Podcasts about Ludwig Wittgenstein

Filozofové a majetek: Kdo nic nemá, je ctnostnější?Co dělat s majetkem – a co majetek dělá s námi? Ludwig Wittgenstein si po první světové válce odpověděl přímočaře: Je třeba vše odevzdat. Zřekl se svého dědictví, které z něj učinilo jednoho z nejbohatších mužů Evropy. On byl však přesvědčen, že ponechat si majetek by mu neprospělo. Vše daroval sourozencům, něco zbylo i pro umělce. Jeho notář prý toto počínání označil slovy finanční sebevražda.Ale podobné pokušení – a rozpaky – nezažívají jen postavy z minulosti. Současný australský filozof Peter Singer se rozhodl kapitalismus morálně „hacknout“. Tzv. hnutí efektivního altruismu, jehož základy zformuloval, má dodat západním společnostem etický základ. Ač je kapitalismus prý nedokonalý systém, neznáme lepší. Lidé, kteří žijí v západních bohatých společnostech, mají zvláštní povinnosti. Jejich povinností je majetek vydělávat, ideálně hodně majetku – a s tímto záměrem volit i povolání – a následně peníze posílat do částí světa, v nichž se lidem žije řádově hůře.Že jde až o jakýsi filozofický asketismus, naznačuje radikalita. Nestačí rozdávat majetek. Zdravý člověk by si podle Singera mohl odpustit i jednu ledvinu. Sám si tím zdraví nepoškodí, zatímco jinému zachrání život. Tím se vracíme na začátek: Co všechno jsme ochotni darovat, abychom si zachovali čisté svědomí? Peníze? I orgány?KapitolyI. Dědictví? Nejen prachy, ale i odpovědnost nebo výška [úvod do 14:20]II. Politici nechť nic nevlastní. [14:20 až 25:40]III. Encyklika Lva XIII: Majetek zaručuje nezávislost na státu [25:40 až 33:50]IV. Stát nemá nutit lidi konat dobro [33:50 až 45:10]V. Přerozdělovat majetek? Nestačí. Přerozdělujte i tělo. [45:10 až konec]BibliografieValentin Dornis, Nils Heck, Michael Hartmann: „Die Leistungsgesellschaft ist eine Lüge“, in: Süddeutsche Zeitung, 27. September 2024, https://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/karriere-eliten-erfolg-leistung-lux.V6C5ZBE3CuXQfZkESQtFXe?reduced=true.Ray Monk, The Duty of the Genius, London: Penguin Books, 1991.Robert Nozick, Anarchie, stát a utopie, přel. Zuzana Gabajová, Praha: Academia, 2015.Platón, Ústava, přel. František Novotný, Praha: OIKOYMENH, 2005.Peter Singer, The Most Good You Can Do. How Effective Altruism Is Changing Ideas About Living Ethically, Yale, 2015.„Vzdělání dětí v ČR ovlivňuje sociální původ rodiny“, in: EDUin, 24. 10. 2018, https://www.eduin.cz/clanky/ctk-vzdelani-deti-v-cr-ovlivnuje-socialni-puvod-rodiny/

What do we mean by 'common sense'? In 1925 the philosopher GE Moore wrote a Defence of Common Sense which argued against philosophical idealism, on the grounds that it seemed to deny a set of propositions that he claimed were indisputably true. His colleague Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote a detailed response to Moore's paper, and its influence extended into the work of contemporaries like Susan Stebbing. How do we understand common sense now? What role does common sense play in politics? Matthew Sweet's guests are the philosopher Dr Rachael Wiseman, the politician Ann Widdecombe, the historian of emotion Dr Tiffany Watt Smith and the journalist and scholar of post colonial culture Dr Sarah Jilani.Producer: Luke Mulhall

Today we shared 4 of our favorite quotations and discussed them on their own and in relation to each other. We quoted Dorothy Parker, Lex Luthor, Friedrich Nietzsche, Bob Dylan, Marvel Comics, Richard Rorty, Moby Dick, Ru Paul, Jacques Derrida, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and Franz Kafka. 

Bolest je výlučná zkušenost; jen my můžeme cítit vlastní bolest. Přesto je v ní něco sdíleného – a často rodinného. Fyzioterapeut Pavel Kolář v rozhovoru pro Týdeník Echo připomněl, že vnímání bolesti je zakořeněné ve vztazích. Dítě, které spadne, se učí nejen snášet bolest, ale také chápat, jak na ni okolí reaguje. Pavel Kolář k tomu poznamenává: „Dítě spadne, odře si koleno, třeba mu i teče krev. Když se v tu chvíli všichni seběhnou a začnou dítě hystericky utěšovat a někoho ještě napadne dítě pro jistotu odvézt k lékaři, je to problém. Samozřejmě dítě zkontroluji, ale neřeším škrábance, modřiny, jizvy. Ať dítě ví, že pády a bolest jsou normální a že tu jsou od toho, aby se překonávaly. Když mu toto nepředáme, vytvoří si vadné stereotypy, které ho budou trápit celý život.“Podobně uvažoval Ludwig Wittgenstein. Ve Filosofických zkoumáních tvrdí, že ani bolest – jakkoli soukromá – nemá svůj význam nezávisle na jazyku, nezávisle na tom, jak se ji učíme pojmenovávat, chápat, sdílet. I bolest je součástí tzv. jazykových her. Wittgenstein na tom mimo jiné ukazuje, že je-li i bolest, respektive možnost jejího vyjádření takto jazykově podmíněná, je jazyk podmínkou významu vůbec. Což také znamená, že i v něčem tak intimním jako je bolest jsme odkázáni na druhé. Soukromý jazyk neexistuje. Nikdo si nemůže vymyslet vlastní jazyk; jazyk je vždy intersubjektivní; je to skupinové úsilí.Krom toho, že Wittgenstein promyslel zásadní filosofické otázky na pozadí jazyka a jazyk tak uchopil jako něco, co zakládá náš vztah ke světu, formuloval třeba i specifický pojem štěstí. Štěstí není něco, co bychom nacházeli; je to něco, co přinášíme – nebo nepřinášíme – do světa, anebo přesněji: je to náš postoj ke světu, respektive to, co Wittgenstein označuje jako formu. Nikoli obsah života, ale jeho forma je stěžejní.Máme-li problém, je marné hledat jeho řešení. Problémy se neřeší – „nechávají se zmizet“. A jak je necháme zmizet? Tím, že změníme formu života. To říká filozof, který sám neustále proměňoval svůj život: byl dobrovolníkem ve válce, učitelem na základce, architektem, zahradníkem, nemocničním technikem během Druhé světové války.KapitolyI. Bolest a rodinná příbuznost [úvod až 15:20]II. Problémy? Změň formu života. [15:20 až 35:50]III. Přečteno? Zahoďte můj Traktát [35:50 až 1:05:40]IV. „Život nás může učit věřit v Boha“ [1:05:40 až konec]BibliografieHerbert Marcuse, Der eindimensionale Mensch, Springe am Deister: Zu Klampen Verlag, 2014.Tereza Matějčková, Naše mysl si umí vytvářet vlastní léky, jen jí to musíme dovolit, in: Echoprime, 21. května, 2025, https://www.echoprime.cz/a/HWCJp/nase-mysl-si-umi-vytvaret-vlastni-leky-jen-ji-to-musime-dovolitBrian McGuinness – Radmila Schweitzer, Wittgenstein: Eine Familie in Briefen, Innsbruck: Haymon Verlag, 2018.Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus philosophicus, přel. Petr Glombíček, Praha: OIKOYMENH, str. 2007.Ludwig Wittgenstein, Filosofická zkoumání, přel. Jiří Pechar, Praha: Filosofický ústav, 1993.Ludwig Wittgenstein, Vermischte Bemerkungen, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1987.Celý podcast sledujte na http://www.Echoprime.czX: http://twitter.com/echo24czFacebook: http://twitter.com/echo24cz

Auf Grundlage der Kassiber, mit denen sich die isolierten RAF-Gefangenen während des Hungerstreiks in Stammheim verständigten, versucht das Stück, etwas über die Macht von Namen und Benennungen herauszubekommen und darüber, wie sich Hierarchien sprachlich abbilden und verfestigen. Als Überraschungsgäste treten auf: Ludwig Wittgenstein, Herman Melville und höchstwahrscheinlich auch das Rumpelstilzchen. Soweit das reichlich willkürliche Setting. Querverbindungen und Vorwegnahmen zuhauf. Hörspiel von Ulf Stolterfoht und Thomas Weber Mit. Kathrin Wehlisch und Markus Meyer Komposition: Thomas Weber Musik: Kammerflimmer Kollektief (Heike Aumüller, Christopher Brunner, Johannes Frisch, Thomas Weber) Regie: Iris Drögekamp und Thomas Weber Produktion: SWR 2019

Nghe trọn sách nói Những Nhà Tư Tưởng Lớn – Schopenhauer Trong 60 Phút trên ứng dụng Fonos: https://fonos.link/podcast-tvsn --Về Fonos:Fonos là Ứng dụng âm thanh số - Với hơn 13.000 nội dung gồm Sách nói có bản quyền, PodCourse, Podcast, Ebook, Tóm tắt sách, Thiền định, Truyện ngủ, Nhạc chủ đề, Truyện thiếu nhi. Bạn có thể nghe miễn phí chương 1 của tất cả sách nói trên Fonos. Tải app để trải nghiệm ngay!--Arthur Schopenhauer (22 tháng 2 năm 1788 – 21 tháng 9 năm 1860) là một nhà triết học duy tâm người Đức, nổi tiếng với trước tác Thế giới như là ý chí và biểu tượng xuất bản năm 1818. Xây dựng trên nền tảng triết học duy tâm siêu nghiệm của Immanuel Kant, ông đã phát triển một hệ thống luân lý và siêu hình vô thần bác bỏ những ý tưởng thời thượng lúc bấy giờ của trào lưu duy tâm Đức. Schopenhauer là một trong những trí thức phương Tây thế hệ đầu chia sẻ nhiều tư tưởng chung với triết học Ấn Độ, chẳng hạn như sự khổ tu, sự chối bỏ bản thân, và ý niệm cho rằng thế giới là sự phô chiếu ảo ảnh. Lý thuyết siêu hình của ông chính là nền tảng cho các tác phẩm về đề tài tâm lý học, mỹ học, đạo đức học và chính trị học, Phật học... những tác phẩm đã để lại tầm ảnh hưởng tới các danh nhân sau này như Friedrich Nietzsche, Wagner, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Sigmund Freud và nhiều người khác. Sách nói Những Nhà Tư Tưởng Lớn - Schopenhauer Trong 60 Phút sẽ cung cấp cho bạn những thông tin ngắn gọn và dễ hiểu nhất về Schopenhauer cùng tư tưởng triết học của ông.--Tìm hiểu thêm về Fonos: https://fonos.vn/Theo dõi Facebook Fonos: https://www.facebook.com/fonosvietnam/

On episode 233, we welcome Constantine Sandis to discuss the philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein, his lifelong preoccupation with the question of understanding others, the social and clinical consequences of misunderstanding others, Wittgenstein's personal struggles with misunderstanding, criticisms of empathy and how it may lead to further conflict as opposed to resolving it, the problem of mind-reading, understanding culture as opposed to another's inner drives, and the significance of self-reflection. Constantine Sandis is Director of Lex Academic, Visiting Professor of Philosophy at the University of Hertfordshire, and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. His books include The Things We Do and Why We Do Them, Philosophy of Action: An Anthology, and Human Nature, and From Action to Ethics: A Pluralistic Approach to Reasons and Responsibility. His newest book, available March 11, 2025, is called Wittgenstein on Other Minds: Strangers in a Strange Land. | Constantine Sandis | ► Website | https://www.constantinesandis.com ► Twitter | https://twitter.com/csandis ► Instagram | https://www.instagram.com/csandis ► Bluesky |  https://bsky.app/profile/csandis.bsky.social ► Facebook | https://www.facebook.com/csandis ► Linkedin | https://www.linkedin.com/in/constantine-sandis-723454a4 ► Wittgenstein on Other Minds Book | https://bit.ly/3Ff6458 Wittgenstein on Other Minds Discount Code for 35% Off: SEWPC35 Where you can find us: | Seize The Moment Podcast | ► Facebook | https://www.facebook.com/SeizeTheMoment ► Twitter | https://twitter.com/seize_podcast  ► Instagram | https://www.instagram.com/seizethemoment ► TikTok | https://www.tiktok.com/@seizethemomentpodcast  

Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosoph von Weltrang und Eigenbrötler zugleich, nahezu ausnahmslos unglücklich, neurotisch und seit seiner Kindheit ein schwuler Außenseiter, weiß, dass er nicht mehr lange zu leben hat. Zunehmend auf Hilfe angewiesen, verbringt er die letzten Monate seines Lebens im Haus seines Arztes Dr. Edward Bevan in Cambridge.

Political Theorist Davide Panagia (UCLA) has two new books out focusing on the broader themes and ideas of film, aesthetics, and political theory. Sentimental Empiricism: Politics, Philosophy, and Criticism in Postwar France (Fordham University Press) interrogates French history and educational traditions from the Revolution through the postwar period and analyzes the cultural, social, political, and educational parameters that created the space for the French postwar political thinkers. In Sentimental Empiricism, Panagia explores the many directions of critical thought by Jean Wahl, Simone de Beauvoir, Gilbert Simondon, Gilles Deleuze, and Michel Foucault and how these theorists were pushing against, in many ways, the teleological structure as defined by Aristotle two millennia ago. This contrast in thinking is the heart of the book, helping the reader to consider distinctions between the more fixed classical ideas and a contemporary consideration of dispositionality and revisability. The research and broader historical sketch in Sentimental Empiricism leads to the thrust of Intermedialities: Political Theory and Cinematic Experience (Northwestern UP, 2024). In Intermedialities (Northwestern UP, 2024), Panagia continues to explore this concept of the revisability of our understanding of the world, and turns the specific focus to film. Film itself, as a medium and as a conveyor of ideas, is rarely at the center of discussions of politics and power. And yet this is the exact place where humans (audiences) can see movement, which is what we are always observing around us to contribute to how we essentially make sense of the world. Intermedialities compels the intertwining of political theory and the theory of film, with encounters between contemporary aesthetic theorists like Stanley Cavell, Gilles Deleuze, Miriam Hansen, and Jean-Luc Godard and more traditional modern thinkers like David Hume, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and Gilbert Simondon. Intermedialities should be of particular interest to political theorists and political scientists since it posits the importance of understanding and thinking about the life and world around us and how we are all connected to taking in this life as movement. The medium of film, which provides us with concepts, images, imaginaries, and perceptions, contributes to so much of our memory and imagination, but is often dismissed as not “real” politics. Panagia and the theorists with whom he is thinking help to tease out the very political nature of the projection of moving images. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (University Press of Kansas, 2022), as well as co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), Email her comments at lgoren@carrollu.edu or tweet to @gorenlj. 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

Political Theorist Davide Panagia (UCLA) has two new books out focusing on the broader themes and ideas of film, aesthetics, and political theory. Sentimental Empiricism: Politics, Philosophy, and Criticism in Postwar France (Fordham University Press) interrogates French history and educational traditions from the Revolution through the postwar period and analyzes the cultural, social, political, and educational parameters that created the space for the French postwar political thinkers. In Sentimental Empiricism, Panagia explores the many directions of critical thought by Jean Wahl, Simone de Beauvoir, Gilbert Simondon, Gilles Deleuze, and Michel Foucault and how these theorists were pushing against, in many ways, the teleological structure as defined by Aristotle two millennia ago. This contrast in thinking is the heart of the book, helping the reader to consider distinctions between the more fixed classical ideas and a contemporary consideration of dispositionality and revisability. The research and broader historical sketch in Sentimental Empiricism leads to the thrust of Intermedialities: Political Theory and Cinematic Experience (Northwestern UP, 2024). In Intermedialities (Northwestern UP, 2024), Panagia continues to explore this concept of the revisability of our understanding of the world, and turns the specific focus to film. Film itself, as a medium and as a conveyor of ideas, is rarely at the center of discussions of politics and power. And yet this is the exact place where humans (audiences) can see movement, which is what we are always observing around us to contribute to how we essentially make sense of the world. Intermedialities compels the intertwining of political theory and the theory of film, with encounters between contemporary aesthetic theorists like Stanley Cavell, Gilles Deleuze, Miriam Hansen, and Jean-Luc Godard and more traditional modern thinkers like David Hume, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and Gilbert Simondon. Intermedialities should be of particular interest to political theorists and political scientists since it posits the importance of understanding and thinking about the life and world around us and how we are all connected to taking in this life as movement. The medium of film, which provides us with concepts, images, imaginaries, and perceptions, contributes to so much of our memory and imagination, but is often dismissed as not “real” politics. Panagia and the theorists with whom he is thinking help to tease out the very political nature of the projection of moving images. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (University Press of Kansas, 2022), as well as co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), Email her comments at lgoren@carrollu.edu or tweet to @gorenlj. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Political Theorist Davide Panagia (UCLA) has two new books out focusing on the broader themes and ideas of film, aesthetics, and political theory. Sentimental Empiricism: Politics, Philosophy, and Criticism in Postwar France (Fordham University Press) interrogates French history and educational traditions from the Revolution through the postwar period and analyzes the cultural, social, political, and educational parameters that created the space for the French postwar political thinkers. In Sentimental Empiricism, Panagia explores the many directions of critical thought by Jean Wahl, Simone de Beauvoir, Gilbert Simondon, Gilles Deleuze, and Michel Foucault and how these theorists were pushing against, in many ways, the teleological structure as defined by Aristotle two millennia ago. This contrast in thinking is the heart of the book, helping the reader to consider distinctions between the more fixed classical ideas and a contemporary consideration of dispositionality and revisability. The research and broader historical sketch in Sentimental Empiricism leads to the thrust of Intermedialities: Political Theory and Cinematic Experience (Northwestern UP, 2024). In Intermedialities (Northwestern UP, 2024), Panagia continues to explore this concept of the revisability of our understanding of the world, and turns the specific focus to film. Film itself, as a medium and as a conveyor of ideas, is rarely at the center of discussions of politics and power. And yet this is the exact place where humans (audiences) can see movement, which is what we are always observing around us to contribute to how we essentially make sense of the world. Intermedialities compels the intertwining of political theory and the theory of film, with encounters between contemporary aesthetic theorists like Stanley Cavell, Gilles Deleuze, Miriam Hansen, and Jean-Luc Godard and more traditional modern thinkers like David Hume, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and Gilbert Simondon. Intermedialities should be of particular interest to political theorists and political scientists since it posits the importance of understanding and thinking about the life and world around us and how we are all connected to taking in this life as movement. The medium of film, which provides us with concepts, images, imaginaries, and perceptions, contributes to so much of our memory and imagination, but is often dismissed as not “real” politics. Panagia and the theorists with whom he is thinking help to tease out the very political nature of the projection of moving images. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (University Press of Kansas, 2022), as well as co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), Email her comments at lgoren@carrollu.edu or tweet to @gorenlj. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/film

Political Theorist Davide Panagia (UCLA) has two new books out focusing on the broader themes and ideas of film, aesthetics, and political theory. Sentimental Empiricism: Politics, Philosophy, and Criticism in Postwar France (Fordham University Press) interrogates French history and educational traditions from the Revolution through the postwar period and analyzes the cultural, social, political, and educational parameters that created the space for the French postwar political thinkers. In Sentimental Empiricism, Panagia explores the many directions of critical thought by Jean Wahl, Simone de Beauvoir, Gilbert Simondon, Gilles Deleuze, and Michel Foucault and how these theorists were pushing against, in many ways, the teleological structure as defined by Aristotle two millennia ago. This contrast in thinking is the heart of the book, helping the reader to consider distinctions between the more fixed classical ideas and a contemporary consideration of dispositionality and revisability. The research and broader historical sketch in Sentimental Empiricism leads to the thrust of Intermedialities: Political Theory and Cinematic Experience (Northwestern UP, 2024). In Intermedialities (Northwestern UP, 2024), Panagia continues to explore this concept of the revisability of our understanding of the world, and turns the specific focus to film. Film itself, as a medium and as a conveyor of ideas, is rarely at the center of discussions of politics and power. And yet this is the exact place where humans (audiences) can see movement, which is what we are always observing around us to contribute to how we essentially make sense of the world. Intermedialities compels the intertwining of political theory and the theory of film, with encounters between contemporary aesthetic theorists like Stanley Cavell, Gilles Deleuze, Miriam Hansen, and Jean-Luc Godard and more traditional modern thinkers like David Hume, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and Gilbert Simondon. Intermedialities should be of particular interest to political theorists and political scientists since it posits the importance of understanding and thinking about the life and world around us and how we are all connected to taking in this life as movement. The medium of film, which provides us with concepts, images, imaginaries, and perceptions, contributes to so much of our memory and imagination, but is often dismissed as not “real” politics. Panagia and the theorists with whom he is thinking help to tease out the very political nature of the projection of moving images. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (University Press of Kansas, 2022), as well as co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), Email her comments at lgoren@carrollu.edu or tweet to @gorenlj. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory

Political Theorist Davide Panagia (UCLA) has two new books out focusing on the broader themes and ideas of film, aesthetics, and political theory. Sentimental Empiricism: Politics, Philosophy, and Criticism in Postwar France (Fordham University Press) interrogates French history and educational traditions from the Revolution through the postwar period and analyzes the cultural, social, political, and educational parameters that created the space for the French postwar political thinkers. In Sentimental Empiricism, Panagia explores the many directions of critical thought by Jean Wahl, Simone de Beauvoir, Gilbert Simondon, Gilles Deleuze, and Michel Foucault and how these theorists were pushing against, in many ways, the teleological structure as defined by Aristotle two millennia ago. This contrast in thinking is the heart of the book, helping the reader to consider distinctions between the more fixed classical ideas and a contemporary consideration of dispositionality and revisability. The research and broader historical sketch in Sentimental Empiricism leads to the thrust of Intermedialities: Political Theory and Cinematic Experience (Northwestern UP, 2024). In Intermedialities (Northwestern UP, 2024), Panagia continues to explore this concept of the revisability of our understanding of the world, and turns the specific focus to film. Film itself, as a medium and as a conveyor of ideas, is rarely at the center of discussions of politics and power. And yet this is the exact place where humans (audiences) can see movement, which is what we are always observing around us to contribute to how we essentially make sense of the world. Intermedialities compels the intertwining of political theory and the theory of film, with encounters between contemporary aesthetic theorists like Stanley Cavell, Gilles Deleuze, Miriam Hansen, and Jean-Luc Godard and more traditional modern thinkers like David Hume, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and Gilbert Simondon. Intermedialities should be of particular interest to political theorists and political scientists since it posits the importance of understanding and thinking about the life and world around us and how we are all connected to taking in this life as movement. The medium of film, which provides us with concepts, images, imaginaries, and perceptions, contributes to so much of our memory and imagination, but is often dismissed as not “real” politics. Panagia and the theorists with whom he is thinking help to tease out the very political nature of the projection of moving images. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (University Press of Kansas, 2022), as well as co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), Email her comments at lgoren@carrollu.edu or tweet to @gorenlj. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

Political Theorist Davide Panagia (UCLA) has two new books out focusing on the broader themes and ideas of film, aesthetics, and political theory. Sentimental Empiricism: Politics, Philosophy, and Criticism in Postwar France (Fordham University Press) interrogates French history and educational traditions from the Revolution through the postwar period and analyzes the cultural, social, political, and educational parameters that created the space for the French postwar political thinkers. In Sentimental Empiricism, Panagia explores the many directions of critical thought by Jean Wahl, Simone de Beauvoir, Gilbert Simondon, Gilles Deleuze, and Michel Foucault and how these theorists were pushing against, in many ways, the teleological structure as defined by Aristotle two millennia ago. This contrast in thinking is the heart of the book, helping the reader to consider distinctions between the more fixed classical ideas and a contemporary consideration of dispositionality and revisability. The research and broader historical sketch in Sentimental Empiricism leads to the thrust of Intermedialities: Political Theory and Cinematic Experience (Northwestern UP, 2024). In Intermedialities (Northwestern UP, 2024), Panagia continues to explore this concept of the revisability of our understanding of the world, and turns the specific focus to film. Film itself, as a medium and as a conveyor of ideas, is rarely at the center of discussions of politics and power. And yet this is the exact place where humans (audiences) can see movement, which is what we are always observing around us to contribute to how we essentially make sense of the world. Intermedialities compels the intertwining of political theory and the theory of film, with encounters between contemporary aesthetic theorists like Stanley Cavell, Gilles Deleuze, Miriam Hansen, and Jean-Luc Godard and more traditional modern thinkers like David Hume, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and Gilbert Simondon. Intermedialities should be of particular interest to political theorists and political scientists since it posits the importance of understanding and thinking about the life and world around us and how we are all connected to taking in this life as movement. The medium of film, which provides us with concepts, images, imaginaries, and perceptions, contributes to so much of our memory and imagination, but is often dismissed as not “real” politics. Panagia and the theorists with whom he is thinking help to tease out the very political nature of the projection of moving images. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (University Press of Kansas, 2022), as well as co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), Email her comments at lgoren@carrollu.edu or tweet to @gorenlj. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/french-studies

In this episode, Ben Watkins sits down with Professor Pete Mandik to discuss several different ways of conceiving of materialism along with strengths and weaknesses of each approach. Professor Mandik also gives a summary of a view inspire by Quine he calls “Type-Q Materialism.” Additionally, Ben and Professor Mandik discuss various aspects of religious mysticism and touch on the philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein.

“In solitude, I often feel closer to the people I care for than when they're in the same room.” –Pico Iyer In this episode of Deviate, Rolf and Pico talk about how the best travels are often counterbalanced with a kind of stillness, in which one can find one’s “best self” (3:00); Pico’s decades-long experiences with monks in a California monastery, the benefits of a “childlike attitude” toward life, and how “fire” can be a metaphor for spiritual life (12:00); how Pico’s solitude is informed by, and in conversation with, nature (22:00); Pico’s engaged relationship with spiritual communities, even though he is not religious (30:00); the “counterculture” spiritual tradition that grew up around Big Sur, California, and the power of longing (39:00); and how solitude can be a gateway to other people (47:00). Pico Iyer (@PicoIyer) is a novelist, essayist, and author. His newest book is Aflame: Learning from Silence. Notable Links: Pico Iyer on what Japan can teach us about life (Deviate episode 73) The Vagabond’s Way, by Rolf Potts (book) Henri Nouwen (writer and theologian) New Seeds of Contemplation, by Thomas Merton (book) The 14th Dalai Lama (spiritual leader) The Snow Leopard, by Peter Matthiessen (book) Richard Powers (novelist) Desert Fathers (early Christian hermits and ascetics) Sign of Jonas, by Thomas Merton (book) Days of Heaven (1978 film) 4′33″ by John Cage (musical composition) New Camaldoli Hermitage (hermitage in Big Sur, California) Rigveda (ancient Indian collection of hymns) The Woman Lit by Fireflies, by Jim Harrison (book) Sarmoung Brotherhood (esoteric Sufi brotherhood) Henry Miller (novelist) Esalen Institute (retreat center in Big Sur) Bittersweet, by Susan Cain (book) Leonard Cohen (songwriter) Ludwig Wittgenstein (philosopher) The Deviate theme music comes from the title track of Cedar Van Tassel's 2017 album Lumber. Note: We don't host a “comments” section, but we're happy to hear your questions and insights via email, at deviate@rolfpotts.com.

His earlier episodes on this show have been huge hits, and as he completes a trilogy of books, he returns to complete a trilogy of episodes. Amitava Kumar joins Amit Varma in episode 408 of The Seen and the Unseen to talk about writing, noticing, painting, travelling, trees, and unfulfilled train journeys. (FOR FULL LINKED SHOW NOTES, GO TO SEENUNSEEN.IN.) Also check out 1. Amitava Kumar on Instagram, Substack, Twitter, Amazon, Vassar, Granta and his own website. 2. The Green Book: An Observer's Notebook -- Amitava Kumar. 3. Amitava Kumar Finds the Breath of Life — Episode 265 of The Seen and the Unseen. 4. Amitava Kumar Finds His Kashmiri Rain -- Episode 364 of The Seen and the Unseen. 5. The Blue Book: A Writer's Journal — Amitava Kumar. 6. The Yellow Book: A Traveller's Diary — Amitava Kumar. 7. My Beloved Life: A Novel -- Amitava Kumar. 8. A Million Mutinies Now -- VS Naipaul. 9. The Trees — Philip Larkin. 10. Before the Storm -- Amitava Kumar. 11. Wanderers, Kings, Merchants: The Story of India through Its Languages — Peggy Mohan. 12. Understanding India Through Its Languages — Episode 232 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Peggy Mohan). 13. A Suitable Boy -- Vikram Seth. 14. Caste, Capitalism and Chandra Bhan Prasad — Episode 296 of The Seen and the Unseen. 15. ‘Indian languages carry the legacy of caste' — Chandra Bhan Prasad interviewed by Sheela Bhatt. 16. The Refreshing Audacity of Vinay Singhal — Episode 291 of The Seen and the Unseen. 17. Stage.in. 18. Laapataa Ladies -- Kiran Rao. 19. Kanthapura -- Raja Rao. 20. All About H Hatterr -- GV Desani. 21. From Phansi Yard: My Year with the Women of Yerawada -- Sudha Bharadwaj. 22. India is Broken -- Ashoka Mody. 23. Being Mortal -- Atul Gawande. 24. Earwitness to Place -- Bernie Krause interviewed by Erin Robinsong. 25. All That Breathes -- Shaunak Sen. 26. Frog: 1 Poetry: 0 -- Amitava Kumar. 27. The Heat Will Kill You First -- Jeff Goodell. 28. Danish Husain and the Multiverse of Culture — Episode 359 of The Seen and the Unseen. 29. The Artist's Way -- Julia Cameron. 30. An excerpt from Wittgenstein's diary — Parul Sehgal on Twitter. 31. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus — Ludwig Wittgenstein. 32. Burdock -- Janet Malcolm. 33. Hermit in Paris — Italo Calvino. 34. Objects From Our Past -- Episode 77 of Everything is Everything. 35. The Wisden Book of Test Cricket (1877-1977) — Compiled & edited by Bill Frindall. 36. Gita Press and the Making of Hindu India — Akshaya Mukul. 37. The Gita Press and Hindu Nationalism — Episode 139 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Akshaya Mukul). 38. The Ferment of Our Founders — Episode 272 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Shruti Kapila). 39. Private Truths, Public Lies — Timur Kuran. 40. The Incredible Insights of Timur Kuran — Episode 349 of The Seen and the Unseen. 41. Bhavni Bhavai -- Ketan Mehta. 42. All We Imagine as Light -- Payal Kapadia. 43. Secondhand Time -- Svetlana Alexievich. 44. Amitava Kumar's post with Danish Husain's postcard. 45. Fire Weather -- John Vaillant. 46. Ill Nature -- Joy Williams. 47. Hawk -- Joy Williams. This episode is sponsored by Rang De, a platform that enables individuals to invest in farmers, rural entrepreneurs and artisans. Amit Varma and Ajay Shah have launched a new course called Life Lessons, which aims to be a launchpad towards learning essential life skills all of you need. For more details, and to sign up, click here. Amit and Ajay also bring out a weekly YouTube show, Everything is Everything. Have you watched it yet? You must! And have you read Amit's newsletter? Subscribe right away to The India Uncut Newsletter! It's free! Also check out Amit's online course, The Art of Clear Writing. Episode art: ‘Gulmohar' by Simahina.

Agradece a este podcast tantas horas de entretenimiento y disfruta de episodios exclusivos como éste. ¡Apóyale en iVoox! paypal.me/LibroTobias Ludwig Wittgenstein (1989-1951) comenzó a escribir el Tractatus logico philosophicus hacia 1912, continuándolo durante el tiempo que estuvo en el frente, en la Primera Guerra Mundial, y dándole fin en agosto de 1918. El lenguaje y sus límites es la idea central del libro, que se desarrolla a través de un análisis de carácter lógico. Los resultados de este análisis del lenguaje se aplican no solo a la lógica, sino también a la matemática y a las ciencias naturales. De ahí que el tratado tenga la pretensión de repercutir hasta en tres dimensiones: la lógica, la epistemológica y también una quizá menos transitada, a saber, la ética, pues como es sabido las consecuencias de las ciencias naturales tienen siempre fuertes implicaciones de carácter ético y moral (pongamos por caso los grandes debates éticos que suscitó la teoría de la evolución de Darwin, que perduran hasta el presente). Canciones: • “Ludwig Wittgenstein on Ethics” de Endolith • “Roses and Teeth for Ludwig Wittgenstein” de Matmos Presentación, dirección, edición y montaje: Asier Menéndez Marín Diseño logo Podcast: albacanodesigns (Alba Cano) Escucha el episodio completo en la app de iVoox, o descubre todo el catálogo de iVoox Originals

What happens when a novelist wants “nonsense and joy” but his characters are destined for a Central European sanatorium? How does the abecedarian form (i.e. organized not chronologically or sequentially but alphabetically) insist on order, yet also embrace absurdity? Here to ponder such questions with host John Plotz are University of Wisconsin–Madison's Sunny Yudkoff (last heard on ND speaking with Sheila Heti) and Adam Ehrlich Sachs, author of Inherited Disorders, The Organs of Sense, and the recently published Gretel and the Great War. Sachs has fallen under the spell of late Habsburg Vienna, where the polymath Ludwig Wittgenstein struggled to make sense of Boltzmann's physics, Arnold Schoenberg read the acerbic journalist Karl Kraus, and everyone, Sachs suspects, was reading Grimms' Fairy Tales, searching for the feeling of inevitability only narrative closure can provide. Beneath his OULIPO-like attachment to arbitrary orders and word-games, though, Sachs admits to a desire for chaos. Thomas Bernhard, later 20th century Austrian experimental novelist Heinrich von Kleist, “Michael Kohlhass” Romantic-era German writer Italo Calvino,If on a Winter's Night a Traveler OULIPO Home of French literary experimentalists like Perec and Raymond Queneau Georges Perec's most famous experiment is Life: A User's Manual (although John is devoted to “W: or the Memory of Childhood”) Dr. Seuss, On Beyond Zebra! (ignore John calling the author Dr Scarry, which was a scary mistake.,..) Marcel Proust: was he a worldbuilder and fantasist, as Nabokov says or, as Doris Lessing claims, principally an anatomist of French social structures, a second Zola? Franz Kafka is unafraid of turning his character into a bug in a story's first sentence. Virginia Woolf in Mrs. Dalloway offers the reader a mad (Septimus) and a sane (Mrs Dalloway herself) version of stream of consciousness: how different are they? Cezanne, for example The Fisherman (Fantastic Scene) The Pointillism of painters like Georges Seurat Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

What happens when a novelist wants “nonsense and joy” but his characters are destined for a Central European sanatorium? How does the abecedarian form (i.e. organized not chronologically or sequentially but alphabetically) insist on order, yet also embrace absurdity? Here to ponder such questions with host John Plotz are University of Wisconsin–Madison's Sunny Yudkoff (last heard on ND speaking with Sheila Heti) and Adam Ehrlich Sachs, author of Inherited Disorders, The Organs of Sense, and the recently published Gretel and the Great War. Sachs has fallen under the spell of late Habsburg Vienna, where the polymath Ludwig Wittgenstein struggled to make sense of Boltzmann's physics, Arnold Schoenberg read the acerbic journalist Karl Kraus, and everyone, Sachs suspects, was reading Grimms' Fairy Tales, searching for the feeling of inevitability only narrative closure can provide. Beneath his OULIPO-like attachment to arbitrary orders and word-games, though, Sachs admits to a desire for chaos. Thomas Bernhard, later 20th century Austrian experimental novelist Heinrich von Kleist, “Michael Kohlhass” Romantic-era German writer Italo Calvino,If on a Winter's Night a Traveler OULIPO Home of French literary experimentalists like Perec and Raymond Queneau Georges Perec's most famous experiment is Life: A User's Manual (although John is devoted to “W: or the Memory of Childhood”) Dr. Seuss, On Beyond Zebra! (ignore John calling the author Dr Scarry, which was a scary mistake.,..) Marcel Proust: was he a worldbuilder and fantasist, as Nabokov says or, as Doris Lessing claims, principally an anatomist of French social structures, a second Zola? Franz Kafka is unafraid of turning his character into a bug in a story's first sentence. Virginia Woolf in Mrs. Dalloway offers the reader a mad (Septimus) and a sane (Mrs Dalloway herself) version of stream of consciousness: how different are they? Cezanne, for example The Fisherman (Fantastic Scene) The Pointillism of painters like Georges Seurat Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/literature

Vouloir se mettre en danger pour s'augmenter, être toujours plus performant, meilleur que la veille... Cette injonction de notre époque, la journaliste Marie Misset la rejette instinctivement. Pourtant, "sortir de sa zone de confort" est un conseil qui ne cesse de résonner dans nos oreilles et qui s'est apparemment avéré bénéfique pour beaucoup, dont les témoins de cet épisode : les artistes November Ultra et Philippe Katerine, ou encore Loann, un jeune homme trans qui a grandi dans un milieu très conservateur. Que faut-il retenir de ces parcours ? Faut-il repenser ce que nous désignons comme une zone de confort ? Est-ce qu'il ne vaudrait pas mieux élargir sa base plutôt que de la fuir ? C'est ce que se demande Marie Misset dans cet épisode d'Émotions, avec les éclairages de la philosophe Gabrielle Halpern, notamment autrice de Tous centaures. Éloge de l'hybridation.Marie Misset va présenter cette nouvelle saison d'Émotions !Pour aller plus loin : Lire les Lettres à un jeune poète de Rainer Maria Rilke, qui écrit que “les dragons de notre vie sont peut-être des princesses qui attendent de nous voir beaux et courageux.”Lire, selon les conseils de Gabrielle Halpern, le Prix Nobel de littérature Élias Canetti et sa vision de la vie comme un éternel rétrécissement et le philosophe Ludwig Wittgenstein qui parle des gonds fixes pour que le porte tourneLire Mihály Csíkszentmihályi, le psychologue à l'origine de la notion de “flow”, Flow. The Psychology of Optimal Experience ou un de ses ouvrages traduits en français Vivre. La psychologie du bonheur pour la version “flux”Lire L'enracinement de la philosophe Simone Weil, qui parle des vertus du risque quand il est pris dans des conditions optimalesEcouter November Ultra et Philippe KaterineSi vous aussi vous voulez nous raconter votre histoire dans Émotions, écrivez-nous en remplissant ce formulaire ou à l'adresse hello@louiemedia.comÉmotions est un podcast de Louie Media. Marie Misset a tourné, écrit et monté cet épisode. La réalisation sonore est de Guillaume Girault. Le générique est réalisé par Clémence Reliat, à partir d'un extrait d'En Sommeil de Jaune. Elsa Berthault est en charge de la production. Pour avoir des news de Louie, des recos podcasts et culturelles, abonnez-vous à notre newsletter en cliquant ici. Vous souhaitez soutenir la création et la diffusion des projets de Louie Media ? Vous pouvez le faire via le Club Louie. Chaque participation est précieuse. Nous vous proposons un soutien sans engagement, annulable à tout moment, soit en une seule fois, soit de manière régulière. Au nom de toute l'équipe de Louie : MERCI ! Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

En este episodio, exploramos las perspectivas contrastantes de Karl Popper y Ludwig Wittgenstein sobre la naturaleza del conocimiento. Popper aboga por la falsabilidad como criterio científico, mientras que Wittgenstein se centra en el uso contextual del lenguaje. Analizaremos cómo estas visiones impactan la filosofía y la psicología contemporáneas.

Are we slowly sliding towards our own extinction? How can we find hope amidst the despair of the modern world? Join philosopher Ben Ware as he analyzes the various apocalyptic narratives that have existed throughout history, dissecting everything from antinatalism to the romantic poets. Ben is Co-Director of the Centre for Philosophy and Art at King's College London where he is also a Senior Research Fellow in Philosophy. He has also written extensively on a range of philosophical subjects, including Ludwig Wittgenstein, aesthetics, morality, and extinction theory.To witness such debates live buy tickets for our upcoming festival: https://howthelightgetsin.org/festivals/And visit our website for many more articles, videos, and podcasts like this one: https://iai.tv/You can find everything we referenced here: https://linktr.ee/philosophyforourtimesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

"Wat heb je aan al die filosofie als het je niet in staat stelt een beter mens te worden?" - Stine laat theatermaker Bo Tarenskeen aan het woord over Ludwig Wittgenstein.

In 1956 Oxford University awarded an honorary degree to the former US president Harry S. Truman for his role in ending the Second World War. One philosopher, Elizabeth Anscombe (1919 – 2001), objected strongly.She argued that although dropping nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki may have ended the fighting, it amounted to the murder of tens of thousands of innocent civilians. It was therefore an irredeemably immoral act. And there was something fundamentally wrong with a moral philosophy that didn't see that.This was the starting point for a body of work that changed the terms in which philosophers discussed moral and ethical questions in the second half of the twentieth century.A leading student of the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, Anscombe combined his insights with rejuvenated interpretations of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas that made these ancient figures speak to modern issues and concerns. Anscombe was also instrumental in making action, and the question of what it means to intend to do something, a leading area of philosophical work.WithRachael Wiseman, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of LiverpoolConstantine Sandis, Visiting Professor of Philosophy at the University of Hertfordshire, and Director of Lex AcademicRoger Teichmann, Lecturer in Philosophy at St Hilda's College, University of OxfordProducer: Luke MulhallIn Our Time is a BBC Studios Audio Production

Der Schriftsteller und Journalist Wolfram Eilenberger hat schon zwei Bestseller über die Philosophie des 20. Jahrhunderts geschrieben. Die „Zeit der Zauberer“ über Ludwig Wittgenstein, Heidegger und Cassirer. Und „Feuer der Freiheit“ über den Existenzialismus. Eilenberger verknüpft dabei die Biographie seiner Helden mit deren philosophischen Gedanken. Spannend zu lesen und enorm erfolgreich. Heute (07.09.) erscheint nun Eilenbergers Nummer Drei mit dem Titel „Geister der Gegenwart“. Darin schildert Eilenberger die Philosophie der Nachkriegsjahrzehnte bis ins Jahr 1984. Wilm Hüffer hat das Buch gelesen.

Feeling Down? Try the Feeling Great App for Free! The Feeling Great App is now available in both app stores (IOS and Android) and is for therapists and the general public, and you can take a ride for free! Check it  out at FeelingGreat.com! What's the Meaning of Life? Before we start today, I have a special shoutout to Max Kosma, our new colleague, friend and brilliant technical guru who helped make our new video studio possible! Next week, we'll see if we can pipe him in to say hello to all of you. His spirit is joyous, infectious, incredibly generous and supportive. Thanks, Max! Rhonda opened today's podcast with a vibrant and inspiring endorsement from Jeff, a podcast fan who was raving about the Feeling Great App. Thank you Jeff, and please check out our new app at FeelingGreat.com. Important Announcement Rhonda, along with a group of dedicated TEAM Therapists, including Amy Berner, Brandon Vance, Leigh Harrington, Mariusz Wirga, and Mark Noble, has just created a new non-profit organization called TEAMCBT International (TCI). TCI will provide seed money in the form of no-or-low-interest loans for groups around the world who want to offer TEAM-CBT intensives for therapists in your country. Rhonda has been instrumental in the organization of successful intensive workshops in India, Poland, Mexico, England and Ireland. They have been well received, but can be somewhat costly to produce, so Rhonda's new group is ready to provide a helping hand. I've had the honor of presenting keynote addresses, live therapy demos, and Q and A sessions in many of those programs, and have totally enjoyed them. A big hug and THANKS to Rhonda once again! To learn more, just go to TEAMCBT.International. Today, Matt joins us for a discussion of the meaning of life, something young people often worry about, but people of any age can be concerned. So, today, you may finally find the answer to that lofty question! But first, I (David) mentioned a little about one of last week's questions, “Is the universe real?” I provided the type of answer the famed philosopher, Ludwig Wittgenstein, might have provided. Namely, that the question is nonsensical, it is language “out of gear.” So, we can dismiss the question, as opposed to trying to answer it. HOWEVER, the question DOES make a ton of sense when we ask if human beings are “real.” And I am not referring to some metaphysical nonsense, but rather the tendency of many people to present a happy or confident false front, all the while feeling empty, lonely, anxious and ashamed inside. Two of the now more-than-140 TEAM techniques include Self-Disclosure and the Survey Technique, where you take the chance of opening up about some of the secrets you've been hiding, and ask others what they think about you. Although this takes tremendous courage, it often results in tremendous warmth and connection to others. I provide a description of a young man who disclosed a tremendous amount he'd been hiding in our recent Tuesday group at Stanford, and he was convinced the group would judge him and look down on him. But just the opposite happened. He encountered a flood of warmth, admiration, and respect from the people in our group. A small miracle, perhaps, but a real and meaningful miracle at the moment when his universe suddenly became “real” and radically different from the dangerous and critical world he'd feared and imagined. Then we tackled today's philosophical question: “What's the Meaning of Life?” As usual, our brilliant and beloved Matt May began with a description of an extraordinarily depressed patient he once treated who'd been hospitalized for 180 days with no improvement, including a very dangerous suicide attempt. Matt was worried for the patient's safety, so told the referring doctor that he'd been willing to talk with the patient while the patient was still in the safe environment of the hospital. The patient called Matt and, after some listening and empathy Matt said he would like to help and that there would be committed to helping the man and thought he could help him make a complete recovery, work with this man, and thought there was an excellent chance for significant progress, perhaps even complete recovery, but the patient probably wouldn't want to work with him.as long as he'd be willing to give Matt what he needed in order to work together effectively. Matt suggested the patient give him a call. On the call, Matt told him he might not be able to afford treatment, since part of the “cost” of therapy was that the patient had to make a commitment to life, and that he must agree never to attempt suicide no matter what, for the rest of his life. After a couple days of reflection, the man convinced Matt that he WOULD make that commitment. Then Matt described the man's problem. Both of his parents were world famous, successful scientists, and during his upbringing, his parents emphasized how fantastic and rewarding a career as a scientist could be, and he was convinced that his parents expected him to follow in their footsteps. He had "learned that doing science was the "meaning of life" and would inevitably result in his feeling satisfied, joyful and proud. So. sure enough, this young man, who was extremely bright, pursued a scientific career, and eventually one of his papers was accepted for publication in one the world's most prestigious research journals. There was a big party at his laboratory, and everyone congratulated him and sang his praises. But there was one big problem. He felt nothing! Of course, he smiled and didn't let on that he felt nothing. He tried to act happy, but simply WASN'T. He said, “I faked it.” He concluded that he must be defective, since he'd done what he was supposed to do, in order to feel joyful and happy, but he felt nothing, even though he had fulfilled his parents dreams and expectations for him. This plunged him into his severe depression, with the familiar theme of “I'm not good enough. In fact, I am deeply flawed and defective, incapable of feeling joy or happiness. There must be something terribly wrong with me!” Sound familiar? Did you ever feel like YOU weren't good enough? During an early session, Matt asked his patient what he really enjoyed, what he'd really LIKE to do with his life. The patient confessed, after much resistance, that he felt that his fantasies were totally ridiculous, but what he really loved were trains, photography, and painting. He said his dream job would be to be a conductor or engineer on a train where he could take pictures of the scenery and especially, the people on the train. BUT, he said, that would be meaningless, since he wouldn't be contributing to science and would be letting everyone down., etc. etc. etc. I bet you can guess what followed! If you were his shrink, what would you say or do? Put your ideas here, into the text box, and then I'll tell you!   If you took a guess, thanks! If you didn't, no problem. Matt suggested he do those very things—take a train somewhere, start snapping photos, and do some painting. Predict how satisfying each thing will be (0 to 100) BEFORE you do it. Then do it, and record how satisfying each activity actually was on the same scale of 0 to 100. He exclaimed, “I'd LOVE to do that,” and started crying. His depression score immediately fell to zero. The next week he brought a large cardboard box to his session. It was filled with books on ancient philosophy and how to find the “meaning of life.” He said, “I don't need these anymore, so they're a gift to you!” Matt said, “I don't need them either!” Now you know about the “meaning of life.” We discussed some of the many meanings in this story, including: Rhonda pointed out what Kurt Vonnegut said on the meaning of life. He said, “We're all here to fart around!” David discussed the basic idea that it's not what we're doing, but our thoughts, that trigger ALL of our feelings. And at the moment you learn to turn off that critical voice in your brain, you will experience your own “enlightenment. David has also said, over and over, that when you discover that you no longer need to be “special,” you can experience the “Great Death” of the “self,” but it's not like a funeral. It's more like a celebration, because when you lose your “self,” and discover you didn't “need” the things you wrongly thought you needed (like love, achievement, perfection, etc.), at that moment you'll experience enlightenment and you'll inherit the world, and life, and deeper connections with the people you love. There's not one “meaning” to life. There are many meanings every day. And today, for Matt, Rhonda and David, it is VERY meaningful and joyful just to hang out with each other, and with you, so we can shoot the breeze together! Or, as Kurt Vonnegut said, so we can "fart around" together. Please keep your wonderful questions and comments flowing, and be sure to catch us in our new video version on my feeling good YouTube channel. Warmly, Rhonda, Matt, and David

Feeling Down? Try the Feeling Great App for Free! The Feeling Great App is now available in both app stores (IOS and Android) and is for therapists and the general public, and you can take a ride for free! Check it  out at FeelingGreat.com! Is the Universe One? Is the Universe Real? Is the Universe Real? These two philosophical problems used to seem nonsensical to me, and certainly not relevant to much of anything in my life—or anyone's! But now the picture has changed a bit! When I was a student at Amherst College, I majored in the philosophy of science. On this show, I've often talked about my hero, Ludwig Wittgenstein, who attempted (successfully in my opinion) to “solve” all the problems of philosophy. He wanted to help those of us who were “afflicted” by an attraction to philosophical problems to see through them and understand precisely how and why they were nonsensical. He hoped to provide a “treatment” for philosophers so we could give up the need to obsess about nonsensical philosophical problems. Once you see through the these problems, they become kind of like a joke, and you can use jokes to help other people see through them. For example, here's a kind of lame joke about the question of whether or not the universe is “real.” Wittgenstein said that before we try to answer questions like that, we might want to ask ourselves if these questions even makes sense! And if it a philosophical problem doesn't make sense, it isn't a real question, so we won't need to deal with it. In other words, questions that don't make sense don't need to be answered because they're not real questions. Take the question, "Is the universe real?" You could ask, “Well, what would it be like if the universe weren't real? What would that look like? How would things be different?” If you can't answer that question, the question might not make sense. To most of us, philosophical questions wound nonsensical because we are taking words, like “real,” out of the contexts in which it DOES make sense. For example, we can ask : “Is this painting real? Or is it a fake?” That question does make sense. It has an obvious meaning, since many valuable paintings are copied and are fakes, and they try to pass them off as the “real” thing. But what would a "real" or "fake" universe look like? How would it differ from our universe? Now let's think about another example that is mildly humorous. Let's imagine you're driving through Iowa in the summer, and you spot a farmer working in his corn field. You're interested in speaking to him because you are writing a story about your travels in Iowa, and want to talk about the lives of farmers. So, you pull your car over to the side of the road and shout, “Howdy! What are you doing in the field?” The farmer seems pleased and grabs a gorgeous stalk of corn and holds it up and proudly shouts, “I'm growing corn, and it is real!” Well, that's great that he's happily growing corn, but what does the tag-on, “and it is real” mean? It doesn't actually mean anything, because farmers don't grow “unreal corn.” So, in this context, the word has no meaning. Now, if you were on a movie set, they might actually be using artificial corn as a prop, so now the contrast between real and unreal corn becomes meaningful. This is a very humble point, but it's the very heart of what Wittgenstein was trying to make us aware of. Philosophical problems kind of sound meaningful and puzzling, but most of the time, they are simply a kind of nonsensical use of language. Now, in personal relationships, we might also have a notion of when people are being “real” or fake. And we often act fake because we don't think we're good enough just the way we really are. So, for example, you may hide your shyness in social situations because you're ashamed, and telling yourself that your shyness is incredibly weird and abnormal, and makes you “less than” other people. One method of helping people overcome shyness is simply to disclose it to others. This TEAM-CBT  technique is called "Self-Disclosure." Instead of hiding your shyness and feeling awkward and ashamed in social situations, you share your feelings openly. Shame depends on hiding, so when you open up, the feelings of shame will often disappear. For example, in a recent podcast of a dramatic, live therapy session, a man named Chris revealed many troubling things about his teenage years that he'd been hiding for years. When he opened up, he began sobbing intensely, thinking he'd let his father down with his wild behavior when he was a high school student. His grief, he was incredibly compelling, and his courageous self-disclosure was appealing to most of us who were privileged to witness that session. Showing us his “real” self became his path to enlightenment, joy, and deeply meaningful relationships with himself and with all of us who witnessed that amazing session. So, although the question, “is the universe real” is silly and nonsensical, the question, “are we being real with each other,” is definitely NOT silly or nonsensical. Being real and vulnerable is an important key to connecting with ourselves as well as other human beings. Is the Universe One? How about “Is the universe one?” This philosophical question also seemed nonsensical to me for years, although I was intellectually aware that some Buddhists make claims that the universe IS one and that the failure to “see” this is the basic of all evil. That's because if you see other humans, for example, as being "external" to yourself, you may feel you have the right to abuse and exploit them. However, for years I thought the idea that the universe is "one" seemed like sheer nonsense. For example, I am sitting in a chair typing, and there is a cup on the desk. People have never call that cup “David,” and no one has ever called me a coffee cup (although lots of people have sad some pretty bad things about me!) So, I concluded that the cup and I are not “one,” and so the whole thing about the universe being one seemed nonsensical and silly. But when I began to think about it in the context of my work with patients, my thinking suddenly changed. For example, the TEAM interpersonal model I've developed was based on research I did early in my career that suggested that Blame was one of the main causes of troubled relationships, and perhaps the most important and powerful cause. And this is certainly true in my personal life and in my work with individuals with troubled relationships who are unhappy in their marriages or people who are angry with their neighbors, or family members, or anyone. We almost always see ourselves as victims, and the other person as the one who is to blame for the problem. This triggers feelings of frustration, anger, and moral superiority, and can easily and often lead to arguments, mistrust, divorce, hostility, and violence, murder, and even war. Now, I'm beginning to see that the idea that we are separate from others, who are doing something TO us, does, in fact, lead to hostility, and arguably to evil. And once you “get it,” the same insight applies to our relationships, not just with loved ones, friends, and other people in general, but also our relationships with animals, with the environment, and with the planet earth. If we think of them as “other,” then we may conclude that it is okay to exploit or use them for our own advantage. In the interpersonal TEAM model, we focus more on circular causality, or interpersonal connectedness and ask the question, how do we actually shape and cause the very behavior in the other person that we complain about so vigorously? I have developed a fast, powerful tool that allows any to pinpoint their own role in a relationship problem very quickly and with reasonable accuracy. It's called the Relationship Journal (RJ), and we've talked about it often on this show. Essentially, it's simple to use the RJ, but it can be startling and illuminating but incredibly painful. All you have to do is write down ONE thing another person said to you that you found upsetting, and EXACTLY what you said next. Choose an interaction that did not go well; otherwise, it's a waste of time. Then, the RJ will take you through a step by step analysis of your response, and it's implications. When you discover how you are actually forcing the other person to treat you shabbily, it can hurt. This is one of the four ‘Great Deaths” of the self, and it's the most painful of all, in my experience. This is the "Great Death" of the angry, blaming "self." I hate this great death! But if you have the courage to use it and take a look, it can be incredibly illuminating and liberating, and can put you on the path to far more loving relationships. As an exercise, I will list a number of common complaints that people have about loved ones, friends, or family that they find irritating. Your job will be to show how you could FORCE them to do the exact thing you are complaining about. The other person could be your partner, friend, son or daughter, etc. Your complaint about that person might be that they Refuse to talk to me. Can't (or won't) open up and express their feelings Constantly whine and complain, and ignore and resist my good advice. Constantly argue, and always have to be right. Won't listen. Are relentlessly critical. Always have to get their way. Doesn't treat me with respect. In each case, see if you can figure out how you could FORCE the other person to do that exact thing. We will discuss a couple of these on the show and lustrate solutions to give you a feel for how this works. Rhonda's and Matt shared their wise and interesting thoughts on both of these philosophical questions, and how you can understand them in the context of your own lives, and, if you're a shrink, how you can use them in your work with patients. Thanks for listening today! Matt, Rhonda, and David

Send us a Text Message.She protested WWII and abortion. She was the pupil of Ludwig Wittgenstein and the eventual conservator of his work. She turned moral philosophy on it's head with her paper Modern Moral Philosophy. She was a Catholic convert. And she's Andrew's philosophical hero. Join us this week for another installment of the Oxford Four series, this time featuring Elizabeth Anscombe. Sign up for our newsletter here! Open Door Philosophy NewsletterContact us via email at contact@opendoorphilosophy.com Open Door Philosophy on Instagram @opendoorphilosophyOpen Door Philosophy website at opendoorphilosophy.com

***Please note: there was a technical difficulty that caused us to miss the first ~2 minutes of Don's introduction. We apologize for the error!QUOTES FOR REFLECTION“I have come to one conclusion: All that I am, all that I aspire to be, all that I was before, is by the grace of God.”~Leymah Gbowee, Liberian peace activist, Nobel Peace Prize winner, and 2016 Dartmouth Commencement Speaker “...we need to fall, and we need to be aware of it; for if we did not fall, we should not know how weak and wretched we are of ourselves, nor should we know our Maker's marvelous love so fully...” “...deeds are done which appear so evil to us and people suffer such terrible evils that it does not seem as though any good will ever come of them; and we consider this, sorrowing and grieving over it so that we cannot find peace in the blessed contemplation of God as we should do; and this is why: our reasoning powers are so blind now, so humble and so simple, that we cannot know the high, marvelous wisdom, the might and the goodness of the Holy Trinity. And this is what he means where he says, ‘You shall see for yourself that all manner of things shall be well', as if he said, ‘Pay attention to this now, faithfully and confidently, and at the end of time you will truly see it in the fullness of joy.'”~Julian of Norwich (c.1343-after 1416), English anchoress and writer “Religion is, as it were, the calm bottom of the sea at its deepest point, which remains calm however high the waves on the surface may be.”~Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951), Austrian-born philosopher “Meek. Humble. Gentle. Jesus is not trigger-happy. Not harsh, reactionary, easily exasperated. He is the most understanding person in the universe. The posture most natural to him is not a pointed finger but open arms … You don't need to unburden or collect yourself and then come to Jesus. Your very burden is what qualifies you to come.”~Dane Ortlund in Gentle and Lowly: The Heart of Christ for Sinners and Sufferers “Peace comes not from the absence of trouble, but from the presence of God."~Alexander MacLaren (1826-1910), Scottish Baptist minister SERMON PASSAGEPsalm 57 (ESV)To the choirmaster: according to Do Not Destroy. A Miktam of David, when he fled from Saul, in the cave. 1 Be merciful to me, O God, be merciful to me,  for in you my soul takes refuge;  in the shadow of your wings I will take refuge,  till the storms of destruction pass by.2 I cry out to God Most High,  to God who fulfills his purpose for me.3 He will send from heaven and save me;  he will put to shame him who tramples on me.   Selah  God will send out his steadfast love and his faithfulness! 4 My soul is in the midst of lions;  I lie down amid fiery beasts—  the children of man, whose teeth are spears and arrows,  whose tongues are sharp swords. 5 Be exalted, O God, above the heavens!  Let your glory be over all the earth! 6 They set a net for my steps;  my soul was bowed down.  They dug a pit in my way,  but they have fallen into it themselves.    Selah7 My heart is steadfast, O God,  my heart is steadfast!  I will sing and make melody!8 Awake, my glory!  Awake, O harp and lyre!  I will awake the dawn!9 I will give thanks to you, O Lord, among the peoples;  I will sing praises to you among the nations.10 For your steadfast love is great to the heavens,  your faithfulness to the clouds. 11 Be exalted, O God, above the heavens!   Let your glory be over all the earth!

Daily QuoteThere is no more light in a genius than in any other honest man - but he has a particular kind of lens to concentrate this light into a burning point. (Ludwig Wittgenstein)Poem of the Day赠从弟三首•其二刘桢Beauty of Words大海在我瞳孔里江南

Special Announcement #1 Attend the Legendary Summer Intensive Featuring Drs. David Burns and Jill Levitt August 8 - 11. 2024 Learn Advanced TEAM-CBT skills Heal yourself, heal your patients First Intensive in 5 years! It will knock your socks off! Limited Seating--Act Fast Click for registration / more information! Sadly, this workshop is a training program which will be limited to therapists and mental health professionals and graduate students in a mental health field  Apologies, but therapists have complained when non-therapists have attended our continuing education training programs. This is partly because of the intimate nature of the small group exercises and the personal work the therapists may do during the workshop. Certified coaches and counselors are welcome to attend. Special Announcement #2 Here's some GREAT news! The Feeling Great App is now available in both app stores (IOS and Android) and is for therapists and the general public, and you can take a ride for free! Check it Today's Podcast Practical Philosophy Month Part 2, Do Humans have “Selves”? This is our second podcast in our Practical Philosophy Month. Last week, in our first episode, we focused on the “free will” question. As humans, we all feel like we have “free will,” but is it just an illusion, especially if all our actions are the result of the physical processes in our brains and the laws of the universe? The Bible certainly dealt with this in the book of Genesis, where we learn that the first humans, Adam and Eve, were given a wonderful Garden of Eden to live in, but they had to choose whether or not to obey God's rule NOT to eat the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. They chose to eat the fruit, implying that humans have free choice. But the philosophical arguments rage on. In today's podcast, we are joined by two beloved and brilliant colleagues, Drs. Matthew May and Fabrice Nye, as we explore the question of whether or not the “self” exists. We all feel like we have a “self,” but is this real or just an illusion? When you try to define your “self,” you may run into problems. For example, you might think that the “self” has to be the part of us that does not change from moment to moment, and is always ‘the same.” For example, I might think back on my childhood and feel convinced that I was the “same David Burns” then that I am now. And, if you are religious, you might also be comforted by the idea that your “self” is the same as your “soul,” and that you will therefore live on after you die. This concept of a “soul” is a core belief in many religions. But are we fooling ourselves? And what was the Buddha thinking about 2,500 years ago when we talked about enlightenment as resulting from the “Great Death” of the “self.” He seemed to be hinting that something wonderful can happen when you give up the idea that you have a “self.” In the original draft of my book, Feeling Great, I had a chapter on entitled, “Do you need a “self?” Join the Grateful Dead.” I tried to persuade readers that the existence of a “self” is nonsense, based on the philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein in his famous book, Philosophical Investigations. But readers found the chapter so upsetting that I decided, on their urging, to delete it from the manuscript, which I did. My goal is not to disturb people, but to provide a path to joy and to loving connections with others. But to this day, I still get emails from people asking me to offer that chapter, or to deal more deeply with this concept of the “self” vs “no self” in a podcast. So, here is my attempt today. I will start with my own take, and then summarize some of the views about the self that were expressed by Fabrice, Matt, and Rhonda during the show. Here's my thinking. There are many key questions you could ask about the concept of the “self?” including: Do we have a “self?” And if so, what is it? Does the first question even make sense? I'm sure you would agree that if a question doesn't make sense, then it isn't a “real” question, and there really isn't anything to talk about. Then we can just stop feeling frustrated and perplexed, and move on with our lives. That is the precise position that the late Wittgenstein would probably have taken. He stated that words have no ultimate or “true” meaning outside of the various contexts in which we use them in daily life. Most words have many meanings, because they are used in different ways, and you can find most of the meanings in any dictionary. So, if you think of the word, “game,” you will quickly realize that it does not have one “true” or essential meaning. It can mean a sports competition, with two teams competing against each, like soccer. But you can have two teams competing in some way other than a sport. And you don't even need two teams to have a “game.” For example, some games are played by one individual, like solitaire with a deck of cards. Or you can think about the “dating game,” or refer to “game birds,” or a “game boxer.” In short, there is not some single “correct” meaning to the word, “game.” Some uses have overlapping meanings, and some uses do not overlap at all with other uses. So, there is no point in trying to figure out if “games exist,” or what the ultimate or essential meaning is of the word, “game.” Now, how do we use the word, “self,” and what does it mean in each context? You might tell your child to behave themself. This simply means that they are misbehaving and will be punished if they don't behave more politely. You do not have to tell the child that their “self” also has to behave better, because that would be meaningless. We already told the child to change their behavior. You could ask friends, as I did this morning, if they are planning to join me on the Sunday hike. Two of them confirmed and said that “they” would join me today on our hike. I did have to ask them if they would be bringing their “selves,” because I just do not know what that would mean! They already told me they're coming to the hike. (They did come and we had a lot of fun.) In my extremely challenging freshman English class at Amherst College, we had to write two or three papers per week on odd topics. The teachers were relentlessly critical in their feedback, and would nearly always point out that we sounded incredibly phony and need to find our true voices, which came from our real selves, as opposed to the false fronts we often used to try to impress people. Almost every student got dumped on constantly! The professors weren't referring to some metaphysical “true selves.” They were just referring to the fact that our writing didn't sound natural, compelling, or vulnerable, and so forth. Our writing was, for the most part, an enormous turn-off. Most of us never could figure out quite what that class was all about, but it was useful as I became more sensitive to the “tone” or “voice” in any writing. I would have to concede that it was a sobering but helpful class. But they were not referring to some mystical “true self” we had to find. They just wanted us to stop writing in such a sucky way! So here is my point, which you might “not get.” When you keep the word, “self,” in the context of everyday life, it is obvious what it means, and it never refers to some metaphysical “thing” that we could “have” or “not have.” It is just a vague, abstract concept that is devoid of meaning when it's all by itself. A “self,” just like “free will,” is not some “thing” that we might, or might not, have. The question, “Does the self exist,” according to Wittgenstein (or his big fan David) has no meaning and so we can just ignore it. It's not a real question. It is, as Wittgenstein was fond of saying, “language that's out of gear.” Now, does this discussion have anything to do with emotional problems, or TEAM therapy? It absolutely does. That's because nearly all depression results from some version of “I'm not good enough,” including: I'm inferior. I'm a loser. I'm a “hopeless case.” I'm a failure. I'm unlovable. I'm a bad parent. I'm defective. And so forth. If you buy into these “self” condemning proclamations, thinking that they mean something, you'll probably feel depressed, ashamed, inadequate, hopeless, and more. As you can probably see, all these self-critical thoughts contain tons of cognitive distortions, like All-or-Nothing Thinking, Overgeneralization, Labeling, Mental Filtering, Emotional Reasoning, Self-Blame, Hidden Shoulds, and more And to put it in a nutshell, they ALL involve the belief that you have a “self” that's broken, or simply not “good enough.” And all of those statements are meaningless. My goal in therapy is NOT to persuade you that you ARE worthwhile, or “a winner,” or a “good” parent, but rather to show you how to let go of these meaningless but painful ways of belittling yourself. I might use techniques like Empathy, Positive Reframing, Explain the Distortions, Let's Define Terms, Be Specific, the Double Standard Technique, the Externalization of Voices, the Downward Arrow, and many more. That's because the VERY moment you suddenly “see” that these kinds of statements are both untrue and unfair, and you stop believing them, your feelings will instantly change. So, you could say that TEAM really IS a “Wittgensteinian” therapy. And when people ask me how to develop better self-esteem, I would not try to get them to discover how to have some magical and wonderful “thing” called self-esteem, because that concept is just as nonsensical as the concept of a “self.” You might say that “self-esteem,” if you want to use the term, is more about what you DO. And there are two things you can do if you want to change the way you feel. First, you can stop beating up on yourself with hostile criticisms like the bulleted statements listed above, and talk to yourself in the same encouraging way you might talk to a dear friend or loved one who was hurting. And second, you can treat yourself in a loving way, in just the same way you might treat your best friend who was coming for a visit. In other words, you can do nice things for yourself. The day my first book, “Feeling Good,” was finally published, my editor called me with some bad news. She told me that the publisher, William Morrow and Company, loses money on 9 out of 10 of the books they publish, so they decide which ones are most likely to sell, and those are the only ones they'll promote. The rest of the books go on a “loser list,” and the company does little or nothing to promote them. She said my book was #1 on their “loser list,” since the president of the company felt it had no commercial potential, and that very few people would be interest in a long book on depression. She added that the one thing they did do was to send my book to ten popular magazines for first serial rights. That means they get to publish an excerpt from your book as an article, so that stirs up some media interest in your book. Sadly, she said that all ten had turned them down. She said that I'd have to be in charge of any further marketing of my book, so I asked what I should do. She said to call all ten magazines right away and persuade them to change their minds. In a panic, I called them all, including Ladies' Home Journal, Reader's Digest, and on and on. Every magazine said the same thing—they did not want my book, had turned it down, had zero interest in it, and to please top calling since authors shouldn't call them and they considered it a form of phone harassment since they'd already made a decision. Yikes! No fun! When I jogged home from the train station that night, I shouted, “You're a loser, you're a failure.” That didn't sound so good so then I shouted, “No, you're not! You'll figure out how to make it happen! Just keep plugging away.” That sounded a lot more loving, so when I got home, I told my wife that the book at just been published and that I'd been turned down by all ten magazines for serial rights, and the publisher decided not to spend any money on marketing or advertising, so we needed to go out and celebrate. She why we would celebrate? I said, “You don't need to celebrate when you win, because you already feel great. But when you lose, that's when you need to celebrate, because you're feeling down. So, tonight we'll celebrate!” We went out for a fancy dinner and celebrated and had fun. And the rest, they say, is history. I just kept trying and getting turned down by newspapers, radio stations, television programs, and more. But eventually, the tide started to turn. To date, Feeling Good has sold more than 5 million copies and it achieved best-seller status. And the reason was that researchers discovered that the book actually had antidepressant properties, so excitement about it spread by word of mouth. I am hopeful that the new Feeling Great App will help even more people. Fabrice made some interesting and wise comments on the notion of the “self.” He said that the idea that we have a “self” is a sense that we nearly all have. Some people feel like the “self” that is located somewhere behind the eyes or in the middle of the head. But, he emphasizes, there is no such “thing” as a “self.” He has quoted someone who has “said it all,” but the statement only makes sense IF you “get it!” Here's the quote: “No Self? No Problem!” This is actually the title of a book by Chris Niebauer, PhD, and the subtitle is How Neuropsychology Is Catching Up to Buddhism. If you want to check it out, here's a link to it on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/No-Self-Problem-Neuropsychology-Catching/dp/1938289978 Fabrice emphasized that the concept of “self” is “nebulous.” He asked, “Is there a ‘David'?” He explained: You wouldn't be able to prove this in court. Well, you could show ID, but that would not be proof. Where does the information on the ID come from? Birth certificate? Who wrote the information on the birth certificate? Probably some doctor back in 1942. And where did he get that information from? Probably some caregiver said “Write ‘David' here.” Was that from a credible source? Not at all. That info was made up on the spot! Now, you can say that there's a “sense” of a David going around, and that there are some patterns that show signs of “David-ness,” but there is no “David.” Matt added that your body is not your “self.” When you break your arm, you don't say that you have broken a part of your “self.” You just say, “I broke my arm.” Rhonda raised the question of whether the “self” is just the same as “consciousness” or “awareness.” Someone in our group added that the “self” is what we DO, and not what we ARE. And, of course, what we are doing is constantly changing from moment to moment. My understanding of all of this is that once you let go of the notion that you have a “self,” you will no longer worry about whether or not you are “good enough” or “special,” or whoever. You can focus instead on living your life and solving the problems of daily living and appreciating the world around you. If you screw up, you can focus on what specific error you made, rather than obsessing about your inferior or defective “self.” You can actually welcome failure as just another teacher, so you can grow and learn, and simply accept your screw ups, or both. In fact, two of the most popular TEAM techniques for challenging the distorted thoughts in bullets above are called “Let's Define Terms” and “Be Specific.” These techniques are right out of Wittgenstein's playbook, and they are prominently featured in the “Learn” section of the new Feeling Great App. If you're feeling depressed, and thinking of yourself as a “loser” or as being “inferior” or even “worthless,” the goal is NOT to “become a ‘winner,” or more ‘worthwhile,' but rather to give up these notions as nonsensical. But once again, many people cannot “get it,” or “see it,” and that's where a caring and skillful therapist can help. Some people wrongly think that letting go of the notion that you could be “worthwhile” would mean a huge loss of something precious. Many people who don't yet “see” what we're trying to say are terrified of the “Great Death” because they think that giving up the notion that you have a “self” means giving up all hope for improvement, for joy, for intimacy, and so forth. But to my way of thinking, the truth is just the opposite. When your “self” dies, you and your world suddenly wake up and come to life. When you accept yourself and your world, exactly as they are right now, everything suddenly changes. Of course, that's a paradox. I believe that leading our patients to the “Great Death” of the “self” is like giving them the understanding and courage they need to throw some garbage in the trash instead of carrying the garbage around with them all the time! I hope some of this makes a little sense, but if not, don't worry about. Sometimes, it takes a little time before you suddenly “see it!” Thanks for listening today. We love all of you! Rhonda, Fabrice, Matt, and David

Hi friends, we're on a brief summer break at the moment. We'll have a new episode for you in August. In the meanwhile, enjoy this pick from our archives! ---- [originally aired January 25, 2023] By now you've probably heard about the new chatbot called ChatGPT. There's no question it's something of a marvel. It distills complex information into clear prose; it offers instructions and suggestions; it reasons its way through problems. With the right prompting, it can even mimic famous writers. And it does all this with an air of cool competence, of intelligence. But, if you're like me, you've probably also been wondering: What's really going on here? What are ChatGPT—and other large language models like it—actually doing? How much of their apparent competence is just smoke and mirrors? In what sense, if any, do they have human-like capacities? My guest today is Dr. Murray Shanahan. Murray is Professor of Cognitive Robotics at Imperial College London and Senior Research Scientist at DeepMind. He's the author of numerous articles and several books at the lively intersections of artificial intelligence, neuroscience, and philosophy. Very recently, Murray put out a paper titled 'Talking about Large Language Models', and it's the focus of our conversation today. In the paper, Murray argues that—tempting as may be—it's not appropriate to talk about large language models in anthropomorphic terms. Not yet, anyway. Here, we chat about the rapid rise of large language models and the basics of how they work. We discuss how a model that—at its base—simply does “next-word prediction" can be engineered into a savvy chatbot like ChatGPT. We talk about why ChatGPT lacks genuine “knowledge” and “understanding”—at least as we currently use those terms. And we discuss what it might take for these models to eventually possess richer, more human-like capacities. Along the way, we touch on: emergence, prompt engineering, embodiment and grounding, image generation models, Wittgenstein, the intentional stance, soft robots, and "exotic mind-like entities." Before we get to it, just a friendly reminder: applications are now open for the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (or DISI). DISI will be held this June/July in St Andrews Scotland—the program consists of three weeks of intense interdisciplinary engagement with exactly the kinds of ideas and questions we like to wrestle with here on this show. If you're intrigued—and I hope you are!—check out disi.org for more info. Alright friends, on to my decidedly human chat, with Dr. Murray Shanahan. Enjoy!   The paper we discuss is here. A transcript of this episode is here.   Notes and links 6:30 – The 2017 “breakthrough” article by Vaswani and colleagues. 8:00 – A popular article about GPT-3. 10:00 – A popular article about some of the impressive—and not so impressive—behaviors of ChatGPT. For more discussion of ChatGPT and other large language models, see another interview with Dr. Shanahan, as well as interviews with Emily Bender and Margaret Mitchell, with Gary Marcus, and with Sam Altman (CEO of OpenAI, which created ChatGPT). 14:00 – A widely discussed paper by Emily Bender and colleagues on the “dangers of stochastic parrots.” 19:00 – A blog post about “prompt engineering”. Another blog post about the concept of Reinforcement Learning through Human Feedback, in the context of ChatGPT. 30:00 – One of Dr. Shanahan's books is titled, Embodiment and the Inner Life. 39:00 – An example of a robotic agent, SayCan, which is connected to a language model. 40:30 – On the notion of embodiment in the cognitive sciences, see the classic book by Francisco Varela and colleagues, The Embodied Mind. 44:00 – For a detailed primer on the philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein, see here. 45:00 – See Dr. Shanahan's general audience essay on “conscious exotica" and the space of possible minds. 49:00 – See Dennett's book, The Intentional Stance.   Dr. Shanahan recommends: Artificial Intelligence: A Guide for Thinking Humans, by Melanie Mitchell (see also our earlier episode with Dr. Mitchell) ‘Abstraction for Deep Reinforcement Learning', by M. Shanahan and M. Mitchell   You can read more about Murray's work on his website and follow him on Twitter.   Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://disi.org), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with help from Assistant Producer Urte Laukaityte and with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. **You can now subscribe to the Many Minds newsletter here!** We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: manymindspodcast@gmail.com. For updates about the show, visit our website (https://disi.org/manyminds/), or follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

Special Announcement #1 Attend the Legendary Summer Intensive Featuring Drs. David Burns and Jill Levitt August 8 - 11. 2024 Learn Advanced TEAM-CBT skills Heal yourself, heal your patients First Intensive in 5 years! It will knock your socks off! Limited Seating--Act Fast Click for registration / more information! Sadly, this workshop is a training program which will be limited to therapists and mental health professionals and graduate students in a mental health field  Apologies, but therapists have complained when non-therapists have attended our continuing education training programs. This is partly because of the intimate nature of the small group exercises and the personal work the therapists may do during the workshop. Certified coaches and counselors are welcome to attend. Special Announcement #2 Here's some GREAT news! The Feeling Great App is now available in both app stores (IOS and Android) and is for therapists and the general public, and you can take a ride for free! Check it Today's Podcast Practical Philosophy Month Part 1, The Free Will Problem Welcome to Practical Philosophy month. For the next five weeks, we will discuss some of the most popular and challenging problems in philosophy, such as these: Do human beings have free will? Or is free will just an illusion? Do human beings have a “self?” Or is the “self” just another illusion? Is it possible to be more or less “worthwhile?” Are some humans “better” or “worse” than others? Does God exist? Is the universe “real” or “one”? What's the meaning of life? What is “self-esteem”? How does it differ from self-confidence? What's the difference between conditional and unconditional self-esteem? What's the difference between self-esteem and self-acceptance? What do you have to do to experience joy and feelings of worthwhileness? We will try to complete the list in five weeks, so some weeks we may include more than one topic, since many of these topics are related to one another. Rhonda and David will be joined by our beloved Dr. Matt May, a regular on our Ask David episodes, and for the first and second sessions we will be joined by our beloved Dr. Fabrice Nye, who created and hosted the Feeling Good Podcasts several years ago. Each week, you will also hear about the linkage between these philosophical dilemmas, and emotional problems, like depression, anxiety, and relationship conflicts. For example, nearly all depressed individuals believe that they aren't sufficiently “worthwhile.” I see my goal as a psychiatrist not as helping people feel “more worthwhile,” but rather showing people, if interested, how to give up this notion entirely and become free of certain kinds of damaging judgments of the “self” and others. You will also learn how these types of philosophical problems continue to play a large role in psychiatry and psychology, including the DSM5 diagnostic system. For example, is the diagnosis of “Generalized Anxiety Disorder” a true “mental disorder” that you could “have” or “not have?” And might some or most of the so-called “mental disorders” listed in the DSM be based on faulty philosophical / logical thinking? And if many or most of the “mental disorders” are based on goofy, faulty thinking, is there a more productive and effective way to think about most emotional problems? And how did we get into this mess in the first place? Worrying certainly exists, and we all worry at times. But how much or how often do you have to worry before you develop or have a “mental disorder” called “Generalized Anxiety Disorder” that can be diagnosed like any medical illness and treated with drugs? Or is “Generalized Anxiety Disorder” (and hundreds of other “mental disorders in the DSM” based on a certain kind of nonsensical thinking? And if so, why? What is the goofy, faulty thinking in the DSM? And are there some “mental disorders” that are valid and real? We HAVE touched on all of these themes in previous podcasts, but I thought it would be nice to put them all in one place and bring in a variety of “solutions,” controversies, and experts. I David, will often represent (hopefully, and to the best of my ability) the thinking of Ludwig Wittgenstein, as expressed in his famous book, Philosophical Investigation, published in 1950 following his death. That book consists of a series of numbered brief essays (a few paragraphs each) that were based on notes found in a metal box under his dormitory room at Cambridge University. He'd written these in preparation for his weekly seminars in his dormitory room. Wittgenstein, although now widely regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of all time, did not think he knew enough to teach in a classroom. In fact, because of his feelings of depression and self-doubt, he sadly never tried to publish anything when he was alive. Wittgenstein's philosophy also played an indirect but significant role in the evolution of several modern psychotherapies. His philosophy created new ways of thinking that gave rise to the work of Dr. Albert Ellis, the famous New York psychologist who created Rational Emotive Therapy during the 1950s. Ellis emphasized that the “Should Statements” that trigger so much guilt, shame, depression, anxiety, and rage are based on illogical thinking. He might often say, “Where is it written that people or the world “should” be the way you want them to be?” Of course, this idea actually traces back to the Greek Stoic philosophers like Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius. Wittgenstein's thinking also seems to have played a role in the thinking of Dr. Aaron Beck, who adapted the work of Ellis and called his version of the “Cognitive Therapy.” Beck emphasized many thinking errors, like All-or-Nothing Thinking, and Overgeneralization, that trigger depression, anxiety, and more. Sadly, Wittgenstein struggled with severe depression and loneliness throughout his life, and three of his four brothers tragically died by suicide. Wittgenstein also had prolonged periods of time when he considered suicide. It is also sad that he did not know how to apply his brilliant philosophical breakthroughs to his own negative thinking, but that application of his work did not develop at the time he was still alive. Part of Wittgenstein's depression was related, I believe, to the fact that very few people, including the most famous philosophers of Europe, could understand his thinking when he was alive. From time to time, I think he glimpsed the enormous importance of his work; but I believe that he also had prolonged moments of self-doubt when he thought his work was of little value at best. To be as correct as possible, Wittgenstein did write a manuscript called Tractatus Logico Philosophicus as a young man, although he never tried to publish it. He wrote it when he was a prisoner of war. He thought this book solved all the problems of philosophy, which had plagued him since he was a child, and he felt great relief. He sent a copy of his manuscript to Bertrand Russell, who was a famous British philosopher. Bertrand Russell was incredibly impressed with the Tractatus and distributed it to many European philosophers. Bertrand Russell thought it might be the greatest book in the history of philosophy, and a number of the 20th century philosophical movements including Logical Positivism, were inspired by that book. However, Wittgenstein left the field of philosophy, thinking that his work was done, and that he'd found the solutions he was looking for. He tried teaching grammar school for a while, but was fired because he became frustrated and violent toward some of his students. He also tried to survive as a fisher in a Norwegian fishing town, but was not successful at that, either, because he didn't know much about fishing, much less supporting yourself through fishing. One day, he learned that a brilliant Swedish economics student had found a flaw in his Tractatus, and his inner turmoil about the puzzling problems of philosophy flared up again. He decided to return to the study of philosophy. He applied to be an advanced undergraduate at Cambridge University, but when someone in the admissions office spotted his application, they recognized his name and showed his application to Bertrand Russell, who had been wondering what had become of the young man who once sent him such a brilliant manuscript. Russell, who was the chair of the department of philosophy, said to being Wittgenstein to his office immediately for an interview. Russell explained that he would have to reject Wittgenstein's application to be an undergraduate at Cambridge University. Deeply disappointed, Wittgenstein asked why. Russell told him it was because he was already recognized as the greatest philosopher of the 20th century. Bertrand proposed that if Wittgenstein would agree to skip college and graduate school, they would immediately award him a PhD for the manuscript he'd sent to Russell years earlier. Russell also offered him a full professor ship in the department of philosophy. Wittgenstein protested and said he needed to study philosophy again, because of the error in Tractatus, and that he didn't know anything, and definitely could not teach in a classroom. Bertrand Russell insisted, and they finally struck a deal where Wittgenstein would agree to be a professor of philosophy but all he would have to do was to have a conversation session with anybody who wanted to talk to him at his dormitory room once a week. Wittgenstein accepted and met for years with students and famous philosophers who came from around Europe to crowd into his dormitory room for his weekly seminars, and he began to shape a radically different philosophical approach from the one he'd described earlier in his Tractatus. He was determined to find a new way to solve all the problems of philosophy. And, to my way of thinking, along with those few who really understand him, he was successful. But he was often frustrated because, so few understood him. This was unfortunate, because what he was saying was incredibly simple and basic, and it was pretty similar to, if not identical to, the thinking of the Buddha 2500 years earlier. The Buddha apparently had the same problem—almost nobody could understand what he was trying to say when he was still alive. They couldn't “get it” when he was talking about the so-called “Great Death” of the “self,” or talking about the path to enlightenment. The Buddha's frustration resulted from the exact same problem Wittgenstein encountered 2500 years later. The Buddha was saying something that was extremely simple, obvious, and basic—and yet, it was rumored that of his more than 100,000 followers when he was alive, only three actually “got it” and experienced enlightenment. When I read Philosophical Investigations my senior year in college, it was rumored that only seven people in the world understood what Wittgenstein was trying to say. Wittgenstein's dream was that philosophy students would “get” his thinking and give up philosophy when they realized that most if not all philosophical problems are sheer nonsense. He wanted them to do something practical and real in the world instead of studying philosophy. He was verry disappointed when his favorite student, Norman Malcolm (one of the seven who “got it,”) pursued an illustrious career teaching philosophy in America at Cornell University. I always wished I could have known Wittgenstein when he was alive, so I could have told him this: I loved you, too, and I got it after several months of confusion, trying to understand your Philosophical Investigations, but eventually understood it with the help of your student, Norman Malcolm. His book about you was very inspiring. And that's why I left philosophy for something more practical in the world. I decided at the last minute to go to medical school to become a psychiatrist instead of philosophy graduate school. Hopefully, I am doing something that you might be proud of! But oddly enough, your thinking has also influenced my approach to people who feel depressed and worthless. They are also under a kind of destructive “enchantment,” thinking that there is some such “thing” as a more or less worthwhile human being! And this is a major cause of depression and anxiety and feelings of worthlessness and hopelessness. I wonder if you, Wittgenstein, ever felt that you weren't “good enough” when you were feeling down. hopeless and suicidal? I sure wish I could have helped you with that! If you want to understand Wittgenstein's work, the best book in my opinion is Norman Malcolm's moving and affectionate tribute to his beloved teacher, entitled “Ludwig Wittgenstein: A Memoir.” It's a short moving tribute to his beloved teacher, and tears go down my cheeks every time I read it, or even think about it. If you ever visit my office here at home, you'll find that memoir proudly sitting on my bookshelf, with a handsome photo of Wittgenstein on the cover. Toward the end of his life, Wittgenstein appears to have become more or less homeless, and he died from prostate cancer. His doctor said he could live in his home, where he was befriended by the doctor's wife in his final days. His dying words were, “Tell them that I had a wonderful life.” He died on April 29, 1951, just a few hours before my wife was born in Palo Alto, California. Surprisingly, she is the only person I've ever met who understood Wittgenstein's thinking entirely the first time I explained it to her. She “already knew” what Wittgenstein, the greatest philosophical genius of the 20th century, spent a lifetime figuring out! Reincarnation is pretty “out there,” and fairly silly, to my way of thinking, but sometimes it can be fun to think about it! Here is my understanding of how the thinking of the “later Wittgenstein” actually developed. His first book, which is nearly impossible to understand, was called the Tractatus Logico Philosophicus. It is a series of numbered propositions, which he compared to climbing up a ladder, rung by rung, as you read the book until you got to the roof at the top of the ladder. Then you could throw your ladder away and give up philosophical thinking, since he thought his book contained the solution to all the problems of philosophy that had tormented him since childhood, as mentioned previously. The philosophy of language in the Tractatus is based on the thinking of Aristotle and Plato, who thought that the function of language was to name things that exist in the real world. Plato's idea was that our real world consists of imperfect examples of a “Platonic Reality” which consisted of “perfect” representations of everything. So, for example, Plato believed there could be a perfect “table,” a perfect “lamp,” and so forth. In other words, he thought there was an ideal essence to the concept of a “table.” And, I suppose, there might also be a “perfect” version of you! The early Wittgenstein also thought that the logic inherent in our sentences reflected the logic inherent in an external reality. If that doesn't make much sense to you, join the club! But that's kind of what Plato and Aristotle were promoting, at least in my (David's) understanding. When Wittgenstein's Tractatus was debunked, he was devastated, and desperately wanted to find another way to solve the problems of philosophy, since they started tormenting him again. It was much like a relapse of OCD or some other emotional problem. In fact, he thought of philosophy as a kind of mental illness that needed treatment. Here's an example of the types of philosophical problems that tormented him. Do human beings have free will? Do we have a “self?” Is the universal “real?” Of course, we THINK we have free will, and it SEEMS like we make “free decisions” all day long, but is this just an illusion? For example, some people would argue that we cannot have “free will” because we “have to” follow the laws of science that govern everything, including how the brain works. So, since we “have to” do what we are doing at every moment of every day, we must not have free will! Here is an argument that we do NOT have “free will.” When a powerful storm or hurricane destroys a portion of a city, and people die, we see this as a tragedy, but we don't get angry at the hurricane because it does have “free will.” It is just obeying the laws of physics that govern the forces of wind, air pressure, heat and cooling, and so forth. A storm cannot behave in any other way. So, the argument goes, we are also following the laws that govern the functioning of our bodies and brains, and so we cannot do other than what we do, so we, too, have no “free will.” We THINK we are acting freely but it is an illusion, so our brains are obeying the laws of the universe at every moment! For hundreds of years philosophers have struggled with this puzzle, and many people still wrestle with this problem today. It was one of the problems that drew me to philosophy. Impractical for sure, but still tantalizing. Another way to express the free will puzzle is via religious thinking. I was taught when I was growing up that God is omnipotent (all powerful), omnipresent (present everywhere) and omniscient (all knowing.) So, God knows the past, present, and future. And if God knows the future, then God knows what we will do at every moment of every day, and we are helpless to do otherwise. Therefore, we have no “free will,” even though we “think” we do! This free will problem can definitely be unsettling, with troubling moral consequences. If we do not “free will,” then are serial killers really responsible for, or guilty, or accountable for their actions? If we do not have free will, then wouldn't that give us license to do whatever we want whenever we want? Clever arguments for sure! We may “feel” like we have the freedom to do whatever we want at almost any moment of any day, but are we fooling ourselves and living in some gigantic hoax, or illusion? Are we total slaves with the delusion that we are actually acting “freely?” How do we resolve this problem? Well, one day Wittgenstein was walking past a soccer game at the park, and the soccer ball hit him on the head. He wasn't hurt, but had the thought, “What if the function of language is NOT to name things (like trees, or lamps, etc.) that exist in some “external reality,” like Plato and Aristotle thought? What if language actually functions as a series of “language games,” with rules, just like the game of soccer? Then the meaning of any words would simply be the many ways the word is used in different real world situations. In fact, that's what you find in the dictionary when you look up the meaning of a word. The dictionary doesn't ever give you some “correct” or ”pure” meaning, since most words have many meanings. This would be the opposite of the philosophy of Aristotle and Plato who argued that there were “true” meanings for every word, noun, or concept. What if, instead, words had NO true or essential meanings, and their meanings were simply embedded in the context in which they are used in ordinary, everyday language? If so, this might mean that philosophical problems emerge when we try to pull words out of their ordinary meanings, which are always obvious, and put them into some metaphysical realm where philosophers argue about “ultimate truth.” Let's say we wanted to find out if humans have “free will.” Well, not being sure if there is such a “thing” as “free will,” we could look up “free” and “will” in the dictionary. (I know this sounds incredibly obvious and almost ridiculous.) What does “free” mean? Well, we could talk about the many ways we use “free.” Political freedom means that in some countries you cannot contradict the leader (the dictator) without the danger of being thrown in prison or even murdered. But in other countries, you are, In fact, free to express your own ideas and opinions, without fear of punishment. Free also means getting something without having to pay for it, like a seventh bottle of soda is free at the local grocery store if you purchase a six pack. Free can also mean “available.” I am starting up my Sunday hikes again, and I might say, “If you are free this Sunday morning, meet at my front door at 9 and we'll go for a hike and have a dim sum feast afterwards at a Chinese restaurant on Castro Street in Mountain View, California, Now notice that when you talk about “free will” you have taken this word, “free,” out of the familiar contexts in which we find it, and given it some type of metaphysical “meaning.” But in this metaphysical, philosophical arena, it has no meaning. So, instead of trying to “solve” the so-called “free will” problem, we can dismiss it as nonsensical, and ignore it as having no practical meaning, and move on with our lives. We can say, “I just don't understand that problem! I don't know what you're talking about when you ask the general question of whether we have something called ‘free will.'” That either works for you, or it doesn't work for you! Your choice. It does work for me, but it took me months of thinking until I suddenly “got it.” My way of describing this philosophical error is “nounism.” You think that nouns always refer to things that could “exist” or “not-exist,” just like Plato and Aristotle thought. So, you ponder and try to figure out if this notion of “free will” exists or does not exist. But it's arguably a meaningless question. That's why I say, and Wittgenstein might say, I have no idea what you're talking about. Today we'll discuss the free will problem and how it might relate to our field of psychotherapy. Next week, we'll deal with another thorny problem: Do we have a “self?” Or is that also just some kind of illusion? I (David) wrote these show notes before the show, and we have had fairly extensive email exchanges, with a variety of points of view on whether or not we have something we can call “free will.” First, I'll put a great email by Matt, followed by a comment by Fabrice. Here's Matt's email first: Subject: Re: question Yes, that's getting very close to what I'm trying to communicate. I don't believe you are 'slow' or 'super lame', either. In fact, quite the opposite. I suspect I'm failing to do an adequate job of disarming your claims that 'free will' and 'self' are words taken out-of-context and, therefore, can't be shown to exist or not-exist. I apologize, as I am pretty excited about the potential to help people, suffering with self-blame and other-blame, by realizing that we and others don't have a 'self' or 'free will'. I believe we have a brain that makes decisions and creates experiences, including the experience of having a 'self' and 'free will'. I believe that the experience of 'making' a decision is an illusion, as is the idea of a static, unchanging 'self' that controls decision-making. I asked you to pick a movie and you said, 'Green Mile'. You acknowledged that this movie title simply 'popped into my head'. That's correct. Your 'self' didn't control what you selected, using 'free will'. Your brain just came up with that movie title. There was no 'self' that made a decision to choose that word. I agree that we have a brain which is incredibly powerful. I'm claiming that we don't have an auxiliary 'self', with extra super powers, controlling our brain. We can make decisions, but we don't have 'free will', meaning, the ability to control those decisions. I do think you have some resistance to seeing through the illusions of 'self' and 'free will', all of which say awesome things about you, e.g. morality and justice. I'm not trying to convince you, one way or another, and I don't expect to. I'm more interested in the listening audience, as many people are significantly relieved when they realize that we are more the victims of our biology and circumstance rather than defective 'selves' lacking 'willpower'. To put a slightly finer point on the subject, when people say they have 'free will', they don't mean that 'decisions are made'. Obviously, decisions are made. You decided to keep reading this email, for example. Or you didn't. I'm not sure. Either way, a decision was made. When people say they have 'free will', they are saying that they (really, their 'self') are/is free to decide whether to continue reading this email, and that this power goes above and beyond what their brain is doing, according to the laws of physics. I am claiming that this is a ridiculous and dangerous thought, for which there is no evidence. You're saying these terms haven't been defined. I'm pointing out that they already have been, intuitively, by anyone who thinks, 'I shouldn't have done that', or 'they shouldn't have done that'. These thoughts require a belief that they 'could have' done something different, that they had free will. Aside from rage and guilt, let's examine the narcissism and excessive sense of confidence a patient might have, if they believe that they can simply 'decide', through sheer 'willpower', not to beat up on themselves anymore. Or a patient who believes they can simply 'decide' to always use the 5-Secrets, rather than criticize and blame. Can they? I've never seen that happen. That's why I assign homework. I know that the goal is to rewire the brain so they can feel and perform better, later. We can't simply decide to feel good all the time. We all drift in-and-out of enlightenment. If we want to increase the likelihood that we will be able to set aside self-criticism or communicate more effectively, we have to practice new thoughts and behaviors. If we do, we will develop greater skills at defeating negative thoughts and communicating effectively. Otherwise, our brains will do, in the future, what they are programmed to do, now. It's because we lack 'free will', that we must do homework. Similarly, you couldn't simply 'decide' to be the world's best ping-pong player. You realized you would have to work hard to re-wire your brain, if you wanted to have a chance at that. Let's use the murderer/cat example: A cat tortures and kills mice for the same reasons that a murderer does: their brains are programmed to do so. Murderers don't have a defective 'self' that is failing to express 'free will' adequately, when they murder. They're doing precisely what the atomic structure of their brain caused them to do, according to the laws of physics, in that moment, when presented with those precise stimuli. We don't have to judge or punish the cat or the murderer's 'self' and insist they should have used their 'free will'. We can accept that neither creature had the ability to decide differently from what their brain decided, in that moment. That is where the therapeutic element of this realization comes into play. I think it's important on a lot of levels, to stop blaming cats for being cats and murderers for being murderers. Similarly, if a patient doesn't want to do homework, will it do any good to blame them and think they're bad and should decide differently? No, it helps to accept them where they are, and to accept ourselves where we are, with open hands. Realizing nobody has a 'self' operating their brain and making decisions that are better than their brains' decisions doesn't mean we have to let all the murderers go or trust our cat with a new mouse companion. We can still be aware that their brains are programmed to murder. We would still be motivated to do whatever is necessary to protect society and mice. The difference is the attitude towards the murderer. We aren't trying to 'punish' or 'get vengeance' but to protect and, instead of 'labeling' them as having a 'bad self' or even being a 'murderer', but someone who has murdered and, left to their own devices, likely to do so again.  Instead of judging and demanding vengeance, we would see a murderer as the victim of their biology and environment. Instead of condemning them as permanently evil and bad, we could recognize that their brain is currently wired to do bad things and they might still learn new ways to interact with others. Perhaps they're not hopeless cases, after all. From the other side, if I ever committed murder, and sentenced to death, I wouldn't want to be feeling defective, thinking what a bad self I have and guilty/ashamed for not flexing my 'free will' in the heat of the moment. Instead, I might feel a sense of relief, purpose and meaning, that I was protecting others by being put to death. Alright, enough out of me! Thanks, Matt And now, the response from Fabrice: Matt's thinking is exactly in line with mine. I don't know if the topic came up in your discussion, but some people argue that actually someone could have done something differently than they did, because there is some randomness in Nature. But that argument doesn't hold water because even if the decision “made” by their brain is different, it has nothing to do with their will but only with the Heisenberg principle. Cheers! Fabrice Nye fabrice@life.net David's wrap up comment. Matt and Fabrice have quite a different view of “free will” and the “self.” They are arguing, very thoughtfully and persuasive, that we do not “have” a “self” or “free will.” People have been involved in this debate, as I've mentioned, for hundreds of years, taking one side or another. My own thinking is different, and reflects my understanding of Wittgenstein's thinking. They have take these words out of the contexts in which they exist in everyday language, (which is a huge temptation) and involved in a debate about abstract concepts which have no meaning. Very few people, it seems, were able to grasp this idea when Wittgenstein was alive, or even today. So, if what I'm saying makes no sense to you, be comforted, since it seems likely that 99% of the people reading this, or listening to the show, will agree with you! And that's still a puzzle to me. It is not clear to me why so many people still cannot “see” or “get” this idea that words do not have any pure or essential “meaning” outside of the context of everyday use of language. The best psychotherapy example I can use is the fact that nearly all depressed individuals are trying to figure out, on some abstract or philosophical level, whether they are “worthwhile” or “good enough,” or whatever. This seems to be a “real” problem, and so they believe that they are not sufficiently worthwhile. This belief can be so convincing that many people commit suicide, out of a sense of hopelessness and self-hatred. But there is not such thing as a human being who is more or less “worthwhile.” Of course, your actions can be more or less worthwhile at any moment, and we can evaluate or judge our specific behaviors. Yesterday, we had our first recording session in a video studio we have set up for our Feeling Great App. We had a lot of fun and recorded some (hopefully) interesting stories we'll publish on our two new YouTube channels. I really appreciated the colleagues who made this possible. It was a relief for me because I tend to have performance anxiety, which impairs my ability to speak naturally and with emotion. But this time, there was no anxiety at all, so it was fun. Did this make me or my colleagues more worthwhile human beings? No! But it did show that we'd become a bit more effective and communicating messages that will trigger healing and understanding in our fans, and hope that includes you! When you “see” this, perhaps for the first time, it can be incredibly liberating, since you no longer have the need to have a “self” that's “special” or worthwhile. And, as some of you know, my beloved teacher and cat, Obie, taught me that when you no longer need to be “special,” life becomes special. When your “self” dies, you inherit the world! There's no funeral, only a celebration! Feel free to contact us with your thoughts, ideas and questions! Thank you for listening today! Rhonda, Matt, Fabrice, and David

Analytic Philosophy is a branch of philosophy that emphasizes clarity and logical analysis. Key figures include Gottlob Frege, Bertrand Russell, and Ludwig Wittgenstein, who contributed to the development of symbolic logic and the philosophy of language. Logical Positivism, emerging from the Vienna Circle, focused on empirical verification and logical necessity. The philosophy of language explores theories of meaning, such as the referential theory, use theory, and speech act theory. Semantic externalism, proposed by Hilary Putnam and Saul Kripke, argues that meaning is influenced by external factors. Ordinary language philosophy, associated with J.L. Austin and later Wittgenstein, analyzes everyday language to resolve philosophical problems. The philosophy of science, with contributions from Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn, examines the nature of scientific knowledge and methods. W.V.O. Quine's critique of the analytic-synthetic distinction emphasizes the holistic nature of knowledge. Metaphysics in analytic philosophy addresses questions about reality, including the realism vs. anti-realism debate and the nature of properties and universals. Key concepts include propositional logic, predicate logic, and the theory of descriptions.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/library-of-philosophy--5939304/support.

In this second episode of the Sophia Lectures, Professor Douglas Hedley from the University of Cambridge embarks on a deep exploration into the theme of "play" and its relationship to consciousness, language, and poetic expression. Drawing upon the intellectual legacies of Owen Barfield and Hans-Georg Gadamer, Hedley explores the philosophical and theological dimensions of language, highlighting its role in shaping our understanding of existence. He discusses the concept of the "inner word" as described by Augustine and how poetry serves as a bridge between the tangible and the abstract, allowing for playful exploration of meaning. Hedley critiques modern perspectives on consciousness, suggesting that they often overlook the importance of play in human experience. Through discussions on the significance of metaphor, the societal role of poetry, and the collective versus individual nature of consciousness, Hedley offers a comprehensive examination of how language and poetry are fundamental to our comprehension of the world and how play is a vital aspect of this process.  This episode is a must-listen for anyone interested in the intersections of language, consciousness, and the human condition, providing a rich tapestry of philosophical inquiry and reflection.   Douglas Hedley is a distinguished philosopher at the University of Cambridge, celebrated for his extensive research in the philosophy of religion and Platonism. He is the author of multiple influential works on imagination and religious experience.   Glossary of Terms   Language games: A concept introduced by Ludwig Wittgenstein that highlights the importance of usage and practice in shaping meaning   Resources   Ralston College  Website: https://www.ralston.ac/ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@RalstonCollegeSavannah X: https://twitter.com/RalstonCollege Douglas Hedley https://www.ralston.ac/people/douglas-hedley   Philosophical Investigations - Ludwig Wittgenstein  https://www.amazon.com/Philosophical-Investigations-Ludwig-Wittgenstein/dp/0631205691   The Trinity (Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century) - Saint Augustine  https://www.amazon.com/Trinity-2nd-Works-Saint-Augustine/dp/1565484460   Saving the Appearances: A Study in Idolatry - Owen Barfield https://www.amazon.com/Saving-Appearances-Idolatry-Owen-Barfield/dp/081956205X   Truth and Method - Hans-Georg Gadamer https://www.amazon.com/Truth-Method-Hans-Georg-Gadamer/dp/0826405851   Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature - Richard Rorty https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Mirror-Nature-Richard-Rorty/dp/0691020167   Augustine-Confessions-vol-1.pdf - Augustine. (n.d.). Confessions, Vol. 1. https://wesleyscholar.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Augustine-Confessions-vol-1.pdf   Plato. (n.d.). Alcibiades 1. https://www.platonicfoundation.org/platos-alcibiades-1/   Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture - Johan Huizinga  https://www.amazon.com/Homo-Ludens-Study-Play-Element-Culture/dp/1621389995   Quotes   "The great archetypal activities of human society are all permeated with play from the start." - Johann Huizinga, Homo Ludens [00:02:30]   “I think consciousness is fundamental to existence. In fact, it's the great philosophical question of our age.” - Douglas Hedley [01:01:24]   Chapters    [00:00:00] - Introduction to Sophia Lectures: Overview and Introduction of Professor Douglas Hedley   [00:02:00] - Exploring Play and Language: Merging Huizinga's Play Concept with Wittgenstein's Language Games and Investigations to Reveal Language's Essence in Shaping Human Culture and Thought.   [00:20:00] - The Inner Word and the Play of Meaning: Exploring Augustine's Inner Word and Poetry's Power to Unveil Transcendent Truths.   [00:26:00] - Tradition, Interpretation, and the Essence of Language: Exploring the Intellectual Legacies of Barfield and Gadamer, Their Critique of Modernism, and the Philosophical Significance of Language's Transcendental Source.   [00:52:00] - Participation, Aesthetics, and the Divine Word: Navigating Gadamer's Concept of Participation through Platonic Light, Aesthetic Experience, and the Theological Depths of Language.   [01:00:00] - Audience Q&A and Concluding Reflections

Muchas personas rechazan o no entienden el arte conceptual porque desconocen su origen o las referencias que toma. El filósofo Ludwig Wittgenstein es con toda seguridad una pieza clave para la comprensión de este bloque artístico. Sin embargo, la explotación abusiva de su Tractatus y la reiteración de piezas de carácter pretencioso terminaron por convertir a este tipo de corrientes artísticas en torres de marfil aisladas. En la actualidad, Wittgenstein sigue siendo sobado como la barriga de un buda. En mi opinión se trata de un filósofo sobrevalorado pero cuyo fenómeno ha producido obras de arte y literarias extremadamente interesantes.

Simon, Tim, Matt, Jim, and Paul discuss how narrative theology or what is known as the Yale School or postliberalism defines Christianity as a community of practice, which can serve as entry into understanding religion in general. Following the work of Ludwig Wittgenstein, narrative theologians such as George Lindbeck, Stanley Hauerwas, James McClendon and John Howard Yoder recognized doctrine and practice must be conjoined. Become a Patron! If you enjoyed this podcast, please consider donating to support our work.

Today we explore the deluge of announcements from both OpenAi and Google. With a plethora of Ai features dropping at Google I/O And Chat GPT-4o landing with an ai that can be spoken to like a human, how do we determine the difference between groundbreaking AI tools and mere gimmicks. How do we discern practical applications from overhyped features? Join Guy as he navigates the latest AI developments, asking the critical question: What truly enhances our digital lives and what falls short? Links to check out: Rabbit R1 (Link: https://www.rabbit.tech/rabbit-r1) Google I/O Announcements: Coverage of the latest features and tools introduced by Google, including the Gemini Pro and video gen models. (Link: https://io.google/2024/) OpenAI's GPT-40 Announcement: Insights into the latest generative pre-trained transformer model which emphasizes voice interaction (Link: https://openai.com/index/hello-gpt-4o/) Satlantis Project (Link: https://satlantis.com/) Welcome to the World of Audio Computers - Jason Rugolo TED talk (Link: https://tinyurl.com/4zc62nhc) Nova Project: Focus on a business-oriented AI platform that prioritizes open-source solutions and privacy for handling sensitive data.⁠ (Link: Pending) Host Links ⁠Guy on Nostr ⁠(Link: http://tinyurl.com/2xc96ney) ⁠Guy on X ⁠(Link: https://twitter.com/theguyswann) ⁠Guy on Instagram⁠ (Link: https://www.instagram.com/theguyswann/) ⁠Guy on TikTok⁠ (Link: https://www.tiktok.com/@theguyswann) ⁠Guy on YouTube⁠ (Link: https://www.youtube.com/@theguyswann) ⁠⁠Bitcoin Audible on X⁠⁠ (Link: https://twitter.com/BitcoinAudible) Check out our awesome sponsors! Get ⁠10% off the COLDCARD⁠ with code BITCOINAUDIBLE ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠(Link: bitcoinaudible.com/coldcard⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠) ⁠Swan⁠: The best way to buy, learn, and earn #Bitcoin (Link: https://swanbitcoin.com) "The Limits of my language means the limits of my world"~ Ludwig Wittgenstein

Stephen Law is a Philosopher and Author. Currently director of Philosophy and Course Director of the Certificate of Higher Education at the Department of Continuing Education at Oxford University, he was formerly Reader in Philosophy at Heythrop College, University of London. He attained his BSc in Philosophy at City University in London, a BPhil at Trinity College, Oxford, and was for three years Junior Research Fellow at The Queen's College, Oxford, where he obtained his PhD. He researches primarily in the fields of philosophy of religion, philosophy of mind, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and essentialism. His popular books include The Philosophy Gym (2003), The Complete Philosophy Files (2000), and Believing Bullshit (2011). He is also editor of Think, the Royal Institute of Philosophy journal. TIMESTAMPS: (0:00) - Introduction (0:22) - The Mind-Body Problem & Consciousness (6:13) - Free Will (10:34) - Belief in the Supernatural (15:56) - Arguments for and against God's existence (22:57) - The Evil God Challenge explained (32:14) - Skeptical Theism (42:49) - The use of Analogies to counter Cognitive Dissonances (52:00) - What made Stephen question God? (56:10) - Stephen's book recommendations for those questioning God (1:01:11) - Philosophy of Science & Armchair Philosophy (1:07:13) - What is currently on Stephen's mind? (Wittgenstein & Illusionism) (1:18:04) - Conclusion EPISODE LINKS: - Stephen's Work: https://tinyurl.com/4ukc9xut - Stephen's Blog: https://tinyurl.com/4zvw852b - Stephen's Twitter: https://x.com/stephenlaw60 - Stephen's Books: https://tinyurl.com/yc7xy7vw - Stephen's Publications: https://tinyurl.com/y73cf5am CONNECT: - Website: https://tevinnaidu.com/ - Podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/drtevinnaidu - Twitter: https://twitter.com/drtevinnaidu/ - Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/drtevinnaidu - Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/drtevinnaidu/ - LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drtevinnaidu/ ============================= Disclaimer: The information provided on this channel is for educational purposes only. The content is shared in the spirit of open discourse and does not constitute, nor does it substitute, professional or medical advice. We do not accept any liability for any loss or damage incurred from you acting or not acting as a result of listening/watching any of our contents. You acknowledge that you use the information provided at your own risk. Listeners/viewers are advised to conduct their own research and consult with their own experts in the respective fields.

Der österreichische Philosoph Ludwig Wittgenstein hat unser Denken bahnbrechend verändert. Sein Leben ist wenig glücklich, aber in jeder Hinsicht außergewöhnlich. Von Veronika Bock /Ulrich Biermann.

Paul Anleitner is the host of  @DeepTalksTheology  . We have talked multiple times before. This conversation focuses specifically on the subject of evolution, how to wrestle with a creationist upbringing, understanding Genesis in its original context, thinking about how Christology fits together, and many related subjects. We mention Charles Darwin, Origen of Alexandria, Athanasius of Alexandria, Maximus the Confessor, Jonathan Losos, John Vervaeke, John Walton, Miroslav Volf, Joseph Campbell, Jordan Peterson, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Soren Kierkegaard, Karl Jung, Sarah Coakley, Nancy Percy, Bret Weinstein, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi , Epicurus, Dmitri Belyaev, David Sloan Wilson, and many more.

As one of the tenth episodes this one is just me, sharing a story about being called a copycat and what it means to me now. The title of the book about hawks is H is for Hawks by Helen Macdonald, and the intervening work by Ludwig Wittgenstein is The Blue and Brown Books. I'd love to hear what you think about copycats and originality, and what your sources of inspiration may be.

“I don't know why we are here, but I'm pretty sure that it is not in order to enjoy ourselves”? - Ludwig Wittgenstein / athāto brahma-jijñāsā - now is the time to inquire about the Absolute Truth / people get intoxicated by their good karma / the soul is the observer / a spiritually advanced person can understand how the spiritual particle exists within the body / One must find the soul by analysis, saying, “This is not it. This is not it.” / My body and mind are shape shifters / Epstein Island and the dark places we go when we are drunk on the world  SB 7.7.21-23 Follow our podcast schedule at https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaQQ4xcGehEHtihNwq1X http://bit.ly/WOTSCAL

Infinity is a puzzling idea. Even young children are fascinated by its various manifestations: What is the biggest number? Does the universe have an edge? Does time have a beginning? Philosophers have tried to answer these questions since time immemorial. More recently, they have been joined by scientists and mathematicians. Indeed, a whole branch of mathematics has become dedicated to the study of infinity.  So what have we learned? Can we finally understand infinity? And what has this quest taught us about ourselves?  To explore this topic, I am joined by philosopher Adrian W. Moore.  Professor Moore is a special guest for two reasons. First, he is a world expert on infinity, known for an excellent BBC series, "History of the Infinite". More personally, he is the head tutor of Philosophy at St Hugh's College, Oxford, where I studied my BA in Philosophy and Psychology. It has now been ten years since Prof Moore interviewed me and, for whatever reason, accepted me as a student. I feel honoured to mark the occasion with this episode. In this episode, we discuss: (02:35) Why infinity fascinates (12:20) Greeks on infinity (20:05) A finite cosmos?  (25:00) Zeno's paradoxes (32:35) Answering Zeno (42:35) Measuring infinities? Georg Cantor (54:05) Infinity vs human understanding (66:20) Mystics on infinity As always, we finish with Prof Moore's reflections on humanity. LINKS Want to support the show? Checkout ⁠⁠Patreon.com/OnHumans⁠⁠ Want to read and not just listen? Get the newsletter on ⁠⁠OnHumans.Substack.com⁠⁠ MENTIONS Names: Aristotle; Zeno; Archytus; Ludwig Wittgenstein; Kurt Gödel; Alan Turing; Georg Cantor; William Blake; Immanuel Kant  Terms: Pythagoreans; Zeno's paradoxes; calculus; transfinite arithmetic; counting numbers, i.e. positive integers; absolute infinities, or inconsistent totalities Books: The Infinite (Moore) Other scholarship: For games on infinite boards, see e.g. the work of Davide Leonessi: https://leonessi.org/

"All the facts of science aren't enough to understand the world's meaning. For this, you must step outside the world." Welcome back to another episode of Made You Think! In this episode, we're adventuring into the world of Logicomix, a graphic novel that takes us on a journey through the intricate life of mathematician Bertrand Russell. From the quest for precision that borders on madness to the historical events Russell was embroiled in, we'll explore the complexities of logic, philosophy, and mathematics. We cover a wide range of topics including: Why seeking precision in understanding the world can drive one mad Bertrand Russell's historical involvements and achievements The rapid progress of aviation and technology How mathematics, logic, and philosophy remain connected Discovering the lives and contributions of various mathematicians And much more. Please enjoy, and make sure to follow Nat, Neil, and Adil on Twitter and share your thoughts on the episode. Links from the Episode: Mentioned in the Show: Prolific (1:06) Agrippan Trilemma (12:33) Münchhausen Trilemma (13:04) Kate Middleton photo (30:48) House of Lords (32:06) The Flaw in Gödel's proof (57:59) Arnold (1:03:50) Political ETFs (1:13:49) Books Mentioned: Logicomix East of Eden (0:03) (Nat's Book Notes) Of Mice and Men (0:21) The Grapes of Wrath (0:22) Watchmen (6:10) V for Vendetta (6:11) In Praise of Idleness (7:12) (Book Episode) (Nat's Book Notes) Gödel, Escher, Bach (12:01) (Book Episode) (Nat's Book Notes) The First World War (36:16) The Second World War (36:16) Banana King (1:00:45) Chip War (1:01:01) The Prize (1:01:23) Bad Therapy (1:02:46) Kon-Tiki (1:08:17) Endurance (1:09:40) People Mentioned: Apostolos Doxiadis Christos Papadimitriou John Steinbeck (0:01) Bertrand Russell (6:51) Kurt Gödel (14:46) Ludwig Wittgenstein (20:49) Jordan Peterson (53:03) Show Topics: (0:00) We kick off the episode by sharing John Steinbeck's journal writing process for East of Eden, his collaborative relationship with his publisher, and how he landed on the title.  (5:25) Though we are not talking about East of Eden today (but...stay tuned for that episode up next!), we're covering Logicomix, a graphic novel by Apostolos Doxiadis and Christos Papadimitriou. (8:16) We give an overview of the book and how it shares different intricacies and stories from Bertrand Russell's life. From his parents being in a throuple to schizophrenia running in his family, we try to decipher which parts were real vs. fabricated. (10:36) Why you shouldn't necessarily look for precision and formal rules about how the world works. We tie this idea into Taoism which we've seen commonly in a few of our other recent reads. In short, no system can fully explain itself. You need to step outside of it. (13:42) Is it possible to build a perfect map of everything that mathematics entails? We talk about the connection between logic, philosophy, and mathematics.  (20:25) There were several mathematicians in the book. How many of them are you familiar with? (23:36) Russell's involvement in a variety of historical events from the Cuban Missile Crisis to JFK's assassination, as he was not convinced that Oswald was guilty of the crime.  (28:34) If you've been up-to-date with the news lately, you may be just as interested in the Kate Middleton conspiracies as we are. Tangent time! (31:38) Russell was sat in the House of Lords, a chamber of UK Parliament which is generally not up for election. Plus, we brainstorm some ideas of who would be considered Bertrand Russell's equivalent in the US. (36:48) We dive in to some different historical events and wars. The Ottoman Empire, World War 1 and 2, the Persian Gulf War, and how warfare and aircraft carriers changed during these ages.  (41:26) Aviation and its rapid improvements in technology in such a short span of time. (45:07) "Shouldn't we get back to the book?" Nat, Neil, and Adil discuss some of the main concepts from the book, including the pursuit of truth in the world of mathematics. You're never going to fully understand reality, but for some, that's a hard truth that they don't want to accept. (49:44) What does it mean to know, and how can you be justified in knowing something? Remember, a belief can be true while at the same time not satisfying the conditions of logic.  (56:05) Unlike the other mathematicians discussed in the book, Gödel constructed a proof to his theorem that hasn't yet been disproven. Regardless of whether their desires for absolute truth was achieved or not, a lot of the findings are fundamentally useful in many other ways. (1:00:34) We talk about some of the books that we have coming up on the podcast, and throw around some ideas. Which book would you like to see us do an episode on? Let us know here! (1:05:04) Is it true that the more you think about how you're feeling, the worse you feel?  (1:10:07) Nat, Neil, and Adil share some more of their upcoming reads they're excited about, and different war books, including Martin Gilbert's books on WW1 and WW2. (1:13:24) Political ETFs that you can buy into. $NANC and $KRUZ, anyone? (1:17:22) That concludes this episode! Next up on Made You Think, we have the long awaited episode covering East of Eden by John Steinbeck. Make sure to grab a copy of the book and read along with us before the next episode. Check out our new website to stay updated on what's to come. If you enjoyed this episode, let us know by leaving a review on iTunes and tell a friend. As always, let us know if you have any book recommendations! You can say hi to us on Twitter @TheRealNeilS, @adilmajid, @nateliason and share your thoughts on this episode. You can now support Made You Think using the Value-for-Value feature of Podcasting 2.0. This means you can directly tip the co-hosts in BTC with minimal transaction fees. To get started, simply download a podcast app (like Fountain or Breez) that supports Value-for-Value and send some BTC to your in-app wallet. You can then use that to support shows who have opted-in, including Made You Think! We'll be going with this direct support model moving forward, rather than ads. Thanks for listening. See you next time!

In this episode James Klagge discusses the life and times of Ludwig Wittgenstein with David Edmonds. This is part of our mini series on the biographies of philosophers, Bio Bites.

Ryan and Todd think through Ludwig Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations, focusing especially on the parallels with psychoanalysis and the work's political significance. They also address the ramifications of the private language argument that Wittgenstein formulates.

Ryan and Todd discuss Ludwig Wittgenstein's project in the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. They begin by looking at this project on its own terms and taking stock of its grand ambitions. Then they examine its intersection with the concerns of psychoanalysis and dialectics.

In 1956 Oxford University awarded an honorary degree to the former US president Harry S. Truman for his role in ending the Second World War. One philosopher, Elizabeth Anscombe (1919 – 2001), objected strongly. She argued that although dropping nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki may have ended the fighting, it amounted to the murder of tens of thousands of innocent civilians. It was therefore an irredeemably immoral act. And there was something fundamentally wrong with a moral philosophy that didn't see that. This was the starting point for a body of work that changed the terms in which philosophers discussed moral and ethical questions in the second half of the twentieth century. A leading student of the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, Anscombe combined his insights with rejuvenated interpretations of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas that made these ancient figures speak to modern issues and concerns. Anscombe was also instrumental in making action, and the question of what it means to intend to do something, a leading area of philosophical work. With Rachael Wiseman, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Liverpool Constantine Sandis, Visiting Professor of Philosophy at the University of Hertfordshire, and Director of Lex Academic Roger Teichmann, Lecturer in Philosophy at St Hilda's College, University of Oxford Producer: Luke Mulhall