Podcasts about kantian

ABOUT Pauline Kleingeld is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Groningen. Earlier she taught at Leiden University and at Washington University in St. Louis. She is the author of Kant and Cosmopolitanism (CUP 2012), Fortschritt und Vernunft: Zur Geschichtsphilosophie Kants (Königshausen und Neumann 1995) and numerous articles. Her academic interests are in ethics and political philosophy, with a special focus on Kant and Kantian theory. ABSTRACT In the first section of his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (G1), Immanuel Kant claims to identify the supreme principle of morality. After famous discussions of the idea of a ‘good will', ‘acting from duty' and ‘respect', he concludes that the highest moral principle is the following: ‘I ought never to proceed except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law' (G 4:402). He claims that this principle implicitly governs ordinary moral practices and convictions. It is the ‘supreme' moral principle in that it is a meta-principle by means of which substantive Kantian moral principles — such as ‘help others in need' or ‘never lie' — can be derived. Because Kant's argument draws on moral convictions that are still widely shared, and because his conclusion articulates a paradigmatic position in moral theory, G1 has become one of the most renowned texts in the history of philosophy. The structure of Kant's argument towards the identification of the supreme principle, however, has long been the subject of debate. Three serious difficulties stand out in the literature, and they all concern the most important steps of his argument: (1) Kant presents his argument as consisting of three propositions and a conclusion, but he labels only the second and third propositions as such. He does not make explicit what he takes the first proposition to be. In recent decades at least a dozen candidates have been put forward in the literature (see Steigleder 2022). (2) Kant claims that the third proposition follows from the first and the second, but it is widely regarded unclear how it is supposed to follow. (3) Kant's final step to the formulation of the supreme principle is often said to be a jump over a gap, rather than a careful step that follows from the preceding argument. As a result, Kant's reasoning towards the supreme moral principle seems more like a series of assertions and fragmentary arguments rather than a single argumentative chain. In this paper, I argue that Kant's views on philosophical method shed new light on the structure and direction of his argument in G1. It has gone unnoticed that this argument consists of a chain of regressive inferences. I first explain the current positions in the literature regarding Kant's method in G1 (§2). I then turn to Kant's views on method (§3). Using his description of the so-called ‘analytic method', I reconstruct the argument of G1 as a regressive chain. I argue that this reconstruction suggests solutions to the three main difficulties diagnosed in the literature, although several unclarities remain (§4).

The author explores various ethical theories, including Ethical Relativism, Feminist Ethics, Kantian deontology, Mill's consequentialism, and Aristotle's virtue ethics, highlighting their contributions and limitations. It emphasizes the importance of the "moral ought," a logical foundation for universal justice and law, noting that ethical systems often reflect cultural or ideological biases rather than universally defensible principles. The absence of a universally defensible moral ought leads to the formation of laws rooted in power disparities rather than in intrinsic values and abstract principles.The argument progresses further, to suggest that the "moral ought" is inherent to reality, akin to natural laws such as gravity. Ownership of what we create, and the right to transfer what we own to a buyer, are posited as universally uncontestable truths. In short, we already quantify evil when we value stolen goods. Evil can be measured based on the value of what is unjustly taken, linking morality to the tangible construct of ownership and evil to offenses against the rightful owner defined by the identity of its creator.

T.S. Eliot claimed that he learned his prose style from reading F.H. Bradley, and the poet wrote his PhD on the English philosopher at Harvard. Bradley's life was remarkably unremarkable, as he spent his entire career as a fellow of Merton College, Oxford, where his only obligation was not to get married. Yet in over fifty years of slow, meticulous writing he articulated a series of unusual and arresting ideas that attacked Kantian and utilitarian notions of duty and morality. In this episode, Jonathan and James look at Bradley's polemic against John Stuart Mill, ‘My Station and Its Duties', and other essays in Ethical Studies, which challenge the idea of morality as a product of calm reasoning arrived at by mature, rational minds. For Bradley, morality is a characteristic of communities, determined by people's differing needs at various stages in their lives, and the universal need for self-realisation can only be achieved through those communities.Non-subscribers will only hear an extract from this episode. To listen to the full episode, and all our other Close Readings series, subscribe:Directly in Apple Podcasts: https://lrb.me/applecrcipIn other podcast apps: https://lrb.me/closereadingscipRead more in the LRB:Frank Kermode on Eliot and Bradley:https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v10/n17/frank-kermode/feast-of-st-thomas Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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

This book is available open access here.  The Brain Abstracted: Simplification in the History and Philosophy of Neuroscience (MIT Press, 2024), Mazviita Chirimuuta argues that the standard ways neuroscientists simplify the human brain to build models for their research purposes mislead us about how the brain actually works. The key issue, instead, is to figure out which details of brain function are relevant for understanding its role in causing behavior; after all, the biological brain is a highly energetically efficient basis of cognition in contrast to the massive data centers driving AI that are based on the simplification that brain functionality is just a matter of neuronal action potentials. Chirimuuta, who is a senior lecturer in philosophy at the University of Edinburgh, also argues for a Kantian-inspired view of neuroscientific knowledge called haptic realism, according to which what we can know about the brain is the product of interaction between brains and the scientific methods and aims that guide how we investigate them. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

This book is available open access here.  The Brain Abstracted: Simplification in the History and Philosophy of Neuroscience (MIT Press, 2024), Mazviita Chirimuuta argues that the standard ways neuroscientists simplify the human brain to build models for their research purposes mislead us about how the brain actually works. The key issue, instead, is to figure out which details of brain function are relevant for understanding its role in causing behavior; after all, the biological brain is a highly energetically efficient basis of cognition in contrast to the massive data centers driving AI that are based on the simplification that brain functionality is just a matter of neuronal action potentials. Chirimuuta, who is a senior lecturer in philosophy at the University of Edinburgh, also argues for a Kantian-inspired view of neuroscientific knowledge called haptic realism, according to which what we can know about the brain is the product of interaction between brains and the scientific methods and aims that guide how we investigate them. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/philosophy

This book is available open access here.  The Brain Abstracted: Simplification in the History and Philosophy of Neuroscience (MIT Press, 2024), Mazviita Chirimuuta argues that the standard ways neuroscientists simplify the human brain to build models for their research purposes mislead us about how the brain actually works. The key issue, instead, is to figure out which details of brain function are relevant for understanding its role in causing behavior; after all, the biological brain is a highly energetically efficient basis of cognition in contrast to the massive data centers driving AI that are based on the simplification that brain functionality is just a matter of neuronal action potentials. Chirimuuta, who is a senior lecturer in philosophy at the University of Edinburgh, also argues for a Kantian-inspired view of neuroscientific knowledge called haptic realism, according to which what we can know about the brain is the product of interaction between brains and the scientific methods and aims that guide how we investigate them. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/psychology

This book is available open access here.  The Brain Abstracted: Simplification in the History and Philosophy of Neuroscience (MIT Press, 2024), Mazviita Chirimuuta argues that the standard ways neuroscientists simplify the human brain to build models for their research purposes mislead us about how the brain actually works. The key issue, instead, is to figure out which details of brain function are relevant for understanding its role in causing behavior; after all, the biological brain is a highly energetically efficient basis of cognition in contrast to the massive data centers driving AI that are based on the simplification that brain functionality is just a matter of neuronal action potentials. Chirimuuta, who is a senior lecturer in philosophy at the University of Edinburgh, also argues for a Kantian-inspired view of neuroscientific knowledge called haptic realism, according to which what we can know about the brain is the product of interaction between brains and the scientific methods and aims that guide how we investigate them. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This book is available open access here.  The Brain Abstracted: Simplification in the History and Philosophy of Neuroscience (MIT Press, 2024), Mazviita Chirimuuta argues that the standard ways neuroscientists simplify the human brain to build models for their research purposes mislead us about how the brain actually works. The key issue, instead, is to figure out which details of brain function are relevant for understanding its role in causing behavior; after all, the biological brain is a highly energetically efficient basis of cognition in contrast to the massive data centers driving AI that are based on the simplification that brain functionality is just a matter of neuronal action potentials. Chirimuuta, who is a senior lecturer in philosophy at the University of Edinburgh, also argues for a Kantian-inspired view of neuroscientific knowledge called haptic realism, according to which what we can know about the brain is the product of interaction between brains and the scientific methods and aims that guide how we investigate them. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science-technology-and-society

This book is available open access here.  The Brain Abstracted: Simplification in the History and Philosophy of Neuroscience (MIT Press, 2024), Mazviita Chirimuuta argues that the standard ways neuroscientists simplify the human brain to build models for their research purposes mislead us about how the brain actually works. The key issue, instead, is to figure out which details of brain function are relevant for understanding its role in causing behavior; after all, the biological brain is a highly energetically efficient basis of cognition in contrast to the massive data centers driving AI that are based on the simplification that brain functionality is just a matter of neuronal action potentials. Chirimuuta, who is a senior lecturer in philosophy at the University of Edinburgh, also argues for a Kantian-inspired view of neuroscientific knowledge called haptic realism, according to which what we can know about the brain is the product of interaction between brains and the scientific methods and aims that guide how we investigate them. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/neuroscience

This book is available open access here.  The Brain Abstracted: Simplification in the History and Philosophy of Neuroscience (MIT Press, 2024), Mazviita Chirimuuta argues that the standard ways neuroscientists simplify the human brain to build models for their research purposes mislead us about how the brain actually works. The key issue, instead, is to figure out which details of brain function are relevant for understanding its role in causing behavior; after all, the biological brain is a highly energetically efficient basis of cognition in contrast to the massive data centers driving AI that are based on the simplification that brain functionality is just a matter of neuronal action potentials. Chirimuuta, who is a senior lecturer in philosophy at the University of Edinburgh, also argues for a Kantian-inspired view of neuroscientific knowledge called haptic realism, according to which what we can know about the brain is the product of interaction between brains and the scientific methods and aims that guide how we investigate them. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/book-of-the-day

In this episode, we dive into the complex relationship between needs and wants, especially in the context of fitness and health. By exploring various philosophical perspectives, we examine how "need" can mean different things—from survival necessities to living an optimal life. Drawing from Kantian ethics, we pose the thought-provoking idea that a life focused only on needs is empty, while a life centered solely on wants is blind. We also explore the tension between biological needs and desires, discussing how lower-order wants (like junk food or laziness) clash with higher-order needs (such as genuine relaxation and social connection). Using insights from Dialectical Behavioral Therapy and Maslow's hierarchy, we consider how balancing both needs and wants is crucial for a fulfilling life—especially in the modern world, where survival no longer demands physical exertion but emotional and psychological fulfillment still does.

What if morality was law-governed in the same way as logic and physics?The Hotel Bar Sessions hosts close out Season 11 with a deep dive into one of philosophy's most important moral principles: Immanuel Kant's “Categorical Imperative.” They carefully unpack Kant's three formulations of the “moral law”—the Universality formulation, the Humanity formulation, and the Kingdom of Ends formulation—to demonstrate how Kant sought to ground morality in rationality, universality, and freedom.Through accessible examples– punctuality, lying, slavery, and even prostitution– the hosts illustrate Kant's vision of the moral law as an unconditional principle, independent of personal preferences or consequences. They also clarify common misconceptions, like conflating Kant's universality formulation with the Golden Rule, and examine how his ideas prioritize duty over subjective inclinations.This is a spirited debate about Kant's relevance today, questioning the challenges of applying the rigid moral framework  of the Categorical Imperative to complex modern realities. The co-hosts address critiques of Kant's metaphysical assumptions, his treatment of non-human entities, and the potential for misusing his ideas to justify exclusion. Despite these critiques, the hosts argue for the enduring importance of Kantian ethics in safeguarding the dignity and autonomy of all rational beings.Filled with humor, thoughtful analysis, and practical insights, this episode invites listeners to reflect on the philosophical foundations of morality and their own ethical commitments.Full episode notes available at this link:https://hotelbarpodcast.com/podcast/episode-165-kants-categorical-imperative-------------------If you enjoy Hotel Bar Sessions podcast, please be sure to subscribe and submit a rating/review! Better yet, you can support this podcast by signing up to be one of our Patrons at patreon.com/hotelbarsessions!Follow us on Twitter/X @hotelbarpodcast, on Blue Sky @hotelbarpodcast.bsky.social, on Facebook, on TikTok, and subscribe to our YouTube channel! 

Send us a textSupport the podcast!Buy Bishop Schneider's book here! We have an oldie, but a goodie for you today! One of the most popular episodes of 2024 is back just in time for Advent. Join James, Fr. Dom, and Bishop Athanasius Schneider on this journey to combat heresy. What's destroying the foundations of religion today? Bishop Athanasius Schneider has the answer, and it's not what you'd expect. In this compelling conversation, Bishop Schneider takes a deep dive into the spiritual disease of heresy, explaining how it undermines divine revelation and infects the faithful. He warns about the heresy of modernism, calling it "the synthesis of all heresies," and reveals its roots in Kantian philosophy and medieval nominalism.But this isn't just a history lesson. Bishop Schneider lays out actionable steps to combat heresy today, from studying the catechism to embracing clear and unambiguous teaching. He explores the Church's critical role in defending the truth, offering insights into how you can strengthen your faith amidst doctrinal confusion.If you're ready to unmask modernism, understand its destructive impact on Catholicism, and learn how to defend the Word of God, this episode is for you. Watch now and equip yourself with the knowledge to stand firm in your faith!Key Takeaways:Heresy is a spiritual disease that distorts and harms the faithful.Modernism rejects stable truth, leading to changes in Catholic doctrine.Understanding the catechism is essential to defending the faith.Sound Bites from Bishop Schneider:"Heresy is a spiritual disease that infects and harms the faithful.""Modernism is destroying completely religion itself and Catholicism.""We must defend the holy Catholic faith with clarity and conviction."Call to Action: Dive into this eye-opening discussion and discover how you can protect and guide your faith amidst today's spiritual battles. Click play now!Please prayerfully consider supporting the podcast on our Buy Me A Coffee page. to help grow the show to reach as many men as possible! Thank you for your prayers and support. As always, please pray for us! We are men who strive daily to be holy, to become saints and we cannot do that without the help of the Holy Ghost! Subscribe to our YouTube page to see our manly and holy facesFollow us on Support us Mystic Monk CoffeeFor the best cup of coffee for a great cause, Mystic Monk Coffee is the choice for you! Support the showSupport the show at Buy Me A CoffeeFollow us on XSubscribe to our YouTube pageCheck out our websiteMystic Monk Coffee → For the best coffee for a great cause, we recommend Mystic Monk Coffee. Roasted with prayer by the Carmelite Monks in Wyoming, Mystic Monk Coffee has the ultimate cup waiting for you. See more at mysticmonkcoffee.com Contact us directly at themanlycatholic@gmail.com.

Indian Philosophy and Yoga in Germany by Owen Ware (Routledge, 2024) takes the reader on a tour through the reception of Yoga philosophies in nineteenth-century German and the early twentieth century. European luminaries like Schlegel, Hegel, von Günderrode, Schelling, Humbolt, and Müller all engaged with works like the Bhagavad Gītā and Yogā Sūtras, though in very different ways, some reading yogic thought as entailing a threatening nihilism, others lauding it as superlatively philosophical. Ware shows how their responses to Indian thought illuminates our understanding of post-Kantian philosophy and its anxieties over pantheism indebted to Spinoza. He concludes with two chapters on a range of Indian scholars from Swami Vivekananda to K. C. Bhattacharyya, exploring how their work engages with this history of European readings, grappling with themes of freedom, morality, and devotion in yoga. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Indian Philosophy and Yoga in Germany by Owen Ware (Routledge, 2024) takes the reader on a tour through the reception of Yoga philosophies in nineteenth-century German and the early twentieth century. European luminaries like Schlegel, Hegel, von Günderrode, Schelling, Humbolt, and Müller all engaged with works like the Bhagavad Gītā and Yogā Sūtras, though in very different ways, some reading yogic thought as entailing a threatening nihilism, others lauding it as superlatively philosophical. Ware shows how their responses to Indian thought illuminates our understanding of post-Kantian philosophy and its anxieties over pantheism indebted to Spinoza. He concludes with two chapters on a range of Indian scholars from Swami Vivekananda to K. C. Bhattacharyya, exploring how their work engages with this history of European readings, grappling with themes of freedom, morality, and devotion in yoga. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/philosophy

Indian Philosophy and Yoga in Germany by Owen Ware (Routledge, 2024) takes the reader on a tour through the reception of Yoga philosophies in nineteenth-century German and the early twentieth century. European luminaries like Schlegel, Hegel, von Günderrode, Schelling, Humbolt, and Müller all engaged with works like the Bhagavad Gītā and Yogā Sūtras, though in very different ways, some reading yogic thought as entailing a threatening nihilism, others lauding it as superlatively philosophical. Ware shows how their responses to Indian thought illuminates our understanding of post-Kantian philosophy and its anxieties over pantheism indebted to Spinoza. He concludes with two chapters on a range of Indian scholars from Swami Vivekananda to K. C. Bhattacharyya, exploring how their work engages with this history of European readings, grappling with themes of freedom, morality, and devotion in yoga. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/german-studies

Indian Philosophy and Yoga in Germany by Owen Ware (Routledge, 2024) takes the reader on a tour through the reception of Yoga philosophies in nineteenth-century German and the early twentieth century. European luminaries like Schlegel, Hegel, von Günderrode, Schelling, Humbolt, and Müller all engaged with works like the Bhagavad Gītā and Yogā Sūtras, though in very different ways, some reading yogic thought as entailing a threatening nihilism, others lauding it as superlatively philosophical. Ware shows how their responses to Indian thought illuminates our understanding of post-Kantian philosophy and its anxieties over pantheism indebted to Spinoza. He concludes with two chapters on a range of Indian scholars from Swami Vivekananda to K. C. Bhattacharyya, exploring how their work engages with this history of European readings, grappling with themes of freedom, morality, and devotion in yoga. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

Indian Philosophy and Yoga in Germany by Owen Ware (Routledge, 2024) takes the reader on a tour through the reception of Yoga philosophies in nineteenth-century German and the early twentieth century. European luminaries like Schlegel, Hegel, von Günderrode, Schelling, Humbolt, and Müller all engaged with works like the Bhagavad Gītā and Yogā Sūtras, though in very different ways, some reading yogic thought as entailing a threatening nihilism, others lauding it as superlatively philosophical. Ware shows how their responses to Indian thought illuminates our understanding of post-Kantian philosophy and its anxieties over pantheism indebted to Spinoza. He concludes with two chapters on a range of Indian scholars from Swami Vivekananda to K. C. Bhattacharyya, exploring how their work engages with this history of European readings, grappling with themes of freedom, morality, and devotion in yoga. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/european-studies

Indian Philosophy and Yoga in Germany by Owen Ware (Routledge, 2024) takes the reader on a tour through the reception of Yoga philosophies in nineteenth-century German and the early twentieth century. European luminaries like Schlegel, Hegel, von Günderrode, Schelling, Humbolt, and Müller all engaged with works like the Bhagavad Gītā and Yogā Sūtras, though in very different ways, some reading yogic thought as entailing a threatening nihilism, others lauding it as superlatively philosophical. Ware shows how their responses to Indian thought illuminates our understanding of post-Kantian philosophy and its anxieties over pantheism indebted to Spinoza. He concludes with two chapters on a range of Indian scholars from Swami Vivekananda to K. C. Bhattacharyya, exploring how their work engages with this history of European readings, grappling with themes of freedom, morality, and devotion in yoga. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/indian-religions

Indian Philosophy and Yoga in Germany by Owen Ware (Routledge, 2024) takes the reader on a tour through the reception of Yoga philosophies in nineteenth-century German and the early twentieth century. European luminaries like Schlegel, Hegel, von Günderrode, Schelling, Humbolt, and Müller all engaged with works like the Bhagavad Gītā and Yogā Sūtras, though in very different ways, some reading yogic thought as entailing a threatening nihilism, others lauding it as superlatively philosophical. Ware shows how their responses to Indian thought illuminates our understanding of post-Kantian philosophy and its anxieties over pantheism indebted to Spinoza. He concludes with two chapters on a range of Indian scholars from Swami Vivekananda to K. C. Bhattacharyya, exploring how their work engages with this history of European readings, grappling with themes of freedom, morality, and devotion in yoga. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/religion

Indian Philosophy and Yoga in Germany by Owen Ware (Routledge, 2024) takes the reader on a tour through the reception of Yoga philosophies in nineteenth-century German and the early twentieth century. European luminaries like Schlegel, Hegel, von Günderrode, Schelling, Humbolt, and Müller all engaged with works like the Bhagavad Gītā and Yogā Sūtras, though in very different ways, some reading yogic thought as entailing a threatening nihilism, others lauding it as superlatively philosophical. Ware shows how their responses to Indian thought illuminates our understanding of post-Kantian philosophy and its anxieties over pantheism indebted to Spinoza. He concludes with two chapters on a range of Indian scholars from Swami Vivekananda to K. C. Bhattacharyya, exploring how their work engages with this history of European readings, grappling with themes of freedom, morality, and devotion in yoga. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/book-of-the-day

Send us a textCurious about the moral underpinnings of leftist politics? Join us as we sit down with Devin Gouré and Charles Dashings from the Moral Minority Podcast to navigate the often-neglected realm of meta-ethics within Marxist traditions. We challenge the pervasive moral skepticism and cynicism that could derail emancipatory politics, emphasizing the need for coherent moral frameworks that go beyond mere emotional reactions. This episode is not just about ideological discussions but also a call to action for leftist thinkers to engage with philosophical questions that shape political motivations and actions.Hope and ethics in history take center stage as we scrutinize the pitfalls of a purely dialectical approach to progress. We juxtapose Kant's optimistic outlook with Adorno's focus on individual rights, questioning the very rationale for hope in revolutionary endeavors. Our conversation reveals how different philosophical traditions offer unique perspectives on historical progression and ethics, urging listeners to reconsider the value and ethical dimensions of hope in the face of past revolutionary failures and ongoing social struggles.Our exploration continues with an examination of moral intuitions, ethical frameworks, and their implications for liberal left ideologies. By contrasting Kantian and utilitarian perspectives, we shed light on the contradictions and challenges posed by universal moral laws in addressing issues like racism and gender equality. We also delve into the complex relationship between cultural norms, moral pluralism, human rights, and international law, questioning the very foundations of rights in liberal societies. This episode promises a thought-provoking journey through the vast landscape of ethics and morality, challenging conventional wisdom and inviting listeners to reflect on their own moral intuitions and political beliefs. Support the showCrew:Host: C. Derick VarnIntro and Outro Music by Bitter Lake.Intro Video Design: Jason MylesArt Design: Corn and C. Derick VarnLinks and Social Media:twitter: @varnvlogblue sky: @varnvlog.bsky.socialYou can find the additional streams on YoutubeCurrent Patreon at the Sponsor Tier: Jordan Sheldon, Mark J. Matthews, Lindsay Kimbrough, RedWolf

Scripture in Black and White: https://scriptureinblackandwhite.podbean.com/  Step Into Scripture: https://stepintoscripture.podbean.com/  Today's episode will help us understand how to navigate complex political and ethical issues by grounding our decisions in biblical principles, focusing on the character of Christ, God's commands, and the consideration of consequences. In this episode, John and Daniel go into a framework for Christians to navigate political, cultural, and ethical issues. They emphasize the importance of basing decisions on the character and commands of God, rather than purely consequentialist thinking. Key topics include the sanctity of life, the abortion debate, and the process of aligning political stances with a biblical worldview. Through their discussion, they offer Christians practical tools and insights for making morally grounded decisions in a politically divided world.   Get the Book on Following Jesus in a Politically Divided World: https://a.co/d/35XLxSE    Key Takeaways  00:00 Introduction and Greetings 00:32 Discussing Right and Wrong 02:27 Philosophical Approaches to Ethics 05:07 Consequentialism and Its Pitfalls 07:22 Christian Perspective on Ethics 11:23 Teaching Ethics to Children 13:03 Sanctity of Life and Abortion Debate 25:45 Summarizing the Ethical Framework Get the Premium Podcast Subscription: https://reallifetheologypodcast.supercast.com/  Check out RENEW.org for more articles and resources: https://renew.org/ View more information about this topic here: https://renew.org/product/following-jesus-in-a-politically-divided-world-an-interactive-guide-to-21-questions-on-christianity-and-politics/  See below for a more comprehensive discussion of this topic:  In this episode John Whittaker and Daniel McCoy discuss how Christians should approach political, cultural, and ethical issues through a biblical lens. They aim to help Christians ground their decisions in biblical principles, focusing on character, commands, and consequences. The episode begins with a friendly exchange between John and Daniel, who reflect on their ongoing discussions about politics and faith, highlighted in their book on following Jesus in a divided world. Their goal is to understand how to honor Jesus over nationalistic values. John introduces the main topic: developing a framework for addressing complex political and ethical issues. He stresses the importance of understanding the guiding principles behind decisions of right and wrong. Daniel notes that many people rely on gut feelings, which can align with biblical moral sense, but acknowledges that humans often struggle to consistently follow moral laws. They discuss consequentialism, an ethical theory where the moral worth of an action is judged by its outcomes. Daniel explains various ethical theories—virtue ethics, Kantian deontological ethics, and consequentialism. He points out that many people are consequentialists, making decisions based on perceived benefits. However, he warns that while consequences matter, they should be grounded in fundamental principles like God's character and commands. John and Daniel explore how these ethical theories impact political decisions, noting that debates often revolve around consequentialist arguments. While the Bible acknowledges the importance of consequences, it emphasizes that moral decisions should be rooted in God's commands and character. Daniel uses utilitarianism to illustrate the dangers of basing moral decisions solely on outcomes. The discussion shifts to how Christians should navigate ethical issues by prioritizing Christ's character and God's commands. Daniel outlines a three-part approach: starting with the character of Christ, following God's commandments, and considering the consequences. He emphasizes that Christians should base their ethical decisions on Jesus' virtues and biblical values, avoiding arbitrary or outcome-based reasoning. John adds that reflecting God's character and obeying His commands align with our nature as beings made in God's image, fulfilling our purpose. He notes that holiness and human nature complement each other. They then apply this framework to the issue of abortion and the sanctity of human life. They start by examining God's character, emphasizing His value of human life and children. They contrast this with the dehumanizing actions associated with evil, such as murder and lying. The conversation highlights the biblical commandment "do not murder" as a clear directive against taking innocent life. Daniel addresses debates around personhood and fetal status, arguing that the Bible's emphasis on the sanctity of human life should shape the Christian stance on abortion. He warns against redefining life to justify abortion. Daniel critiques ethicist Michael Tooley's argument, which separates human life from personhood to reduce stigma around abortion and infanticide. He points out the dangers of arbitrary criteria for personhood, which can lead to broader justifications for dehumanization. John references Peter Kreeft's book "The Unaborted Socrates," which argues against abortion by affirming the personhood of preborn babies. While Daniel agrees, he cautions against relying solely on personhood arguments and stresses the need to focus on biblical teachings about the sanctity of human life. The episode wraps up with practical advice for applying the framework to ethical issues. Daniel suggests that Christians form ethical statements based on God's character and commands while considering consequences. For example, statements might affirm the value of human life, obedience to the command not to murder, and support for pro-life laws, while showing compassion for those affected by abortion. John underscores the importance of clear ethical statements for guiding Christians in their decisions, emphasizing that this framework, as detailed in their book, helps Christians navigate political and cultural issues biblically.   Interested in more content from RENEW? Sign up for our newsletter: https://renew.org/resources/newsletter-sign-up/  Follow us!         

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Book review: Xenosystems, published by jessicata on September 17, 2024 on LessWrong. I've met a few Landians over the last couple years, and they generally recommend that I start with reading Nick Land's (now defunct) Xenosystems blog, or Xenosystems, a Passage Publishing book that compiles posts from the blog. While I've read some of Fanged Noumena in the past, I would agree with these Landians that Xenosystems (and currently, the book version) is the best starting point. In the current environment, where academia has lost much of its intellectual relevance, it seems overly pretentious to start with something as academic as Fanged Noumena. I mainly write in the blogosphere rather than academia, and so Xenosystems seems appropriate to review. The book's organization is rather haphazard (as might be expected from a blog compilation). It's not chronological, but rather separated into thematic chapters. I don't find the chapter organization particularly intuitive; for example, politics appears throughout, rather than being its own chapter or two. Regardless, the organization was sensible enough for a linear read to be satisfying and only slightly chronologically confusing. That's enough superficialities. What is Land's intellectual project in Xenosystems? In my head it's organized in an order that is neither chronological nor the order of the book. His starting point is neoreaction, a general term for an odd set of intellectuals commenting on politics. As he explains, neoreaction is cladistically (that is, in terms of evolutionary branching-structure) descended from Moldbug. I have not read a lot of Moldbug, and make no attempt to check Land's attributions of Moldbug to the actual person. Same goes for other neoreactionary thinkers cited. Neoreaction is mainly unified by opposition to the Cathedral, the dominant ideology and ideological control system of the academic-media complex, largely branded left-wing. But a negation of an ideology is not itself an ideology. Land describes a "Trichotomy" within neo-reaction (citing Spandrell), of three currents: religious theonomists, ethno-nationalists, and techno-commercialists. Land is, obviously, of the third type. He is skeptical of a unification of neo-reaction except in its most basic premises. He centers "exit", the option of leaving a social system. Exit is related to sectarian splitting and movement dissolution. In this theme, he eventually announces that techno-commercialists are not even reactionaries, and should probably go their separate ways. Exit is a fertile theoretical concept, though I'm unsure about the practicalities. Land connects exit to science, capitalism, and evolution. Here there is a bridge from political philosophy (though of an "anti-political" sort) to metaphysics. When you Exit, you let the Outside in. The Outside is a name for what is outside society, mental frameworks, and so on. This recalls the name of his previous book, Fanged Noumena; noumena are what exist in themselves outside the Kantian phenomenal realm. The Outside is dark, and it's hard to be specific about its contents, but Land scaffolds the notion with Gnon-theology, horror aesthetics, and other gestures at the negative space. He connects these ideas with various other intellectual areas, including cosmology, cryptocurrency, and esoteric religion. What I see as the main payoff, though, is thorough philosophical realism. He discusses the "Will-to-Think", the drive to reflect and self-cultivate, including on one's values. The alternative, he says, is intentional stupidity, and likely to lose if it comes to a fight. Hence his criticism of the Orthogonality Thesis. I have complex thoughts and feelings on the topic; as many readers will know, I have worked at MIRI and have continued thinking and writing about AI alignment since then. What ...

This episode inaugurates a series of episodes exploring the existentialist approach to modern philosophy by considering the most well-known work of the melancholic, Danish philosopher, Søren Kierkegaard. Fear and Trembling: A Dialectical Lyric is a genre-bending blend of aesthetic criticism, biblical exegesis, and critical ethics. It is perhaps the most profound deliberation on the concept of faith in the history of philosophy. Firmly rooted in post-Kantian ethical universalism, Fear and Trembling attempts a first approximation at defining the relation between faith, deliberative choice, passion, and the limits of rational morality. It is a work that challenges our received notions of faith as immediate certainty or intuition and takes us to the limits of human understanding. Faith, for Kierkegaard, as exemplified in Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac is a matter of passionate interiority that defies intelligibility. In faith, we are gripped with an anxiety whose object is the paradox that tempts us to trespass the bounds of our understanding and our conventional ethical worldview. True faith is a rare human achievement that places the singular individual in an absolute relation to the absolute. Can the conviction of a passionate interiority which unifies a life around a singular decision be justified? Can passion or a purely personal virtue be reconciled with the public demands of ordinary social morality? Are there instances in our ethical life where our commitments force us to become an exception?

This analysis covers Aristotelian substance theory, examining primary and secondary substances, four causes, essence, form and matter, and accidents in philosophy.Explores Aristotle's categories, potentiality and actuality, and applications in biology and ethics. The concept of soul (psyche) is discussed alongside comparisons with atomism. Developments through medieval thought, Cartesian dualism, and empiricist critiques, and investigates Kantian perspectives, bundle theory, and process philosophy.The role of Aristotelian concepts in contemporary metaphysics and scientific realism, focusing on fundamental questions about reality, persistence, and the nature of properties.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/philosophy-acquired--5939304/support.

Send us a Text Message.What is the true nature of heresy, and how does it threaten the integrity of our faith? Join us for an eye-opening episode of the Manly Catholic featuring the esteemed Bishop Athanasius Schneider. We start by unpacking the etymology and severe implications of heresy as a violation of divine truth. Bishop Schneider, drawing from his latest book, shares profound insights into over 130 doctrinal errors throughout history and underscores the vital role of bishops as spiritual physicians. We also tackle the pressing issue of "cafeteria Catholics" who selectively follow Church teachings, thereby undermining the unity of divine revelation.Can excommunication be a form of love and protection for the Church? This engaging segment confronts the modernist heresy, which poses a significant threat to religious convictions today. By drawing parallels between spiritual health and disease, we argue the necessity of excommunication as a corrective measure. Modernism, rooted in Kantian philosophy and nominalism, is dissected for its dangerous impact on the stability of divine truth. Bishop Schneider passionately discusses the erosion of religious convictions and the acceptance of practices contrary to traditional Church teachings, reinforcing the importance of adhering steadfastly to doctrinal truth amidst cultural shifts.How can we truly appreciate the depth and beauty of Catholic truth? In this final segment, we delve into the divine origin and timeless teachings of the Catholic faith. From the Trinity to the Eucharist, Bishop Schneider emphasizes the importance of deepening one's faith through prayerful reflection and meditation. We also have the privilege of introducing his forthcoming book, "Flee from Heresy: A Catholic Guide to Ancient and Modern Errors," set for release on July 16th, 2024. The episode concludes with a heartfelt blessing from the Bishop, inspiring listeners to continue growing in their faith and standing firm against modern heresies.Please prayerfully consider supporting the podcast on our Patreon page. to help grow the show to reach as many men as possible! Thank you for your prayers and support. As always, please pray for us! We are men who strive daily to be holy, to become saints and we cannot do that without the help of the Holy Ghost! Subscribe to our YouTube page to see our manly and holy faces Mystic Monk CoffeeFor the best cup of coffee for a great cause, Mystic Monk Coffee is the choice for you! Support the Show.Mystic Monk Coffee → For the best coffee for a great cause, we recommend Mystic Monk Coffee. Roasted with prayer by the Carmelite Monks in Wyoming, Mystic Monk Coffee has the ultimate cup waiting for you. See more at mysticmonkcoffee.comTAN Books → TAN has been one of the most well-known and respected Catholic publishers for a long time. Their objective? To make men and women saints. Take 15% off your order and help support the podcast by using the code “manlycatholic” at checkout. Visit TAN Books for more! Contact us directly at themanlycatholic@gmail.com. Support the show on Patreon

Our guest today is a visionary expert, Brett Harmeling who has pioneered the path to holistic wellness, a champion mindset, and sustainable wealth creation. He's mastered the art of balancing life's scales while harmonizing the often elusive elements of happiness and success. Get ready to explore the uncharted territories of wellness, biohacking, reverse aging, championship mindset, heat therapy, and the unparalleled journey to building wealth through an artful balance that transforms your life into a harmonious masterpiece. Let's dive deep into the secrets that could change your life forever! Brett Harmeling is an entrepreneur, philanthropist, husband, father, man of God, one of the top biohackers in the world, Master level certified yoga instructor, studied behavioral psychology, school teacher, keynote speaker, ERYT-500 Yoga Instruct, and Founder & CEO at Happy Life Labs, the world's premier marketplace for vitality and longevity. He's also an Executive and has been part of Verijet, Vision Jets with a pilot for a low hourly cost compared to standard jet services, with triple speed and efficiency of short-haul travel, and operates the safest fleet in existence. Brett sets himself as an asset and not a liability as he pursues life for freedom, time, and money. His journey of self-discovery and transformation, exploring the secrets to optimal living led to a life rich in abundance and joy. In a world obsessed with the quest for eternal youth and success, we're about to uncover the key to unlocking the fountain of vitality – reverse aging.    Some Questions I Ask: Take us back to where your journey of what people see right now begins? What landed you in yoga? What are some of those that you carry throughout your day that really serve you on your business-building journey? What is your wellness, biohacking routine, and activities look like on a daily basis? Who are some of your favorite brands, influencers, leaders, and experts in the biohacking space? How bad are the American way of thinking about aging? Talk a little bit about Red Light therapy? What does your sleep routine or environment look like? What are your thoughts on supplements, plan-medicines, and psychedelics, and how is that all ie in wellness and longevity? Is there anything that people are doing or pushing in the biohacking community that you feel like it's unhealthy that people should stay away from? How do you approach connecting the right people and finding the right opportunities? How are you creating that balance in all that stuff in your life? What intrigued and led you to Verijet and the disruption of travel?   In This Episode, You Will Learn: Navigating level of resiliency on whatever trials coming in. The concept of Kantian or contentment. The number one biohacking approach for anybody else. The championship mindset. Creating an unbalanced but harmonized life. The benefits of Ozone Therapy.   Quotes: “The more you wake up to who you are, the more unbearable it becomes to be who you're not.” “The more I could understand who I am and where I fit into the fabric of the world, the more effective I can be.” “Perfect is actually the lowest standard that humans can have for themselves.” “Direction is more important than speed.”   Connect with Brett Harmeling on:  https://www.instagram.com/brettharmeling/ https://www.yogaalliance.org/TeacherPublicProfile?tid=183335   Episode Sponsored By: Discover Financial Millionaire Mindcast Shop: Buy the Rich Life Planner and Get the Wealth-Building Bundle for FREE! Visit: https://shop.millionairemindcast.com/ MY FIRST 50K!: Visit https://wiseinvestorcollective.com/ and submit your application to join! Uplift Desk: Visit https://www.upliftdesk.com/mindcast or use the code MINDCAST for a 5% discount! Gusto: Visit https://www.gusto.com/millionairemindcast to get 3 Months free! LinkedIn Sales Solutions: Visit http://www.linkedin.com/mindcast to get your free 60-Day Trial! Accredited Investor List - Text "DEALS" to 844.447.1555 Free Financial Audit: Text "XRAY" to 844.447.1555 Upcoming Events: Text "Events" to 844.447.1555 Millionaire Notes: Text "Notes" to 844.447.1555 Connect with Matty A. and Text me to 844.447.1555  Show Brought To You By: www.MillionaireMindcast.com Questions? Comments? Do you have a success story you would like to share on the show?  Send us an email to: Questions@MillionaireMindcast.com

In her Benjamin Lectures "What is moral socialism?" the political theorist Lea Ypi is rethinking socialism by bringing together both Kantian thought on freedom and Marxian social critique. Lea joins Dissens to talk about the trauma of stalinism, that she experienced growing up in Albania, and what going beyond capitalism should look like. Socialism today, argues Ypi, has to be a radicalization of liberalism and not its elimination.

First Half, full 2 hr+ episode here ...on LARPing with artists Maggie Dunlap and Ben Werther and his recent show When You Can No Longer Speak, Sing Me A Song documenting mock high stakes environments of Military Simulation (MilSim) culture. Other topics: identity construction and the fraying of the American cultural fabric, the anonymous 14th century Christian mystical text The Cloud Of Unknowing, total sculpture, non pedantic art, soft black stars, the end of intellectuals and words, readymades, LARPing as a luxury commodity item, Murderbilia, the BTK killer, fandoms forming around depravity, True Crime as female MilSim, Kantian ethics, desire for martyrdom, Davey Crockett, Neo Suprematism, why Country Music is reaching peak popularity, hair metal, The South and the east coast as The Big Other, Mike Kelley's stuffed animals from a the perspective of a child, Sam Hyde's 'active shooter' phenomenon, James Bridle, Borges, Joseph Beuys.

Morality! What is it? Where does it come from? And do we all have the same morals? Find out this week as the boys explore this deeply personal and subjective topic. Mitch defines morality for us and the key aspects that underpin it in the scientific community. Tom then explores four key areas of philosophical thought on morality: Kantian, Utilitarianism, Virtue Ethics, and Confucian ethics. The boys then discuss various moral dilemmas and what they would do in that situation.

--{ "Dare to know"}-- What role does the news media play? The media is an essential arm of government. - Operation Covid or "C" and the Number 33 - The Matrix we live in - AUTHORized Authors - Money is Root of this System - Sumer, Hurrians - Gold, Silver - Coin - Debt Racket - Family Planning=Abortion, Global Planning=Genocide. Psychopathy - Conformity to Personality Type. Kinsey Report - Promiscuity, Perversion - Departments of Culture (Government) - Mind Control through rapid change - Do you really want to open Pandora's Box? You will never be the same. - Theory of Evolution - "The Coming" - Freemasonic religion. Battle for Individual Self - Hypnotism by Emotion - HOLLYWOOD=HOLY WOOD=Wizard's Staff - Real Estate - Agenda 21 (21st Century) - Habitat Areas - No Private Property - Luther, Calvin, Kantian philosophy - Perception - Marshall McLuhan - Mass-man or Individuality? - The Enlightenment - "Dare to Know" - Conscience as relation to your deity. (BOOK: "The Next Million Years" by Charles Galton Darwin.)

Is there a reality beyond appearance which we cannot access? Matt Bower joins us to discuss Kant's “the thing-in-itself” and Husserl's response to Kantian ideas about the nature of perception.A link to Matt's paper: https://philarchive.org/rec/BOWALA-2 Become a patron today! Click here: https://www.patreon.com/acidhorizonpodcastSupport the showSupport the podcast:https://www.acidhorizonpodcast.com/Linktree: https://linktr.ee/acidhorizonAcid Horizon on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/acidhorizonpodcastZer0 Books and Repeater Media Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/zer0repeaterMerch: http://www.crit-drip.comOrder 'Anti-Oculus: A Philosophy of Escape': https://repeaterbooks.com/product/anti-oculus-a-philosophy-of-escape/Order 'The Philosopher's Tarot': https://repeaterbooks.com/product/the-philosophers-tarot/Subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts: https://tinyurl.com/169wvvhiHappy Hour at Hippel's (Adam's blog): https://happyhourathippels.wordpress.com​Revolting Bodies (Will's Blog): https://revoltingbodies.com​Split Infinities (Craig's Substack): https://splitinfinities.substack.com/​Music: https://sereptie.bandcamp.com/ and https://thecominginsurrection.bandcamp.com/

Henry Hazlitt Memorial Lecture. Sponsored by Shone and Brae Sadler.Recorded at the Austrian Economics Research Conference, 22 March 2024, in Auburn, Alabama. Includes an introduction by Joseph T. Salerno.Lecture Text: Thank you, Joseph, for your kind introduction and thank you, Shone and Brae Sadler, for your generous sponsorship in making this event possible. It is a pleasure and personal honor to be invited to deliver this Henry Hazlitt Memorial Lecture titled “Ayn Rand and the Austrian Economists” at the Mises Institute's Austrian Economics Research Conference.Henry Hazlitt is one of my favorite writers on economics and ethics. His thoughtful, incisive, and influential writings are marked by his clarity of style and logical analysis. Both Henry Hazlitt and Ayn Rand could really write. Hazlitt's non-fiction books, Economics in One Lesson and Foundations of Morality, along with his novel, Time Will Run Back, complement Ayn Rand's ideas in her books such as The Virtue of Selfishness, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, and Atlas Shrugged. In their philosophical, political, and economic views, Hazlitt and Rand largely agree, as they make the same points in different ways with respect to the virtue of the free market as the path to prosperity and happiness. Also, they were friends in their personal lives. In addition, Henry Hazlitt and I had a great friend in common in the late, well-respected and greatly-loved Austrian economist, Bill Peterson.I am excited to be here to give this talk on Carl Menger, Ludwig von Mises, and Murray Rothbard and how their ideas may be complementary to the essential ideas of Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. Perhaps I will be able to provide some new insights to you. We'll see!Like my recently deceased friend, Sam Bostaph, I have great admiration for the ideas of Carl Menger. I will begin by discussing some of Menger's key ideas and comparing them with those of Ayn Rand. I will then repeat this process with the fundamental ideas of Mises and Rothbard. I will conclude with an overall assessment with respect to the potential compatibility of Austrian economics and Objectivism.Carl Menger (1840-1921) began the modern period of economic thought and provided the foundation for the Austrian School of Economics in his two books, Principles of Economics (1871) and Investigations into the Method of the Social Sciences with Special Reference to Economics (1883). In these books Menger destroyed the existing structure of economic science, including its theory and methodology, and put it on totally new foundations.Menger was a realist who said that we could know the world through both common sense and scientific method. Menger was committed to finding exact laws of economics based on the direct analysis of concrete phenomena that can be observed and characterized with precision. He sought to find the necessary characteristics of economic phenomena and their relationships. He also heralded the advantages of verbal language over mathematical language in that the former can express the essences of economic phenomena, which is something that mathematical language cannot do.Menger viewed exchange as the embodiment of the essential desire and search to satisfy individual human needs. It follows that the intersection between human needs and the availability of goods capable of satisfying those needs is at the root of economic activity. Emphasizing human uncertainty, error, and the time-consuming nature of economic processes, Menger was concerned with the information content of economic choices and the process of acquiring information in order to increase the well-being of economic actors.As this talk will demonstrate, Carl Menger's writings are the closest to Randian doctrines that have ever emanated from any economist. It will follow that we should read and reread his great books and share them with our friends and students.Aristotelian philosophy was at the root of Menger's framework. His biologistic language goes well with his Aristotelian foundations in his philosophy of science and economics. Menger illustrated how Aristotelian induction could be used in economics and he based his epistemology on Aristotelian induction. Menger's Aristotelian inclinations can be observed in his desire to uncover the essence of economic phenomena. He viewed the constituent elements of economic phenomena as immanently ordered and emphasized the primacy of exactitude and universality as preferable epistemological characteristics of theory.Menger's desire was to uncover the real nature or essence of economic phenomena. As an immanent realist, he was interested in essences and laws as manifested in the world. His general and abstract economic theory attempted to unify all true fragments of economic knowledge.Holding that causality underpins economic laws, Menger taught that theoretical science provides the tools for studying phenomena that exhibit regularities. He distinguished between exact types and laws that deal with strictly typical phenomena and empirical-realistic types and laws that deal with truth within a particular spatio-temporal domain. Empirical laws are found by observation and exact laws are found by conceptualization. Menger's exact approach involves deductive-universalistic theory that looks for regularities in the coexistence and succession of phenomena that admits no exceptions and that are strictly ordered. His theoretical economics is concerned with exact laws based on the assumptions of self-interest, full-knowledge, and freedom. Menger's exact theoretical approach involves both isolation and abstraction from disturbing factors.Menger developed a number of fundamental Austrian doctrines such as the causal-genetic approach, methodological individualism, and the connection between time and error. He incorporated purposeful action, uncertainty, the occurrence of errors, the information acquisition process, learning, and time into his economic analysis. As an Aristotelian essentialist and immanent realist, he considered a priori essences as existing in reality. His goal was to discover invariant principles or laws governing economic phenomena and to elaborate exact universal laws. To find strictly ordered exact laws he said that we had to omit principles of individuation such as time and space. This entails isolation of the economic aspect of phenomena and abstraction from disturbing factors such as error, ignorance, and external compulsion. Menger thus argued for an exact orientation of theoretical research whose validity is totally independent of any empirical tests.Both Aristotle and Menger viewed essences, universals, or concepts as metaphysical and had no compelling explanations of the method to be employed in order to abstract the essence from the particulars in which it is indivisibly wedded. For Rand, essences are epistemological and contextual, rather than metaphysical. For her, concepts are the products of a cognitive method whose processes are performed by a human being but whose content is determined by reality.Menger's theory of needs and wants is the link between the natural sciences (particularly biology) and the human sciences. He established this link by describing the final cause of human economic enterprise as an aspect of human nature biologically understood. He analyzed economic activity based on a theory of human action. His theory emphasized individual perception, valuation, deliberation, choice, and action.The foundation of Menger's value theory is a theory of human action that involves a theory of knowledge. He believed that men can understand the workings of the economy. Menger's goal was to establish economic theory on a solid foundation by grounding it on a sound value theory. To do this, he consistently incorporated his methodological individualism into his theory of value.Menger understood that values can be subjective (i.e., personally estimated), but that men should rationally seek objective life-affirming values. He explained that real wants correspond with the objective state of affairs. Menger distinguished between real and imaginary wants and goods depending upon whether or not a person correctly understands a good's objective ability to satisfy a want. Individuals can be wrong about their judgment of value. Menger's emphasis on objective values is consistent with philosophical realism and with a correspondence theory of truth.Menger does trace market exchange back to a man's personal valuations of various economic goods and observes that scales of value are variable from person to person and are subject to change over time. There are certainly “subjectivist” features in Menger's economic analysis that are founded on his methodological individualism which implies that people differ and have a variety of goals, purposes, and tastes. Personal evaluation is therefore inherent in a principled and consistent understanding of methodological individualism.As a supreme advocate of individualist methodology, Menger recognized the primacy of active individual agents who generate all of the phenomena of the social sciences. His methodological individualism is a doctrine that reflects the real structure of society and economy and the centrality of the human agent.Menger's theory of value essentially states that life is the ultimate standard of value. According to Menger, human life is a process in which a person, given his needs and the command of the means to satisfy them, is himself the specific point where human economic life both originates and ends. Menger thus introduced life, value, individual preferences that motivate people, and individual choices into economics. He thus essentially agreed on the same standard of life as the much later Ayn Rand. Value is a contextual judgment made by economizing men. Value is related to the existential state of the individual and the ability of the good in question to change that state in a manner desired by the person.Although Menger speaks of economic value while Rand is concerned with moral value, their ideas are much the same. Both view human life as the ultimate value. The difference is that Menger was concerned with economic values that satisfy a man's needs for food, shelter, healthcare, wealth, production, and so forth. From Rand's perspective, every human value (including economic value) is potentially a moral value that may be important to the ethical standard of a man's life qua man. Their shared biocentric concept of value holds that objective values support a man's life and originate in a relationship between a man and his survival requirements.Both Rand and Menger espouse a kind of contextually-relational objectivism in their theories of value. Value is seen as a relational quality dependent on the subject, the object, and the context or situation involved.Not many Objectivists, or others for that matter, know much about Menger's Austrian Aristotelianism and his commonsense and scientific realism. This is unfortunate. His writings have the potential to provide essential building blocks for a realist construction of economics. Ultimately, they may provide the vehicle for the harmonization and integration of Austrian economics with Objectivism.As we know, the preeminent theory within Austrian economics is the Misesian subjectivist school. Mises maintained that it is by means of its subjectivism that praxeological economics develops into objective science. The praxeologist takes individual values as given and assumes that individuals have different motivations and prefer different things. The same economic phenomena mean different things to different people. In fact, buying and selling take place because people value things differently. The importance of goods is derived from the importance of the values they are intended to achieve. When a person values an object, this simply means that he imputes enough importance to it to be willing to start a chain of causation to change or maintain it, thus making it a thing of value. Misesian economics does not study what is in an object, as does the natural scientist, but rather, studies what is in the subject.Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973), the Austrian philosophical economist, is one of our most passionate, consistent, and intransigent defenders of capitalism. Mises defends the free society and private ownership on the grounds that they are desirable from the perspective of human happiness, freedom, peace, and productivity. He constructed a monumental, overarching, systematic, and comprehensive conceptual framework that elucidated the timeless, immutable laws that guide human behavior. Mises integrated his profound theories of methodology, economics, political science, history, and the social sciences in his 1949 magnum opus, Human Action.There is an important dissemblance within Austrian value theory between Menger and Mises. However, it is possible for Menger's more objective-value-oriented theory to coexist and complement Mises's pure subjectivism which is based on the inscrutability of individual values and preferences. Although Menger agrees with Mises that an individual's chosen values are personal and, therefore subjective and unknowable to the economist, he also contended that a person ought to be rationally pursuing his objective life-affirming values. Menger thus can be viewed as a key link-pin figure between Misesian praxeology and Objectivist ethics.According to Mises, economics is a value-free science of means, rather than of ends, that describes but does not prescribe. However, although the world of praxeological economics, as a science, may be value-free the human world is not value-free. Economics is the science of human action and human actions are inextricably connected with values and ethics. It follows that praxeological economics needs to be situated within the context of a normative framework. Praxeological economics does not conflict with a normative perspective on human life. Economics needs to be connected with a discipline that is concerned with ends such as the end of human flourishing. Praxeological economics can stay value-free if it is recognized that it is morally proper for people to take part in market and other voluntary transactions. Such a value-free science must be combined with an appropriate end.Economics, for Mises, is a value-free tool for objective and critical appraisal. Economic science differentiates between the objective, interpersonally valid conclusions of economic praxeology and the personal value judgments of the economist. Critical appraisal can be objective, value-free, and untainted by bias. It is important for economic science to be value-free and not to be distorted by the value judgments or personal preferences of the economist. The credibility of economic science depends upon an impartial and dispassionate concern for truth. Value-freedom is a methodological device designed to separate and isolate an economist's scientific work from the personal preferences of the given economic researcher. His goal is to maintain neutrality and objectivity with respect to the subjective values of others.Misesian economics focuses on the descriptive aspects of human action by offering reasoning about means and ends. The province of praxeological economics is the logical analysis of the success or failure of selected means to attain chosen ends. Means only have value because, and to the degree that, their ends are valued.The reasons why an individual values what he values and the determination of whether or not his choices and actions are morally good or bad are certainly significant concerns but they are not in the realm of the praxeological economist. The content of moral or ultimate ends is not the domain of the economist qua economist. There is another level of values that value in terms of right preferences. This more objectivist sphere of value defines value in terms of what an individual ought to value.Mises grounds economics upon the action axiom which is the fundamental and universal truth that individual men exist and act by making purposive choices among alternatives. Upon this axiom, Mises deduces the entire systematic structure of economic theory. Mises's advocacy of free markets and his opposition to statism stem from his analysis of the nature and consequences of freely acting individuals compared to the nature of government and the consequences brought about by government intervention.For Mises, economic behavior is a special case of human action. He contends that it is through the analysis of the idea of action that the principles of economics can be deduced. Economic theorems are seen as connected to the foundation of real human purposes. Economics is based on true and evident axioms, arrived at by introspection into the essence of human action. From these axioms, Mises derives the logical implications or truths of economics.Through the use of abstract economic theorizing, Mises recognizes the nature and operation of human purposefulness and entrepreneurial resourcefulness and identifies the systematic tendencies which influence the market process. Mises's insight was that economic reasoning has its basis in the understanding of the action axiom. He says that sound deductions from a priori axioms are apodictically true and cannot be empirically tested. Mises developed, through deductive reasoning, the chains of economic theory based on introspective understanding of what it means to be a rational, purposeful, and acting human being. The method of economics is deductive and its starting point is the concept of action.According to Mises, all of the categories, theorems, or laws of economics are implied in the action axiom. These include, but are not limited to: subjective value, causality, ends, means, preference, cost, profit and loss, opportunities, scarcity, marginal utility, marginal costs, opportunity cost, time preference, originary interest, association, and so on.As an adherent of Kantian epistemology, Mises states that the concept of action is a priori to all experience. Thinking is a mental action. For Mises, a priori means independent of any particular time or place. Denying the possibility of arriving at laws via induction, Mises argues that evidence for the a priori is based on reflective universal inner experience.However, Misesian praxeology could operate within a Randian philosophical structure. The concept of action could be formally and inductively derived from perceptual data. Actions would be seen as performed by entities who act in accordance with their nature. Man's distinctive mode of action involves rationality and free will. Men are thus rational beings with free wills who have the ability to form their own purposes and aims. Human action also assumes an uncoerced human will and limited knowledge. All of the above can be seen as consistent with Misesian praxeology. Once we arrive at the concept of human action, Mises's deductive logical derivations can come into play.Knowledge gained from praxeological economics is both value-free (i.e., value-neutral) and value relevant. Value-free knowledge supplied by economic science is value-relevant when it supplies information for rational discussions, deliberations, and determinations of the morally good. Economics is reconnected with philosophy, especially the branches of metaphysics and ethics, when the discussion is shifted to another sphere. It is fair to say that economic science exists because men have concluded that the objective knowledge provided by praxeological economics is valuable for the pursuit of both a person's subjective and ultimate ends.Advocating the idea of “man's survival qua man” or of a good or flourishing life involves value judgments. To make value judgments, one must accept the existence of a comprehensive natural order and the existence of fundamental absolute principles in the universe. This acceptance in no way conflicts with the Misesian concept of subjective economic value. Natural laws ae discovered, are not arbitrary relationships, but instead are relationships that are already true. A man's human nature, including his attributes of individuality, reason, and free will, is the ultimate source of moral reasoning. Value is meaningless outside the context of man.Praxeological economics and the philosophy of human flourishing are complementary and compatible disciplines. Economics teaches us that social cooperation through the private property system and division of labor enables most individuals to prosper and to pursue their flourishing and happiness. In turn, the worldview of human flourishing informs men how to act. In making their life-affirming ethical and value-based judgments, men can refer to and employ the data of economic science.Mises and Rand were passionate critics of collectivism. Whereas Mises criticized the economic and political functioning of collectivism, Rand attacked the morality of collectivism. They agree that collectivism in the form of people, races, or nations does not exist independently from the individuals who comprise them. In addition, they both dismissed positivism's rejection of the human mind as real and as the tool of knowledge about the world, man, and his actions. They also believed that free-market capitalism is the best possible arrangement for society. Their promotion of rationality, free choice, and subjective (i.e., personally estimated) and objective values (in their respective contexts) make their worldviews compatible. Mises's arguments for capitalism in terms of its utility can be interpreted to be in harmony with Rand's criterion of man's life as the standard of value. There is a great deal in Mises's science of human action that is consistent with Objectivist principles. As stated by Walter Block, on the majority of issues Rand and Mises “are as alike as two peas in a pod”.Murray Rothbard (1926-1995) was a grand system builder. In his monumental Man, Economy, and State (1962), Rothbard continued, embodied, and extended Mises's methodological approach of praxeology to economics. His magnum opus was modeled after Mises's Human Action and, for the most part, was a massive restatement, defense, and development of the Misesian praxeological tradition. Rothbard followed up and complemented Man, Economy, and State with his brilliant The Ethics of Liberty (1982) in which he provided the foundation for his metanormative ethical theory. Exhibiting an architectonic character, these two works form an integrated system of philosophical economics.In a 1971 article in Modern Age Rothbard declares that Mises's work provides us with an economic paradigm grounded in the nature of man and in individual choice. He explains that Mises's paradigm furnishes economics in a systematic, integrated form that can serve as a correct alternative to the crisis situation that modern economics has engendered. According to Rothbard, it is time for us to adopt this paradigm in all of its facets.Rothbard defended Mises's methodology, but went on to construct his own edifice of Austrian economic theory. Although he embraced nearly all of Mises's economics, Rothbard could not accept Mises's Kantian extreme aprioristic position in epistemology. Mises held that the axiom of human action was true a priori to human experience and was, in fact, a synthetic a priori category. Mises considered the action axiom to be a law of thought and thus a categorical truth prior to all human experience.Rothbard agreed that the action axiom is universally true and self-evident, but argued that a person becomes aware of that axiom and its subsidiary axioms through experience in the world. A person begins with concrete human experience and then moves toward reflection. Once a person forms the basic axioms and concepts from his experiences and from his reflections upon those experiences, he does not need to resort to external experience to validate an economic hypothesis. Instead, deductive reasoning from sound basics will validate it.In a 1957 article in the Southern Economic Journal, Rothbard states that it is a waste of time to argue or try to determine how the truth of the action axiom is obtained. He explains that the all-important fact is that the axiom is self-evidently true for all people, at all places, at all times, and that it could not even conceivably be violated. Whether it was a law of thought as Mises maintained, or a law of reality as Rothbard himself contended, the axiom would be no less certain because the axiom need only be stated to become at once self-evident.Both Murray Rothbard and Ayn Rand were concerned with the nature of man and the world, natural law, natural rights, and a rational ethics based on man's nature and discovered through reason. They also agreed that the purpose of political philosophy and ethics is the promotion of productive human life on earth. In addition, both adopted, to a great extent, Lockean natural rights perspectives and arguments that legitimize private property. Additionally, they both disagreed with Mises's epistemological foundations, and on similar grounds.Both Rothbard and Rand endeavored to determine the proper rules for a rational society by using reason to examine the nature of human life and the world by employing logical deductions to ascertain what these natures suggest. They agreed with respect to the volitional nature of rational human consciousness, a man's innate right of self-ownership, and the metanormative necessity of noncoercive mutual consent. Both thus subscribed to the nonaggression principle and to the right of self-defense.Rothbard and Rand did not agree, however, on the nature of (or need for) government. They disagreed with respect to the practical applications of their similar philosophies. Rejecting Rand's idea of a constitutionally-limited representative government, Rothbard believed that their shared doctrines entailed a zero-government or anarcho-capitalist framework based on voluntarism, free exchange, and peace.Rothbard and Rand subscribed to different forms of metanormative libertarian politics—Rothbard to anarcho-capitalism and Rand to a minimal state. Unlike Rand, Rothbard ended his ethics at the metanormative level. Rand, on the other hand, advocated a minimal state form of libertarian politics based on the fuller foundation of Objectivism through which she attempted to supply an objective basis for values and virtues in human existence. Of course, Rothbard did discuss the separate importance of a rational personal morality, stated that he agreed essentially with most of Rand's philosophy, and suggested his inclination toward a Randian ethical framework. The writings of Rothbard, much like those of Menger, have done a great deal toward building a bridge between Austrian economics and Objectivism.Although Misesian economists hold that values are subjective, and Objectivists argue that values are objective, these claims are not incompatible because they are not really claims about the same things. They exist at different levels or spheres of analysis. The methodological value-subjectivity of the Austrians complements the Randian sense of value objectivity. The level of objective values dealing with personal flourishing transcends the level of subjective value preferences. The value-freedom (or value-neutrality) and value-subjectivity of the Austrians have a different function or purpose than does Objectivism's emphasis on objective values. On the one hand, the Austrian emphasis is on the value-neutrality of the economist as a scientific observer of a person acting to obtain his “subjective” (i.e., personally-estimated) values. On the other hand, the philosophy of Objectivism is concerned with values for the acting individual moral agent, himself. There is a distinction between methodological subjectivism and philosophical subjectivism. Whereas Austrians are methodological subjectivists in their economics, this does not imply that they are moral relativists as individuals.Austrian economics is thus an excellent way of looking at “social science methodology” with respect to the appraisal of means but not of ends. Misesian praxeology therefore must be augmented. Its value-free economics is not sufficient to establish a total case for liberty. A systematic, reality-based ethical system must be discovered to firmly establish a total case for liberty. Natural law provides the groundwork for such a theory, and both Objectivism and the Aristotelian idea of human flourishing are based on natural law ideas.Austrian economics and Objectivism agree on the significance of the ideas of human actions and values. The Austrians explain that a person acts when he prefers the way he thinks things will be if he acts compared to the way he thinks things will be if he fails to act. Austrian economics is descriptive and deals with the logical analysis of the ability of selected actions (i.e., means) to achieve certain ends. Whether these ends are truly objectively valuable is not the concern of the praxeological economist when he is acting in his capacity as an economist. There is another realm of values that views value in terms of objective values and correct preferences and actions. Objectivism is concerned with this other sphere and thus studies what human beings ought to value and act to attain.When thinkers from the Austrian school speak of subjective knowledge they simply mean that each person has his own specific and finite context of knowledge that directs his action. In this context, “subjective” merely means “subject-dependent”. Subjectivism for the Austrians does not mean the rejection of reality—it only focuses on the view that consumer tastes are personal.Austrian economists contend that values are subjective and Objectivists maintain that values are objective. These claims can be seen as compatible because they are not claims about the same phenomena. These two senses of value are complementary. The Austrian economist, as a neutral examiner, does not force his own value judgments on the personal values and actions of the human beings that he is studying. Operating from a different perspective, Objectivists maintain that there are objective values that stem from a man's relationship to other existents in the world.At a descriptive level, the economist's idea of demonstrated preferences agrees with Rand's account of value as something that a person acts to gain and/or keep. Of course, Rand moves from an initial descriptive notion of value to a normative perspective on value that includes the idea that a legitimate or objective value serves one's life. The second view of value provides a standard to evaluate the use of one's free will.Praxeological economics and Objectivism are complementary and compatible disciplines. Economics teaches us that social cooperation through the private property system and division of labor enables most individuals to prosper and to pursue their flourishing and happiness. In turn, Objectivism informs men how to act. In making their life-affirming ethical and value-based judgments, men can refer to and employ economic science.Objectivism's Aristotelian perspective on the nature of man and the world and on the need to exercise one's virtues can be viewed as synergic with the economic coordination and praxeology of Austrian economics. Placing the economic realm within the general process of human action, which itself is part of human nature, enables theoretical progress in our search for truth and in the construction of a systematic, logical, and consistent conceptual framework. The Objectivist worldview can provide a context to the economic insights of the Austrian economists.In conclusion, there is much common ground between Rand and the Austrians and much to be gained through the intellectual exchange between Objectivism and Austrian economics. Objectivism can be viewed as an ethical and logical augmentation of Austrian economics and Austrian praxeology can be seen as the ideal means for Objectivists when addressing economic issues. Economics would focus on attempting to discover economic principles but would leave ethical issues to philosophy.

Ryan and Todd interpret David Lynch's Blue Velvet by paying special attention to the Kantian dimension of the film. They consider the film in terms of the thing-in-itself and the sublime.

Jim talks with Stuart Kauffman about the ideas in the recent paper he co-authored with Andrea Roli, "Is the Emergence of Life an Expected Phase Transition in the Evolving Universe?" They discuss the fragmentation of the origins of life field, Pasteur's test of spontaneous generation, primitive soup, Watson & Crick's discovery of the structure of DNA, mutually catalyzing molecules, molecules as combinatorial objects, random catalysis, collectively autocatalytic sets, the origin of metabolism, composability elements, the earliest form of life, Darwin's warm little pond hypothesis, the theory of the adjacent possible, the TAP equation, why small molecule reproduction will be abundant in the universe, the Drake equation, Kantian wholes, the function of a part, autocatalytic closure, constraint closure, cycles of work, downward causation, information conservation vs the error catastrophe, exaptation, the new adjacent possible, why evolution is unendingly creative & mathematically unpredictable, what this implies about economics, Arrow-Debreu competitive general equilibrium, the impossibility of well-founded expectations, why we can't have dominion over the ongoing biosphere, an open-ended experiment to mix fungi with bacteria on sterilized sand, and much more. Episode Transcript JRS EP18 - Stuart Kauffman on Complexity, Biology & T.A.P. "Is the Emergence of Life an Expected Phase Transition in the Evolving Universe?", by Stuart Kauffman & Andrew Roli "Chemical Evolution: Life is a logical consequence of known chemical principles operating on the atomic composition of the universe," by Melvin Calvin "Autocatalytic chemical networks at the origin of metabolism," by Joana Xavier, Stuart Kauffman, et. al. JRS EP 167 - Bruce Damer on the Origins of Life JRS EP 171 - Bruce Damer Part 2: The Origins of Life - Implications JRS EP 138 - Brian Arthur on the Nature of Technology JRS EP 157 - Terrence Deacon on Mind's Emergence from Matter "A third transition in science?", by Stuart Kauffman & Andrea Roli Stuart Alan Kauffman is an American theoretical biologist and complex systems researcher who studies the origin of life on Earth. Kauffman graduated from Dartmouth in 1960, was awarded the BA (Hons) by Oxford University (where he was a Marshall Scholar) in 1963, and completed a medical degree (MD) at the University of California, San Francisco in 1968. After completing his residency in Emergency Medicine, he moved into developmental genetics of the fruit fly, holding appointments first at the University of Chicago, then at the University of Pennsylvania, where he rose to Professor of Biochemistry and Biophysics. Kauffman held a MacArthur Fellowship from 1987–1992.

In Episode 13 of the "Transcendent Naturalism" series, John Vervaeke, Gregg Henriques, and guest Matt Segall engage in a deep exploration of the intersection between spirituality and cognitive science. They delve into how concepts like etheric imagination and process philosophy, particularly in the works of Schelling and Whitehead, can broaden our understanding of naturalism. The dialogue critically examines the constraints of traditional naturalism, highlighting the significance of imagination within scientific frameworks, and discussing the ongoing evolution of human perception and cognition. The episode bridges scientific inquiry with profound existential questions, offering enriched perspectives on the interplay between science, philosophy, and spirituality.    Matthew T. Segall, Ph.D., is a renowned philosopher specializing in Alfred North Whitehead's process philosophy. He earned his doctorate from the California Institute of Integral Studies in 2016, with a focus on post-Kantian process philosophy. His academic work emphasizes the integration of science, spirituality, and ecology, contributing significantly to contemporary philosophical thought​.   Glossary of Terms   Transcendent Naturalism: A philosophy that expands traditional naturalism to include spiritual and subjective experiences, aiming to integrate scientific inquiry with existential and spiritual questions.   Process Philosophy: A doctrine emphasizing change and becoming, viewing the universe as a constant flux of experiential occasions, associated with Alfred North Whitehead.   Etheric Imagination: A form of imagination that goes beyond physical senses, involving perception or engagement with subtle, non-physical realms or dimensions. Resources and References   Dr. John Vervaeke: Website | YouTube | Patreon | X | Facebook Gregg Henriques: Website | X | Facebook Matt Segall: Website | Patreon | X | Facebook The Vervaeke Foundation   John Vervaeke YouTube Is Free Will an Illusion? Navigating Kantian Thought with Dr. Vervaeke & Matt Segall Dynamics of Modern Paradigm Shifts with Jordan Hall   Books, Articles, and Publications Crossing the Threshold: Etheric Imagination in the Post-Kantian Process Philosophy of Schelling and Whitehead - Matthew David Segall Process-Relational Philosophy: An Introduction to Alfred North Whitehead - C. Robert Mesle How the Body Shapes the Mind - Shaun Gallagher   Modes of Thought - Alfred North Whitehead  Distributed Cognition and the Experience of Presence in the Mars Exploration Rover Mission - Dan Chiappe, John Vervaeke The Enactment of Shared Agency in Teams Exploring Mars Through Rovers - Dan Chiappe, John Vervaeke The Experience of Presence in the Mars Exploration Rover Mission - Dan Chiappe, John Vervaeke   Quotes   "Bringing in the complexity sciences and emergence in a contemporary context is exciting." - Matt Segall "Transcendent naturalism is trying to incorporate elements traditionally considered supernatural." - Matt Segall  "There's a needle to be threaded in understanding new age movements." - Matt Segall "The imaginal is crucial for understanding how we connect with the world." - John Vervaeke  "Language plays a key role in connecting different perspectives." - John Vervaeke    Chapters with Timestamps   [00:00:00] Introduction of Guest and Topic  [00:01:32] Discussion on Etheric Imagination and Process Philosophy  [00:04:48] Exploring the Limitations of Traditional Naturalism  [00:14:35] The Role of Imagination in Scientific Contexts  [00:20:05] The Evolving Nature of Human Perception and Cognition [00:25:27] Exploring the Concept of 'One World' in Naturalism  [00:43:33] The Integration of Different Forms of Knowing [00:54:55] Concluding Thoughts and Perspectives   Timestamped Highlights   [00:01:00] -  John Vervaeke and Gregg Henriques welcome Matt Segall and discuss his recent book.  [00:02:17] - Discussion about a previous episode with Jordan Hall, focusing on the alignment of Whitehead's process philosophy with future-oriented wisdom philosophies. [00:03:20] - Matt Segall introduces the concept of emergent properties in the context of cognitive science, discussing how these concepts challenge and expand traditional scientific understanding. [00:04:48] - Segall shares his views on the limitations of traditional naturalism, explaining how it often neglects subjective and spiritual experiences in scientific discourse. [00:09:23] - Vervaeke elaborates on the non-rejecting nature of transcendent naturalism, emphasizing its aim to extend rather than refute traditional views. [00:11:41] - The discussion touches on the significance of pluralism in understanding naturalism. [00:14:06] - The conversation shifts to explore the difference between fantasy and the imaginal, discussing their roles in understanding and perceiving reality. [00:20:42] - Henriques reflects on the broader definition and scope of naturalism, differentiating it from materialism and emphasizing its varied interpretations. [00:25:58] - The dialogue explores the concept of 'one world' within naturalism, discussing its implications for understanding reality as a process of continual actualization and evolution. [00:31:04] - The hosts discuss how language and imagination can bridge understanding across different disciplines and perspectives. [00:36:47] - Segall discusses the universality of categories in Whitehead's work, explaining how they provide a common ground for different faiths and philosophical perspectives. [00:43:52] - Discussion on the concepts of body schema and body image, relating them to how imagination and perception influence our interaction with the world and the evolutionary development of our sensory organs. [00:49:48] - The panel discusses distributed cognition's role in perceiving reality beyond the five senses and seeks to connect this concept with Alfred North Whitehead's philosophical ideas on societal interconnections. [00:54:55] - Concluding thoughts on the episode's topics and discussion of plans for future conversations.  

“Abuse is the improper usage or treatment of a thing, often to unfairly or improperly gain benefit.[1] Abuse can come in many forms, such as: physical or verbal maltreatment, injury, assault, violation, rape, unjust practices, crimes, or other types of aggression. To these descriptions, one can also add the Kantian notion of the wrongness of using another human being as means to an end rather than as ends in themselves.[2] Some sources describe abuse as "socially constructed", which means there may be more or less recognition of the suffering of a victim at different times and societies.[3]”. “Discrimination is the process of making unfair or prejudicial distinctions between people based on the groups, classes, or other categories to which they belong or are perceived to belong,[1] such as race, gender, age, religion, physical attractiveness or sexual orientation.[2] Discrimination typically leads to groups being unfairly treated on the basis of perceived statues based on ethnic, racial, gender or religious categories.[2][3] It involves depriving members of one group of opportunities or privileges that are available to members of another group.[4]” “Discriminatory traditions, policies, ideas, practices and laws exist in many countries and institutions in all parts of the world, including some where such discrimination is generally decried. In some places, countervailing measures such as quotas have been used to redress the balance in favor of those who are believed to be current or past victims of discrimination. These attempts have often been met with controversy, and sometimes been called reverse discrimination.” -Wikipedia --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/antonio-myers4/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/antonio-myers4/support

[This episode includes discussion of suicide.] In which we talk for an hour about a three-minute conversation.  Discussion includes the intricacies of estrangement, "The Mad Farmer Liberation Front," Sam's Kantian imperative, and the most devastating single-word response. SPOILERS for ALL seasons! Looking for earlier episodes? Find all episodes organized by season on our Facebook page, or scroll through our back catalogue here: https://directory.libsyn.com/shows/view/id/theplaidcast We would love to hear from you! Email: theplaidcast@gmail.com Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/theplaidcast Please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts!

The Boys are back in town... Together, they talk about how Dave ruined Breht's wedding, wade into the murky depths of Breht's subconscious, explore the nuances of Kantian epistemology and metaphysics, discuss the hellish prison that immortality would be, speculate on the relevance or irrelevance of one's childhood in relation to their adult issues, and much more... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- https://www.shoelessinsouthdakota.com/  

Joe is going to die. But he has a chance to be a hero, and live like a king. Only, that means he'll have to jump into a volcano. Is Joe's story all of ours? We sit down with Chad Perman (Founder of Bright Wall / Dark Room) to dig into what makes this zany, existential, transcendent, hilarious, slapstick, profound movie so good. Along the way, we discuss the Kantian sublime, Heidegger's notion of being-toward-death, the meaning of life, and flibbertigibbets! Before the episode, you'll hear a trailer for Die Hard on a Blank, a wonderful show hosted by former Cows guest Liam Billingham. Check it out, it's great!! Twitter: @cowspod Web: www.cowspod.com Contact us: cowspod@gmail.com

This Millionaire Mindcast episode is sponsored by BetterHelp. Give online therapy a try at betterhelp.com/MINDCAST and get on your way to being your best self. Our guest today is a visionary expert, Brett Harmeling who has pioneered the path to holistic wellness, a champion mindset, and sustainable wealth creation. He's mastered the art of balancing life's scales while harmonizing the often elusive elements of happiness and success. Get ready to explore the uncharted territories of wellness, biohacking, reverse aging, championship mindset, heat therapy, and the unparalleled journey to building wealth through an artful balance that transforms your life into a harmonious masterpiece. Let's dive deep into the secrets that could change your life forever! Brett Harmeling is an entrepreneur, philanthropist, husband, father, man of God, one of the top biohackers in the world, Master level certified yoga instructor, studied behavioral psychology, school teacher, keynote speaker, ERYT-500 Yoga Instruct, and Founder & CEO at Happy Life Labs, the world's premier marketplace for vitality and longevity. He's also an Executive and has been part of Verijet, Vision Jets with a pilot for a low hourly cost compared to standard jet services, with triple speed and efficiency of short-haul travel, and operates the safest fleet in existence. Brett sets himself as an asset and not a liability as he pursues life for freedom, time, and money. His journey of self-discovery and transformation, exploring the secrets to optimal living led to a life rich in abundance and joy. In a world obsessed with the quest for eternal youth and success, we're about to uncover the key to unlocking the fountain of vitality – reverse aging.    Some Questions I Ask: Take us back to where your journey of what people see right now begins? What landed you in yoga? What are some of those that you carry throughout your day that really serve you on your business-building journey? What is your wellness, biohacking routine, and activities look like on a daily basis? Who are some of your favorite brands, influencers, leaders, and experts in the biohacking space? How bad are the American way of thinking about aging? Talk a little bit about Red Light therapy? What does your sleep routine or environment look like? What are your thoughts on supplements, plan-medicines, and psychedelics, and how is that all ie in wellness and longevity? Is there anything that people are doing or pushing in the biohacking community that you feel like it's unhealthy that people should stay away from? How do you approach connecting the right people and finding the right opportunities? How are you creating that balance in all that stuff in your life? What intrigued and led you to Verijet and the disruption of travel?   In This Episode, You Will Learn: Navigating level of resiliency on whatever trials coming in. The concept of Kantian or contentment. The number one biohacking approach for anybody else. The championship mindset. Creating an unbalanced but harmonized life. The benefits of Ozone Therapy.   Quotes: “The more you wake up to who you are, the more unbearable it becomes to be who you're not.” “The more I could understand who I am and where I fit into the fabric of the world, the more effective I can be.” “Perfect is actually the lowest standard that humans can have for themselves.” “Direction is more important than speed.”   Connect with Brett Harmeling on:  https://www.instagram.com/brettharmeling/ https://www.yogaalliance.org/TeacherPublicProfile?tid=183335   Sponsor Links: HelloFresh: Visit https://hellofresh.com/50mindcast or Use the code 50MINDCAST to get 50% off plus free shipping! Caldera Lab: Visit https://calderalab.com/MINDCAST or use the code MINDCAST to get 20% off! Accredited Investor List - Text "DEALS" to 844.447.1555 Free Financial Audit: Text "XRAY" to 844.447.1555 Upcoming Events: Text "Events" to 844.447.1555 Millionaire Notes: Text "Notes" to 844.447.1555 Connect with Matty A. and Text me to 844.447.1555  Show Brought To You By: www.MillionaireMindcast.com Questions? Comments? Do you have a success story you would like to share on the show?  Send us an email to: Questions@MillionaireMindcast.com  

This lecture discusses key ideas from the 20th Century American philosopher Robert Audi's article, "The Ethical Significance of Cost Benefit Analysis". It focuses specifically on his contention that an ethical theory that would seemingly have nothing to do with using cost-benefit analysis, namely Kant's deontological ethics, could and should make use of that approach to some extent. Audi argues that Kantian ethics is not as divorced from consequences as it is often presented as being, and that cost-benefit analysis can help where there are conflicts between principles or assessing probabilities To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 2000 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler You can get a copy of the text here - https://www.jstor.org/tc/accept?origin=%2Fstable%2Fpdf%2F27801385.pdf

In this episode, we discuss the social theory of the Kantian critical theorist Rainer Forst in his book Normativity and Power. We work through how well his theory of the relationship between power and reason accounts for economic domination, why he thinks power and violence ought to be distinguished, and whether critical theory can escape the problem of circularity in judging the difference between better and worse reasons for acting. Do we have reasons for acting? Does it matter? Come get Kant-pilled and leave your Hegel at home!This is just a short clip from the full episode, which is available to our subscribers on  Patreon: patreon.com/leftofphilosophy References: Rainer Forst, Normativity and Power: Analyzing Social Orders of Justification, translated by Ciaran Cronin (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017) Music: Vintage Memories by Schematist | schematist.bandcamp.com

Stefan Molyneux delves into the complexities of human interaction, focusing on reciprocal altruism and the question of humanity's true capability for selflessness. Drawing distinctions between selfishness and altruism, and egoism and self-sacrifice, he references the Kantian view of morality and provides various examples highlighting behaviors rooted in self-interest. Molyneux critiques moral arguments opposing self-interest and explores the challenges of altruistic endeavors, referencing themes from Plato and personal experiences. He elaborates on the methods of resource acquisition, the manipulative nature of sophistry, and the inherent risks in helping others. Furthermore, Molyneux discusses the dynamics of self-interest, morality, and societal values, critiquing the philosophy of altruism, examining the implications of acting against self-interest, and warning against the rise of societal cynicism. The episode offers a profound exploration of morality, altruism, and the intricate intricacies of human behavior.Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free!Get access to StefBOT-AI, private livestreams, premium call in shows, my new book and the History of Philosophers series!See you soon!https://freedomain.locals.com/support/promo/UPB2022

Can art make us better people? Musician Markus Reuter joins Mark, Wes, and Seth to discussion the first half of On the Aesthetic Education of Man (1795). Given the failure of the French Revolution, this famous German poet wondered what could make the masses capable of governing themselves? His answer: Beauty! Aesthetic appreciation puts us at a distance from our savage desires, enables the abstract thought necessary for Kantian rationalist morality, and yet keeps us in touch with our feelings so that we don't just become cogs in the industrial machine. Get more at partiallyexaminedlife.com. Visit partiallyexaminedlife.com/support to get ad-free episodes and tons of bonus discussion. Sponsors: Secure your Internet and get three extra months free at ExpressVPN.com/PEL. Try The Psychology Podcast with Scott Barry Kaufman.

Professor of philosophy Matthew D. Segall returns to Rev Left to discuss his newest book, which is based on his disseratation, titled "Crossing the Threshold: Etheric Imagination in the Post-Kantian Process Philosophy of Schelling and Whitehead". Together, they discuss the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Schelling, and Alfred North Whitehead, and work through the vision of the cosmos - and of our place in it - that emerges from their work.   Check out Matt and his work here: https://footnotes2plato.com/   Check out our previous interviews with Matt here: https://revolutionaryleftradio.libsyn.com/size/5/?search=segall   Outro music: "Death Machine" by AJJ   Support Rev Left Radio: https://www.patreon.com/RevLeftRadio

If you've had some contact with the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, there's a good chance you found it abstract, heady, and hard to understand. But my guest would say that it's full of rich, usable insights on how to become better people, and, fortunately for us, she's got a true knack for making Kant's wisdom really accessible.Karen Stohr is a professor of philosophy and the author of Choosing Freedom: A Kantian Guide to Life. Today on the show, she brings Kant's ethical system and categorical imperative down to earth and shares how it can be applied to our everyday lives. We discuss Kant's belief in our great moral potential and duty to improve ourselves, and how his insights can help us make right choices. Karen explains Kant's ideas on the difference between negative and positive freedom, the importance of treating people as ends and not just means, the tension between love and respect, why ingratitude could be considered a "satanic vice," how practicing manners can make us better people, and more.You Kant miss this episode. Sorry, I had to do that.Resources Related to the PodcastAoM Article: Freedom From…Freedom ToAoM Article: Practical Wisdom — The Master VirtueAoM Article: Via Negativa — Adding to Your Life By SubtractingAoM Podcast #292: The Road to CharacterAoM Podcast #421: Why You Need a Philosophical Survival KitAoM Podcast #535: The Problem of Self-Help in a Liquid AgeSunday Firesides: Embracing the Coin of CharacterSunday Firesides: Manners Develop Self-Control (And May Preserve Democracy)AoM Article: Are You a Contemptible Person?MLK's "Loving Your Enemies" sermonOn Manners by Karen StohrOxford's Guides to the Good Life series of booksConnect with Karen StohrKaren's faculty page

Here's an episode with something for both of us – a healthy serving of Kantian rationalism for David with a dollop of Marxist criminology for Tamler. We discuss and then argue about Jeffrie Murphy's 1971 paper “Marxism and Retribution.” For Murphy, utilitarianism is non-starter as a theory of punishment because it can't justify the right of the state to inflict suffering on criminals. Retributivism respects the autonomy of individuals so it can justify punishment in principle – but not in practice, at least not in a capitalist system. So it ends up offering a transcendental sanction of the status quo. We debate the merits of Murphy's attack on Rawls and social contract theory under capitalism, along with the Marxist analysis of the roots of criminal behavior. Plus – the headline says it all: Blame The Brain, Not Bolsonaro, For Brazil's Riots.