable as Robbie, Bealey and Mason loosen things up while for a bit of sense Georgia has a peak at the netball. 

Sunderland vs Millwall preview with Cirkin and Hume potentially out

Ana Isabel Hume is a seasoned multimedia journalist, author, and communications expert with over two decades of experience in television news. She has worked as an anchor, reporter, producer, and editor across English and Spanish-language stations in states like Colorado, New York, Georgia, and Florida. Most recently, she served as the Director of Communications for City of Miami Mayor Francis X. Suarez and co-hosted Inside South Florida on WSFL-TV. Beyond journalism, Ana is an adjunct professor, a public relations specialist, and a competitive bodybuilder. She is also the author of The Silent Life of an Army Wife, reflecting on her experiences as a former Army wife.

Hume Destroys Testimony - All Testimony Hume is back at it again with destroying more of our ability to know things. Here, we look at how Hume destroys testimony - all testimony. His standard for witnesses is so unreasonable that no witnesses can match it. His description of the normal goings of nature leaves no room for unusual events - even events we know happen. Hume is really losing a lot just to not accept miracles. Timeline: 00:00 - Introduction 01:10 - Hume Mistreats Witnesses Because Of Nature 04:13 - Hume Wouldn't Let Witnesses Into Courts No Matter How Good The Math Is 07:30 - Hume's Standard For Witnesses Doesn't Allow For Witness Evidence 10:00 - Hume Is Swine Before Casted Pearls 11:26 - No Uniform Experience Of Miracles That Hume Wants 13:29 - Hume Doesn't Get What He Wants With Witnesses 15:00 - Unusual Events Doesn't Mean Unreliable 15:56 - A Documented Unusual Event With Witnesses - Hume Would Ignore It! 17:43 - What About The Lottery? An Argument Based On Presupposition 20:09 - We Should Expect Unlikely Events At Times 23:29 - Summary 24:31 - Conclusion BOOK LINKS: Main Book - Miracles by Craig Keener: Kindle Hardcover Logos ChristianBook.com     Other Book - Miracles Today by Craig Keener: Kindle Paperback Audible Logos ChristianBook.com All episodes, short clips, & blog - https://www.cavetothecross.com

Joining Clancy and Wendell this week is Victorian Senator Jane Hume, the Shadow Minister for Finance, the Public Service and Shadow Special Minister of State. Jane dropped by to chat about how much she loves campaigning, nuclear energy and how the Liberals can turn around their fortune after 2022's election loss. We also try get her to spill the beans on who is Peter Dutton’s potential replacement is if he loses his seatSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Brit Hume, chief political analyst for Fox News Channel, joined The Guy Benson Show to discuss the increasingly toxic state of the Democratic Party as it continues to be pulled further to the left. He also weighed in on the release of the JFK files, explaining why he doesn't expect much to come from them and which conspiracy theories seem plausible to him. Plus, Hume shared his thoughts on the public's support for Ukraine following Trump's recent meeting with Vladimir Putin. You can listen to the full interview below! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Can Hume Get A Witness? Looking at David Hume's philosophy on miracles, now we find ourselves not seeing Hume interact with miracle claims, but questioning if someone can even be a witness to a miracle. Can Hume get a witness? It seems his standard is both circular and redefining of key terms. We see that taking Hume at his standard not only allows for no inductive evidence to come in but leads to some repercussions in daily life that would destroy most of our knowledge. So, ya know, the small things. Timeline: 00:00 - Introduction 03:14 - Hume's Epistemology - Deductive Rather Inductive 04:25 - Begging The Question With Uniformity Of Nature 06:38 - Hume Wanting Testimony - No! Not That Testimony! 07:56 - Surveying Witnesses And Their Interpretations Of Miracles 10:14 - Hume's Circularity With Human Experience & Uniformity Of Nature 12:31 - Hume's Circularity Of What Makes For A Good Witness To Miracles 15:00 - Dismissing What's Never Been Seen With People Who Have Claimed To See It 15:57 - Grant Hume His Standard And See What Happens - Ut Oh! 18:50 - We All Rely On Testimony To Live & In Life 20:35 - Conclusion BOOK LINKS: Main Book - Miracles by Craig Keener: Kindle Hardcover Logos ChristianBook.com     Other Book - Miracles Today by Craig Keener: Kindle Paperback Audible Logos ChristianBook.com All episodes, short clips, & blog - https://www.cavetothecross.com

Episode 49: How close are we to living in a world where AI voices sound indistinguishable from humans? Matt Wolfe (https://x.com/mreflow) and Nathan Lands (https://x.com/NathanLands) delve into this cutting-edge technology. In this episode, the hosts explore groundbreaking AI voice technology, from tools like Sesame to Hume's Octave Text-to-Speech. You'll hear live demonstrations, learn about the practical applications and imaginative possibilities for AI voices in business and personal use, and even discuss the societal implications of these rapidly evolving technologies. Are we on the brink of preferring robotic companionship over human interaction? Check out The Next Wave YouTube Channel if you want to see Matt and Nathan on screen: https://lnk.to/thenextwavepd — Show Notes: (00:00) Actionable Tech Insights & Tools (05:57) Sesame's Persistent and Eerie Traits (06:33) AI Chatbots: Balancing Realism and Clarity (11:55) Voice Imitation Glitching (14:55) Generational Shift: Introversion and Gaming (18:05) Robots: Future Elderly Companions (21:49) Octave: Emotion-Sensing Text-to-Speech (26:14) Emotion-Sensing Voice Technology (28:31) Natural-Sounding Article Narration (31:51) Natural vs. AI Speech Variations (34:23) Exploring AI Voice Innovations (38:17) Advancements in Transcription Technology (40:13) Google's Innovative AI Endeavors — Mentions: Sesame: https://www.sesame.com/ Hume's Octave: https://www.hume.ai/blog/introducing-octave ElevenLabs: https://elevenlabs.io/ WisprFlow: https://wisprflow.ai/ Get the guide to build your own Custom GPT: https://clickhubspot.com/tnw — Check Out Matt's Stuff: • Future Tools - https://futuretools.beehiiv.com/ • Blog - https://www.mattwolfe.com/ • YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/@mreflow — Check Out Nathan's Stuff: Newsletter: https://news.lore.com/ Blog - https://lore.com/ The Next Wave is a HubSpot Original Podcast // Brought to you by The HubSpot Podcast Network // Production by Darren Clarke // Editing by Ezra Bakker Trupiano

Jenna Hume is a certified Nurse Practitioner, Certified in Obesity Medicine, and owner of Six Pillars Health, a weight loss medication coaching practice.Jenna gives us a masterclass in obesity medicine covering:- How these meds actually work- Who are they for- Why your MINDSET & trauma plays a roll- Importance of lifestyle habits & proper training - How emotional health plays a roll- Why she doesn't prescribe them automatically to every patient- and much moreYou can learn more about Jenna at: https://www.sixpillarshealth.com/ If you want to get your mind & body aligned so you can reach your full potential, start here:FREE METABOLIC ASSESSMENTTo learn more about 1:1 Coaching, go HERE

Dismantling David Hume We start dismantling David Hume at the best place to start - the beginning. Hume's definition of miracles, his epistemology, and his claim of neutrality are the best places to see if the foundation of his critique cracks or even fails to support his claims. Timeline: 00:00 - Introduction 01:35 - Hume & The Philosophy Of Science 02:55 - Hume As Rhetorician Of Old Ideas 03:44 - Not All Empiricists Followed Hume's Skepticism 04:34 - The Real Rise Of Anti-Miracles During The Time Of Hume 05:26 - Hume's Basis For Being Anti-Miracle 07:46 - Where Could One Allow For Miracles To Be Considered On A Regular Basis 09:01 - Miracles - Theology Over Science 10:39 - Hume's Violations Of Natural Law - For No Reason 16:49 - Theism's Definition Of Natural Law Vs. Hume's 18:54 - Hume's Own Violation Of His Epistemology - Induction 24:13 - Hume's Not Neutral Argument For Miracles 30:12 - Conclusion BOOK LINKS: Main Book - Miracles by Craig Keener: Kindle Hardcover Logos ChristianBook.com     Other Book - Miracles Today by Craig Keener: Kindle Paperback Audible Logos ChristianBook.com All episodes, short clips, & blog - https://www.cavetothecross.com

Kicking off today's episode is a response to Dr. Adi Schlebusch's article (itself a response) on Lancastrian Theonomy and then moving on to a reaction of a debate that Chris Hume of the Lancaster Patriot did with an online troll. 

On Friday's Rugby Daily, Richie McCormack brings you team news from the three provinces in action in the URC tomorrow. It's a Soroka family affair for Leinster who welcome Cardiff to the Aviva, and we hear from Leo Cullen. Ulster centre James Hume outlines the extent of his injury lows as Ulster prepare to entertain the Scarlets. And Connacht's Paul Boyle provides insight into the challenge posed by Benetton this week. We hear more from Conor Murray following his decision to retire from international action. Plus, the latest ins and outs at Leicester.

This episode of The Arts Salon is an exploration of the philosophical tensions between historical inevitability and artistic freedom. We delve into the ideas of Hegel and Hume, questioning whether art follows a predetermined arc of progress or exists on a more fluid and open-ended plane. Through the lens of Picasso's insights on artistic creation, the episode challenges the notion that innovation requires rejection of the past. Instead, it argues that framing art within rigid historical narratives distorts its purpose and limits its potential. In a world where artistic movements often define themselves in opposition to what came before, this episode asks: Does pursuing progress in art sometimes do more harm than good?

Our intuitions are never wrong… right? In episode 124 of Overthink, Ellie and David wonder what intuition actually is. Is it a gut feeling, a rational insight, or just a generalization from past experience? They talk about the role intuition has played in early modern philosophy (in the works of Descartes, Hume, and Mill), in phenomenology (in the philosophies of Husserl and Nishida), and in the philosophy of science (in the writings of Bachelard). They also call into question the use of intuitions in contemporary analytic philosophy while also highlighting analytic critiques of the use of intuition in philosophical discourse. So, the question is: Can we trust our intuitions or not? Are they reliable sources of knowledge, or do they just reveal our implicit biases and cultural stereotypes? Plus, in the bonus, they dive into the limits of intuition. They take a look at John Stuart Mill's rebellion against intuition, the ableism involved in many analytic intuitions, and Foucault's concept of historical epistemes.Works Discussed:Maria Rosa Antognazza and Marco Segala, “Intuition in the history of philosophy (what's in it for philosophers today?)”Gaston Bachelard, Rational MaterialismGaston Bachelard, The Philosophy of NoGaston Bachelard, The Rationalist CompromiseImmanuel Kant, The Critique of Pure ReasonJohn Stuart Mill, A System of LogicMoti Mizrahi, “Your Appeals to Intuition Have No Power Here!”Nishida Kitaro, Intuition and Reflection in Self-ConsciousnessSupport the showPatreon | patreon.com/overthinkpodcast Website | overthinkpodcast.comInstagram & Twitter | @overthink_podEmail | dearoverthink@gmail.comYouTube | Overthink podcast

Today, I'm joined by Chris Howell, CEO of SPX. A global gym and wellness design firm, SPX has crafted over 100 innovative spaces across 14 countries for brands like Soho House, HUME, and Rumble Boxing. In this episode, we discuss elevated gym design, luxury hospitality, and custom equipment manufacturing.  We also cover: • Gym and wellness design trends • Integrating recovery into fitness spaces • Creating social hubs without sacrificing functionality Subscribe to the podcast → insider.fitt.co/podcast Subscribe to our newsletter → insider.fitt.co/subscribe Follow us on LinkedIn → linkedin.com/company/fittinsider SPX's Website: https://www.spxfit.com/  SPX's IG: https://www.instagram.com/spxgymdesign/    Chris' IG: https://www.instagram.com/chrishowell16/   Chris' LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/chrishowell16/ - The Fitt Insider Podcast is brought to you by EGYM. Visit EGYM.com to learn more about its smart workout solutions for fitness and health facilities.  Fitt Talent: https://talent.fitt.co/ Consulting: https://consulting.fitt.co/ Investments: https://capital.fitt.co/ Chapters: (00:00) Introduction (01:27) Chris' Journey to SPX (05:39) Challenges in Gym Design (07:24) The Nine-Step Process for Gym Design (14:19) Trends in Fitness and Wellness Spaces (20:08) Consultancy and Playbooks for Success (23:02) Balancing Design and Functionality (25:26) Common Client Misconceptions (30:18) The Future of Wellness and Hospitality (35:17) Conclusion