Podcasts about montaigne

In an essay about her recent book Searches (Pantheon, 2025), a genre-bending chronicle of the deeply personal ways we use the internet and the uncanny ways it uses us, Vauhini Vara admits that several reviewers seemed to mistake her engagement with ChatGPT as an uncritical embrace of large language models. Enter Aarthi Vadde to talk with Vauhini about the power and the danger of digital tech and discuss to what it means to co-create with AI. Vauhini tells Aarthi and host Sarah Wasserman that at the heart of all her work is a desire to communicate—that “language,” as she says, “is the main tool we have to bridge the divide.” She explains that the motivation in Searches as in her journalism is to test out tools that promise new forms of communication—or even tools that promise to be able to communicate themselves. Amidst all her interest in new tech, Vauhini is first and foremost a writer: she and Aarthi discuss what it means to put ChatGPT on the printed page, what genre means in today's media ecosystem, and whether generative AI will steal writers' paychecks. Considering generative AI models as tools that “don't have a perspective,” makes for an episode that diagnoses the future of writing with much less doomsaying than authors and critics often bring to the topic. And if all of this writing with robots sounds too “out there,” stay tuned for Vauhini's down-to-earth answer to our signature question. Mentioned in this episode: Vauhini Vara, Searches (2025), The Immortal King Rao (2022), “My Decade in Google Searches” (2019) Michel de Montaigne, The Complete Essays (1580) Tom Comitta, The Nature Book (2023) Sheila Heti, Alphabetical Diaries (2024), “According to Alice” (2023) Audre Lorde, “The Master's Tools will never Dismantle the Master's House” (1979) 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

In an essay about her recent book Searches (Pantheon, 2025), a genre-bending chronicle of the deeply personal ways we use the internet and the uncanny ways it uses us, Vauhini Vara admits that several reviewers seemed to mistake her engagement with ChatGPT as an uncritical embrace of large language models. Enter Aarthi Vadde to talk with Vauhini about the power and the danger of digital tech and discuss to what it means to co-create with AI. Vauhini tells Aarthi and host Sarah Wasserman that at the heart of all her work is a desire to communicate—that “language,” as she says, “is the main tool we have to bridge the divide.” She explains that the motivation in Searches as in her journalism is to test out tools that promise new forms of communication—or even tools that promise to be able to communicate themselves. Amidst all her interest in new tech, Vauhini is first and foremost a writer: she and Aarthi discuss what it means to put ChatGPT on the printed page, what genre means in today's media ecosystem, and whether generative AI will steal writers' paychecks. Considering generative AI models as tools that “don't have a perspective,” makes for an episode that diagnoses the future of writing with much less doomsaying than authors and critics often bring to the topic. And if all of this writing with robots sounds too “out there,” stay tuned for Vauhini's down-to-earth answer to our signature question. Mentioned in this episode: Vauhini Vara, Searches (2025), The Immortal King Rao (2022), “My Decade in Google Searches” (2019) Michel de Montaigne, The Complete Essays (1580) Tom Comitta, The Nature Book (2023) Sheila Heti, Alphabetical Diaries (2024), “According to Alice” (2023) Audre Lorde, “The Master's Tools will never Dismantle the Master's House” (1979) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/literary-studies

So why did Harris lose in 2024? For one very big reason, according to the progressive essayist Bill Deresiewicz: “because she represented the exhausted Democratic establishment”. This rotting establishment, Deresiewicz believes, is symbolized by both the collective denial of Biden's mental decline and by Harris' pathetically rudderless Presidential campaign. But there's a much more troubling problem with the Democratic party, he argues. It has become “the party of institutionalized liberalism, which is itself exhausted”. So how to reinvent American liberalism in the 2020's? How to make the left once again, in Deresiewicz words, “the locus of openness, playfulness, productive contention, experiment, excess, risk, shock, camp, mirth, mischief, irony and curiosity"? That's the question for all progressives in our MAGA/Woke age. 5 Key Takeaways * Deresiewicz believes the Democratic establishment and aligned media engaged in a "tacit cover-up" of Biden's condition and other major issues like crime, border policies, and pandemic missteps rather than addressing them honestly.* The liberal movement that began in the 1960s has become "exhausted" and the Democratic Party is now an uneasy alliance of establishment elites and working-class voters whose interests don't align well.* Progressive institutions suffer from a repressive intolerance characterized by "an unearned sense of moral superiority" and a fear of vitality that leads to excessive rules, bureaucracy, and speech codes.* While young conservatives are creating new movements with energy and creativity, the progressive establishment stifles innovation by purging anyone who "violates the code" or criticizes their side.* Rebuilding the left requires creating conditions for new ideas by ending censoriousness, embracing true courage that risks something real, and potentially building new institutions rather than trying to reform existing ones. Full Transcript Andrew Keen: Hello, everyone. It's the old question on this show, Keen on America, how to make sense of this bewildering, frustrating, exciting country in the wake, particularly of the last election. A couple of years ago, we had the CNN journalist who I rather like and admire, Jake Tapper, on the show. Arguing in a piece of fiction that he thinks, to make sense of America, we need to return to the 1970s. He had a thriller out a couple of years ago called All the Demons Are Here. But I wonder if Tapper's changed his mind on this. His latest book, which is a sensation, which he co-wrote with Alex Thompson, is Original Sin, President Biden's Decline, its Cover-up and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again. Tapper, I think, tells the truth about Biden, as the New York Times notes. It's a damning portrait of an enfeebled Biden protected by his inner circle. I would extend that, rather than his inner circle protected by an elite, perhaps a coastal elite of Democrats, unable or unwilling to come to terms with the fact that Biden was way, way past his shelf life. My guest today, William Deresiewicz—always get his last name wrong—it must be...William Deresiewicz: No, that was good. You got it.Andrew Keen: Probably because I'm anti-semitic. He has a new piece out called "Post-Election" which addresses much of the rottenness of the American progressive establishment in 2025. Bill, congratulations on the piece.William Deresiewicz: Thank you.Andrew Keen: Have you had a chance to look at this Tapper book or have you read about Original Sin?William Deresiewicz: Yeah, I read that piece. I read the piece that's on the screen and I've heard some people talking about it. And I mean, as you said, it's not just his inner circle. I don't want to blame Tapper. Tapper did the work. But one immediate reaction to the debate debacle was, where have the journalists been? For example, just to unfairly call one person out, but they're just so full of themselves, the New Yorker dripping with self-congratulations, especially in its centennial year, its boundless appetite for self-celebration—to quote something one of my students once said about Yale—they've got a guy named Evan Osnos, who's one of their regulars on their political...Andrew Keen: Yeah, and he's been on the show, Evan, and in fact, I rather like his, I was going to say his husband, his father, Peter Osnos, who's a very heavy-hitting ex-publisher. But anyway, go on. And Evan's quite a nice guy, personally.William Deresiewicz: I'm sure he's a nice guy, but the fact is he's not only a New Yorker journalist, but he wrote a book about Biden, which means that he's presumably theoretically well-sourced within Biden world. He didn't say anything. I mean, did he not know or did he know?Andrew Keen: Yeah, I agree. I mean you just don't want to ask, right? You don't know. But you're a journalist, so you're supposed to know. You're supposed to ask. So I'm sure you're right on Osnos. I mean, he was on the show, but all journalists are progressives, or at least all the journalists at the Times and the New Yorker and the Atlantic. And there seemed to be, as Jake Tapper is suggesting in this new book, and he was part of the cover-up, there seemed to be a cover-up on the part of the entire professional American journalist establishment, high-end establishment, to ignore the fact that the guy running for president or the president himself clearly had no idea of what was going on around him. It's just astonishing, isn't it? I mean, hindsight's always easy, of course, 2020 in retrospect, but it was obvious at the time. I made it clear whenever I spoke about Biden, that here was a guy clearly way out of his depth, that he shouldn't have been president, maybe shouldn't have been president in the first place, but whatever you think about his ideas, he clearly was way beyond his shelf date, a year or two into the presidency.William Deresiewicz: Yeah, but here's the thing, and it's one of the things I say in the post-election piece, but I'm certainly not the only person to say this. There was an at least tacit cover-up of Biden, of his condition, but the whole thing was a cover-up, meaning every major issue that the 2024 election was about—crime, at the border, woke excess, affordability. The whole strategy of not just the Democrats, but this media establishment that's aligned with them is to just pretend that it wasn't happening, to explain it away. And we can also throw in pandemic policy, right? Which people were still thinking about and all the missteps in pandemic policy. The strategy was effectively a cover-up. We're not gonna talk about it, or we're gonna gaslight you, or we're gonna make excuses. So is it a surprise that people don't trust these establishment institutions anymore? I mean, I don't trust them anymore and I want to trust them.Andrew Keen: Were there journalists? I mean, there were a handful of journalists telling the truth about Biden. Progressives, people on the left rather than conservatives.William Deresiewicz: Ezra Klein started to talk about it, I remember that. So yes, there were a handful, but it wasn't enough. And you know, I don't say this to take away from Ezra Klein what I just gave him with my right hand, take away with my left, but he was also the guy, as soon as the Kamala succession was effected, who was talking about how Kamala in recent months has been going from strength to strength and hasn't put a foot wrong and isn't she fantastic. So all credit to him for telling the truth about Biden, but it seems to me that he immediately pivoted to—I mean, I'm sure he thought he was telling the truth about Harris, but I didn't believe that for one second.Andrew Keen: Well, meanwhile, the lies about Harris or the mythology of Harris, the false—I mean, all mythology, I guess, is false—about Harris building again. Headline in Newsweek that Harris would beat Donald Trump if an election was held again. I mean I would probably beat—I would beat Trump if an election was held again, I can't even run for president. So anyone could beat Trump, given the situation. David Plouffe suggested that—I think he's quoted in the Tapper book—that Biden totally fucked us, but it suggests that somehow Harris was a coherent progressive candidate, which she wasn't.William Deresiewicz: She wasn't. First of all, I hadn't seen this poll that she would beat Trump. I mean, it's a meaningless poll, because...Andrew Keen: You could beat him, Bill, and no one can even pronounce your last name.William Deresiewicz: Nobody could say what would actually happen if there were a real election. It's easy enough to have a hypothetical poll. People often look much better in these kinds of hypothetical polls where there's no actual election than they do when it's time for an election. I mean, I think everyone except maybe David Plouffe understands that Harris should never have been a candidate—not just after Biden dropped out way too late, but ever, right? I mean the real problem with Biden running again is that he essentially saddled us with Harris. Instead of having a real primary campaign where we could have at least entertained the possibility of some competent people—you know, there are lots of governors. I mean, I'm a little, and maybe we'll get to this, I'm little skeptical that any normal democratic politician is going to end up looking good. But at least we do have a whole bunch of what seem to be competent governors, people with executive experience. And we never had a chance to entertain any of those people because this democratic establishment just keeps telling us who we're going to vote for. I mean, it's now three elections in a row—they forced Hillary on us, and then Biden. I'm not going to say they forced Biden on us although elements of it did. It probably was a good thing because he won and he may have been the only one who could have won. And then Harris—it's like reductio ad absurdum. These candidates they keep handing us keep getting worse and worse.Andrew Keen: But it's more than being worse. I mean, whatever one can say about Harris, she couldn't explain why she wanted to be president, which seems to me a disqualifier if you're running for president. The point, the broader point, which I think you bring out very well in the piece you write, and you and I are very much on the same page here, so I'm not going to criticize you in your post-election—William Deresiewicz: You can criticize me, Andrew, I love—Andrew Keen: I know I can criticize you, and I will, but not in this particular area—is that these people are the establishment. They're protecting a globalized world, they're the coast. I mean, in some ways, certainly the Bannonite analysis is right, and it's not surprising that they're borrowing from Lenin and the left is borrowing from Edmund Burke.William Deresiewicz: Yeah, I mean I think, and I think this is the real problem. I mean, part of what I say in the piece is that it just seems, maybe this is too organicist, but there just seems to be an exhaustion that the liberal impulse that started, you know, around the time I was born in 1964, and I cite the Dylan movie just because it's a picture of that time where you get a sense of the energy on the left, the dawning of all this exciting—Andrew Keen: You know that movie—and we've done a show on that movie—itself was critical I guess in a way of Dylan for not being political.William Deresiewicz: Well, but even leaving that aside, just the reminder you get of what that time felt like. That seems in the movie relatively accurate, that this new youth culture, the rights revolution, the counterculture, a new kind of impulse of liberalism and progressivism that was very powerful and strong and carried us through the 60s and 70s and then became the establishment and has just become completely exhausted now. So I just feel like it's just gotten to the end of its possibility. Gotten to the end of its life cycle, but also in a less sort of mystical way. And I think this is a structural problem that the Democrats have not been able to address for a long time, and I don't see how they're going to address it. The party is now the party, as you just said, of the establishment, uneasily wedded to a mainly non-white sort of working class, lower class, maybe somewhat middle class. So it's sort of this kind of hybrid beast, the two halves of which don't really fit together. The educated upper middle class, the professional managerial class that you and I are part of, and then sort of the average Black Latino female, white female voter who doesn't share the interests of that class. So what are you gonna do about that? How's that gonna work?Andrew Keen: And the thing that you've always given a lot of thought to, and it certainly comes out in this piece, is the intolerance of the Democratic Party. But it's an intolerance—it's not a sort of, and I don't like this word, it's not the fascist intolerance of the MAGA movement or of Trump. It's a repressive intolerance, it's this idea that we're always right and if you disagree with us, then there must be something wrong with you.William Deresiewicz: Yeah, right. It's this, at this point, completely unearned sense of moral superiority and intellectual superiority, which are not really very clearly distinguished in their mind, I think. And you know, they just reek of it and people hate it and it's understandable that they hate it. I mean, it's Hillary in a word. It's Hillary in a word and again, I'm wary of treading on this kind of ground, but I do think there's an element of—I mean, obviously Trump and his whole camp is very masculinist in a very repulsive way, but there is also a way to be maternalist in a repulsive way. It's this kind of maternal control. I think of it as the sushi mom voice where we're gonna explain to you in a calm way why you should listen to us and why we're going to control every move you make. And it's this fear—I mean what my piece is really about is this sort of quasi-Nietzschean argument for energy and vitality that's lacking on the left. And I think it's lacking because the left fears it. It fears sort of the chaos of the life force. So it just wants to shackle it in all of these rules and bureaucracy and speech codes and consent codes. It just feels lifeless. And I think everybody feels that.Andrew Keen: Yeah, and it's the inability to imagine you can be wrong. It's the moral greediness of some people, at least, who think of themselves on the left. Some people might be listening to this, thinking it's just these two old white guys who think themselves as progressives but are actually really conservative. And all this idea of nature is itself chilling, that it's a kind of anti-feminism.William Deresiewicz: Well, that's b******t. I mean, let me have a chance to respond. I mean I plead guilty to being an old white man—Andrew Keen: I mean you can't argue with that one.William Deresiewicz: I'm not arguing with it. But the whole point rests on this notion of positionality, like I'm an older white man, therefore I think this or I believe that, which I think is b******t to begin with because, you know, down the street there's another older white guy who believes the exact opposite of me, so what's the argument here? But leaving that aside, and whether I am or am not a progressive—okay, my ideal politician is Bernie Sanders, so I'll just leave it at that. The point is, I mean, one point is that feminism hasn't always been like this. Second wave feminism that started in the late sixties, when I was a little kid—there was a censorious aspect to it, but there was also this tremendous vitality. I mean I think of somebody like Andrea Dworkin—this is like, "f**k you" feminism. This is like, "I'm not only not gonna shave my legs, I'm gonna shave my armpits and I don't give a s**t what you think." And then the next generation when I was a young man was the Mary Gates, Camille Paglia, sex-positive power feminism which also had a different kind of vitality. So I don't think feminism has to be the feminism of the women's studies departments and of Hillary Clinton with "you can't say this" and "if you want to have sex with me you have to follow these 10 rules." I don't think anybody likes that.Andrew Keen: The deplorables!William Deresiewicz: Yes, yes, yes. Like I said, I don't just think that the enemies don't like it, and I don't really care what they think. I think the people on our side don't like it. Nobody is having fun on our side. It's boring. No one's having sex from what they tell me. The young—it just feels dead. And I think when there's no vitality, you also have no creative vitality. And I think the intellectual cul-de-sac that the left seems to be stuck in, where there are no new ideas, is related to that.Andrew Keen: Yeah, and I think the more I think about it, I think you're right, it's a generational war. All the action seems to be coming from old people, whether it's the Pelosis and the Bidens, or it's people like Richard Reeves making a fortune off books about worrying about young men or Jonathan Haidt writing about the anxious generation. Where are, to quote David Bowie, the young Americans? Why aren't they—I mean, Bill, you're in a way guilty of this. You made your name with your book, Excellent Sheep about the miseducation...William Deresiewicz: Yeah, so what am I guilty of exactly?Andrew Keen: I'm not saying you're all, but aren't you and Reeves and Haidt, you're all involved in this weird kind of generational war.William Deresiewicz: OK, let's pump the brakes here for a second. Where the young people are—I mean, obviously most people, even young people today, still vote for Democrats. But the young who seem to be exploring new things and having energy and excitement are on the right. And there was a piece—I'm gonna forget the name of the piece and the author—Daniel Oppenheimer had her on the podcast. I think it appeared in The Point. Young woman. Fairly recent college graduate, went to a convention of young republicans, I don't know what they call themselves, and also to democrats or liberals in quick succession and wrote a really good piece about it. I don't think she had ever written anything before or published anything before, but it got a lot of attention because she talked about the youthful vitality at this conservative gathering. And then she goes to the liberals and they're all gray-haired men like us. The one person who had anything interesting to say was Francis Fukuyama, who's in his 80s. She's making the point—this is the point—it's not a generational war, because there are young people on the right side of the spectrum who are doing interesting things. I mean, I don't like what they're doing, because I'm not a rightist, but they're interesting, they're different, they're new, there's excitement there, there's creativity there.Andrew Keen: But could one argue, Bill, that all these labels are meaningless and that whatever they're doing—I'm sure they're having more sex than young progressives, they're having more fun, they're able to make jokes, they are able, for better or worse, to change the system. Does it really matter whether they claim to be MAGA people or leftists? They're the ones who are driving change in the country.William Deresiewicz: Yes, they're the ones who are driving change in the country. The counter-cultural energy that was on the left in the sixties and seventies is now on the right. And it does matter because they are operating in the political sphere, have an effect in the political sphere, and they're unmistakably on the right. I mean, there are all these new weird species on the right—the trads and the neo-pagans and the alt-right and very sort of anti-capitalist conservatives or at least anti-corporate conservatives and all kinds of things that you would never have imagined five years ago. And again, it's not that I like these things. It's that they're new, there's ferment there. So stuff is coming out that is going to drive, is already driving the culture and therefore the politics forward. And as somebody who, yes, is progressive, it is endlessly frustrating to me that we have lost this kind of initiative, momentum, energy, creativity, to what used to be the stodgy old right. Now we're the stodgy old left.Andrew Keen: What do you want to go back to? I mean you brought up Dylan earlier. Do you just want to resurrect...William Deresiewicz: No, I don't.Andrew Keen: You know another one who comes to mind is another sort of bundle of contradictions, Bruce Springsteen. He recently talked about the corrupt, incompetent, and treasonous nature of Trump. I mean Springsteen's a billionaire. He even acknowledged that he mythologized his own working-class status. He's never spent more than an hour in a factory. He's never had a job. So aren't all the pigeons coming back to roost here? The fraud of men like Springsteen are merely being exposed and young people recognize it.William Deresiewicz: Well, I don't know about Springsteen in particular...Andrew Keen: Well, he's a big deal.William Deresiewicz: No, I know he's a big deal, and I love Springsteen. I listened to him on repeat when I was young, and I actually didn't know that he'd never worked in a factory, and I quite frankly don't care because he's an artist, and he made great art out of those experiences, whether they were his or not. But to address the real issue here, he is an old guy. It sounds like he's just—I mean, I'm sure he's sincere about it and I would agree with him about Trump. But to have people like Springsteen or Robert De Niro or George Clooney...Andrew Keen: Here it is.William Deresiewicz: Okay, yes, it's all to the point that these are old guys. So you asked me, do I want to go back? The whole point is I don't want to go back. I want to go forward. I'm not going to be the one to bring us forward because I'm older. And also, I don't think I was ever that kind of creative spirit, but I want to know why there isn't sort of youthful creativity given the fact that most young people do still vote for Democrats, but there's no youthful creativity on the left. Is it just that the—I want to be surprised is the point. I'm not calling for X, Y, or Z. I'm saying astonish me, right? Like Diaghilev said to Cocteau. Astonish me the way you did in the 60s and 70s. Show me something new. And I worry that it simply isn't possible on the left now, precisely because it's so locked down in this kind of establishment, censorious mode that there's no room for a new idea to come from anywhere.Andrew Keen: As it happens, you published this essay in Salmagundi—and that predates, if not even be pre-counterculture. How many years old is it? I think it started in '64. Yeah, so alongside your piece is an interesting piece from Adam Phillips about influence and anxiety. And he quotes Montaigne from "On Experience": "There is always room for a successor, even for ourselves, and a different way to proceed." Is the problem, Bill, that we haven't, we're not willing to leave the stage? I mean, Nancy Pelosi is a good example of this. Biden's a good example. In this Salmagundi piece, there's an essay from Martin Jay, who's 81 years old. I was a grad student in Berkeley in the 80s. Even at that point, he seemed old. Why are these people not able to leave the stage?William Deresiewicz: I am not going to necessarily sign on to that argument, and not just because I'm getting older. Biden...Andrew Keen: How old are you, by the way?William Deresiewicz: I'm 61. So you mentioned Pelosi. I would have been happy for Pelosi to remain in her position for as long as she wanted, because she was effective. It's not about how old you are. Although it can be, obviously as you get older you can become less effective like Joe Biden. I think there's room for the old and the young together if the old are saying valuable things and if the young are saying valuable things. It's not like there's a shortage of young voices on the left now. They're just not interesting voices. I mean, the one that comes immediately to mind that I'm more interested in is Ritchie Torres, who's this congressman who's a genuinely working-class Black congressman from the Bronx, unlike AOC, who grew up the daughter of an architect in Northern Westchester and went to a fancy private university, Boston University. So Ritchie Torres is not a doctrinaire leftist Democrat. And he seems to speak from a real self. Like he isn't just talking about boilerplate. I just feel like there isn't a lot of room for the Ritchie Torres. I think the system that produces democratic candidates militates against people like Ritchie Torres. And that's what I am talking about.Andrew Keen: In the essay, you write about Andy Mills, who was one of the pioneers of the New York Times podcast. He got thrown out of The New York Times for various offenses. It's one of the problems with the left—they've, rather like the Stalinists in the 1930s, purged all the energy out of themselves. Anyone of any originality has been thrown out for one reason or another.William Deresiewicz: Well, because it's always the same reason, because they violate the code. I mean, yes, this is one of the main problems. And to go back to where we started with the journalists, it seems like the rationale for the cover-up, all the cover-ups was, "we can't say anything bad about our side. We can't point out any of the flaws because that's going to help the bad guys." So if anybody breaks ranks, we're going to cancel them. We're going to purge them. I mean, any idiot understands that that's a very short-term strategy. You need the possibility of self-criticism and self-difference. I mean that's the thing—you asked me about old people leaving the stage, but the quotation from Montaigne said, "there's always room for a successor, even ourselves." So this is about the possibility of continuous self-reinvention. Whatever you want to say about Dylan, some people like him, some don't, he's done that. Bowie's done that. This was sort of our idea, like you're constantly reinventing yourself, but this is what we don't have.Andrew Keen: Yeah, actually, I read the quote the wrong way, that we need to reinvent ourselves. Bowie is a very good example if one acknowledges, and Dylan of course, one's own fundamental plasticity. And that's another problem with the progressive movement—they don't think of the human condition as a plastic one.William Deresiewicz: That's interesting. I mean, in one respect, I think they think of it as too plastic, right? This is sort of the blank slate fallacy that we can make—there's no such thing as human nature and we can reshape it as we wish. But at the same time, they've created a situation, and this really is what Excellent Sheep is about, where they're turning out the same human product over and over.Andrew Keen: But in that sense, then, the excellent sheep you write about at Yale, they've all ended up now as neo-liberal, neo-conservative, so they're just rebelling...William Deresiewicz: No, they haven't. No, they are the backbone of this soggy liberal progressive establishment. A lot of them are. I mean, why is, you know, even Wall Street and Silicon Valley sort of by preference liberal? It's because they're full of these kinds of elite college graduates who have been trained to be liberal.Andrew Keen: So what are we to make of the Musk-Thiel, particularly the Musk phenomenon? I mean, certainly Thiel, very much influenced by Rand, who herself, of course, was about as deeply Nietzschean as you can get. Why isn't Thiel and Musk just a model of the virility, the vitality of the early 21st century? You might not like what they say, but they're full of vitality.William Deresiewicz: It's interesting, there's a place in my piece where I say that the liberal can't accept the idea that a bad person can do great things. And one of my examples was Elon Musk. And the other one—Andrew Keen: Zuckerberg.William Deresiewicz: But Musk is not in the piece, because I wrote the piece before the inauguration and they asked me to change it because of what Musk was doing. And even I was beginning to get a little queasy just because the association with Musk is now different. It's now DOGE. But Musk, who I've always hated, I've never liked the guy, even when liberals loved him for making electric cars. He is an example, at least the pre-DOGE Musk, of a horrible human being with incredible vitality who's done great things, whether you like it or not. And I want—I mean, this is the energy that I want to harness for our team.Andrew Keen: I actually mostly agreed with your piece, but I didn't agree with that because I think most progressives believe that actually, the Zuckerbergs and the Musks, by doing, by being so successful, by becoming multi-billionaires, are morally a bit dodgy. I mean, I don't know where you get that.William Deresiewicz: That's exactly the point. But I think what they do is when they don't like somebody, they just negate the idea that they're great. "Well, he's just not really doing anything that great." You disagree.Andrew Keen: So what about ideas, Bill? Where is there room to rebuild the left? I take your points, and I don't think many people would actually disagree with you. Where does the left, if there's such a term anymore, need to go out on a limb, break some eggs, offend some people, but nonetheless rebuild itself? It's not going back to Bernie Sanders and some sort of nostalgic New Deal.William Deresiewicz: No, no, I agree. So this is, this may be unsatisfying, but this is what I'm saying. If there were specific new ideas that I thought the left should embrace, I would have said so. What I'm seeing is the left needs, to begin with, to create the conditions from which new ideas can come. So I mean, we've been talking about a lot of it. The censoriousness needs to go.I would also say—actually, I talk about this also—you know, maybe you would consider yourself part of, I don't know. There's this whole sort of heterodox realm of people who did dare to violate the progressive pieties and say, "maybe the pandemic response isn't going so well; maybe the Black Lives Matter protests did have a lot of violence"—maybe all the things, right? And they were all driven out from 2020 and so forth. A lot of them were people who started on the left and would even still describe themselves as liberal, would never vote for a Republican. So these people are out there. They're just, they don't have a voice within the Democratic camp because the orthodoxy continues to be enforced.So that's what I'm saying. You've got to start with the structural conditions. And one of them may be that we need to get—I don't even know that these institutions can reform themselves, whether it's the Times or the New Yorker or the Ivy League. And it may be that we need to build new institutions, which is also something that's happening. I mean, it's something that's happening in the realm of publishing and journalism on Substack. But again, they're still marginalized because that liberal establishment does not—it's not that old people don't wanna give up power, it's that the established people don't want to give up the power. I mean Harris is, you know, she's like my age. So the establishment as embodied by the Times, the New Yorker, the Ivy League, foundations, the think tanks, the Democratic Party establishment—they don't want to move aside. But it's so obviously clear at this point that they are not the solution. They're not the solutions.Andrew Keen: What about the so-called resistance? I mean, a lot of people were deeply disappointed by the response of law firms, maybe even universities, the democratic party as we noted is pretty much irrelevant. Is it possible for the left to rebuild itself by a kind of self-sacrifice, by lawyers who say "I don't care what you think of me, I'm simply against you" and to work together, or university presidents who will take massive pay cuts and take on MAGA/Trump world?William Deresiewicz: Yeah, I mean, I don't know if this is going to be the solution to the left rebuilding itself, but I think it has to happen, not just because it has to happen for policy reasons, but I mean you need to start by finding your courage again. I'm not going to say your testicles because that's gendered, but you need to start—I mean the law firms, maybe that's a little, people have said, well, it's different because they're in a competitive business with each other, but why did the university—I mean I'm a Columbia alumnus. I could not believe that Columbia immediately caved.It occurs to me as we're talking that these are people, university presidents who have learned cowardice. This is how they got to be where they got and how they keep their jobs. They've learned to yield in the face of the demands of students, the demands of alumni, the demands of donors, maybe the demands of faculty. They don't know how to be courageous anymore. And as much as I have lots of reasons, including personal ones, to hate Harvard University, good for them. Somebody finally stood up, and I was really glad to see that. So yeah, I think this would be one good way to start.Andrew Keen: Courage, in other words, is the beginning.William Deresiewicz: Courage is the beginning.Andrew Keen: But not a courage that takes itself too seriously.William Deresiewicz: I mean, you know, sure. I mean I don't really care how seriously—not the self-referential courage. Real courage, which means you're really risking losing something. That's what it means.Andrew Keen: And how can you and I then manifest this courage?William Deresiewicz: You know, you made me listen to Jocelyn Benson.Andrew Keen: Oh, yeah, I forgot and I actually I have to admit I saw that on the email and then I forgot who Jocelyn Benson is, which is probably reflects the fact that she didn't say very much.William Deresiewicz: For those of you who don't know what we're talking about, she's the Secretary of State of Michigan. She's running for governor.Andrew Keen: Oh yeah, and she was absolutely diabolical. She was on the show, I thought.William Deresiewicz: She wrote a book called Purposeful Warrior, and the whole interview was just this salad of cliches. Purpose, warrior, grit, authenticity. And part of, I mentioned her partly because she talked about courage in a way that was complete nonsense.Andrew Keen: Real courage, yeah, real courage. I remember her now. Yeah, yeah.William Deresiewicz: Yeah, she got made into a martyr because she got threatened after the 2020 election.Andrew Keen: Well, lots to think about, Bill. Very good conversation, as always. I think we need to get rid of old white men like you and I, but what do I know?William Deresiewicz: I mean, I am going to keep a death grip on my position, which is no good whatsoever.Andrew Keen: As I half-joked, Bill, maybe you should have called the piece "Post-Erection." If you can't get an erection, then you certainly shouldn't be in public office. That would have meant that Joe Biden would have had to have retired immediately.William Deresiewicz: I'm looking forward to seeing the test you devise to determine whether people meet your criterion.Andrew Keen: Yeah, maybe it will be a public one. Bread and circuses, bread and elections. We shall see, Bill, I'm not even going to do your last name because I got it right once. I'm never going to say it again. Bill, congratulations on the piece "Post-Election," not "Post-Erection," and we will talk again. This story is going to run and run. We will talk again in the not too distant future. Thank you so much.William Deresiewicz: That's good.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

durée : 00:48:09 - Comment est perçu l'occitan ? avec Marie Sarraute-Armentia, formatrice en occitan - Marie Sarraute-Armentia est formatrice en occitan, guide-conférencière, autrice, doctorante à l'université Bordeaux Montaigne, et active sur les réseaux sous le nom de Linguipixie. Passionnée par les langues, elle s'intéresse à la façon dont l'occitan est perçu aujourd'hui par le grand public.

C dans l'air l'invitée du 7 mai 2025 : Blanche Leridon est directrice éditoriale de l'institut Montaigne, spécialiste des questions démocratiques et institutionnelles.Une récente étude Ifop pour l'observatoire Hexagone révélait que les intentions de vote pour la présidentielle 2027 montrent que le Rassemblement national reste puissant malgré la condamnation de sa cheffe de file. Le Rassemblement national confirme son leadership au premier tour quel que soit son représentant. Au second, Marine Le Pen et Jordan Bardella semblent, selon l'étude, très haut, au point d'être en mesure de l'emporter dans de nombreux scénarios. Sauf face à Edouard Philippe, qui ferait jeu égal avec Jordan Bardella, mais l'emporterait de peu face à Marine Le Pen.Un autre sondage, cette fois de l'institut Odoxa-Backbone consulting pour Le Figaro, analyse révèle les attentes à deux ans de l'élection présidentielle. Une majorité de Français (58%) n'ont toujours pas de candidat idéal. Un même pourcentage trouverait "une bonne idée" d'avoir des candidatures de personnalités hors des partis traditionnels. Des personnalités ont récemment émergé dans l'opinion, comme Michel-Edouard Leclerc, ou Cyril Hanouna. De quoi ces hypothèses "hors système" sont-elles le nom ? Notre invitée, Blanche Leridon, directrice éditoriale de l'institut Montaigne, spécialiste des questions démocratiques et institutionnelles, répondra à nos questions.

durée : 00:02:25 - C'est mon boulot - Les jeunes d'aujourd'hui sont-ils moins engagés au travail et se comportent-ils en électrons libres ? Alors que beaucoup de stéréotypes circulent sur les moins de 30 ans, l'institut Montaigne a interrogé cet automne plusieurs milliers d'étudiants et de jeunes actifs

Ruben Endendijk in gesprek met universitair hoofddocent Franse Letterkunde Alexander Roose (Universiteit van Gent) over de 'Essays' van Michel de Montaigne.--Steun DNW en word patroon op http://www.petjeaf.com/denieuwewereld.Liever direct overmaken? Maak dan uw gift over naar NL61 RABO 0357 5828 61 t.n.v. Stichting De Nieuwe Wereld. Crypto's doneren kan via https://commerce.coinbase.com/pay/79870e0f-f817-463e-bde7-a5a8cb08c09f-- Bronnen en links bij deze uitzending: - Bestel het boek 'De vrolijke wijsheid' hier: https://www.boom.nl/filosofie/100-459_De-vrolijke-wijsheid-Zoeken-denken-en-leven-met-Michel-de-Montaigne- Bestel de nieuwe editie van de 'Essays' hier (verschijnt op 16 juni '25): https://www.boom.nl/zoeken/100-17644_Essays- Bestel hier het boek van Pierre Hadot: https://www.amboanthos.nl/boek/filosofie-als-een-manier-van-leven/- Een eerder gesprek over Hadot met Pablo Lamberti: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1N2YCmsYkI&t=87s- Bestel 'De rerum natura' hier: https://www.historischeuitgeverij.nl/hu.php?is=4247

durée : 00:24:29 - L'invité de 8h20 : le grand entretien - par : Nicolas Demorand, Léa Salamé - Le Grand Entretien de ce mardi était consacré à une enquête de l'Institut Montaigne sur le rapport des jeunes au travail. Les auteurs Marc Lazar et Yann Algan étaient les invités de France Inter. - invités : Marc Lazar, Yann ALGAN - Marc Lazar : Professeur émérite à Sciences Po et professeur de « Relations franco-italiennes pour l'Europe » à l'Université Luiss de Rome, Yann Algan : Doyen de l'école d'affaires publiques de Sciences Po et professeur d'économie

Die meisten unserer Tätigkeiten sind Possen. Die ganze Welt treibt Schauspielerei. Entnommen aus: Michel de Montaigne "Von der Kunst, das Leben zu lieben", übersetzt, ausgewählt und herausgegeben von Hans Stilett, Eichborn Verlag, Frankfurt 2005

durée : 00:24:29 - L'invité de 8h20 : le grand entretien - par : Nicolas Demorand, Léa Salamé - Le Grand Entretien de ce mardi était consacré à une enquête de l'Institut Montaigne sur le rapport des jeunes au travail. Les auteurs Marc Lazar et Yann Algan étaient les invités de France Inter. - invités : Marc Lazar, Yann ALGAN - Marc Lazar : Professeur émérite à Sciences Po et professeur de « Relations franco-italiennes pour l'Europe » à l'Université Luiss de Rome, Yann Algan : Doyen de l'école d'affaires publiques de Sciences Po et professeur d'économie

En nuestro anterior podcast grabado precisamente el 21 de abril, fecha en la que oficialmente murió el papa Francisco les empezamos a hablar de los constructores de números. No encontramos casual que el papa falleciese exactamente ese dia, ya que no es un día cualquiera. Es el Natalis Romae, el aniversario fundacional de Roma, ciudad que desde hace más de dos mil años ha sido el epicentro del poder político, religioso y simbólico de Occidente. Y precisamente hoy, en esta fecha cargada de ritual y resonancia, muere el Papa Francisco. En plena resurrección de Jesucristo, uno muere y el otro renace. ¿Casualidad? En este podcast, ya sabéis que no creemos en ellas. Hoy, en Buscadores de la Verdad, vamos a descifrar lo que muchos pasarán por alto: la profunda e inquietante importancia del número 8 en la vida, el legado y la muerte del Papa. Francisco fue el primer Papa jesuita, el primero procedente de América, el Papa de la Agenda 2030, de las vacunas, de la simplificación de los rituales. Un Papa atípico. Y, como veremos, un Papa marcado por el 8 desde el principio hasta el final. Nació un 17 de diciembre de 1936. Fallece un 21 de abril de 2025. 88 años y 125 días después. Un doble 8 y un 1+2+5 = 8. El símbolo del infinito. El equilibrio kármico. El reinicio del ciclo. Pero no acaba ahí: convertido en el octavo Papa enterrado en Santa María la Mayor, bajo un escudo papal alterado misteriosamente para exhibir una estrella de ocho puntas, su historia está plagada de estos guiños numéricos que parecen trazados por una mano invisible. En este episodio vamos a hablar de arquitectura oculta, de rituales milenarios, de cómo la elite que gobierna entre bambalinas utiliza los números y los símbolos como herramientas para construir la realidad. Y en este caso, el número 8 aparece como la clave de todo. Porque cuando entiendes el lenguaje oculto de los que mandan, sabes que todo está diseñado. Desde las fechas, hasta los funerales. Desde los escudos hasta los silencios del Vaticano. El 21 de abril, Roma celebra su nacimiento... y el Vaticano entierra a su Papa más simbólico. La era de Francisco se cierra en un ciclo perfecto, sellado con un 8. ¿Qué se abre ahora? ¿Qué nuevo paradigma se está gestando en la sombra? Prácticamente desde el principio de este podcast, en el UTP8 Universo fractal ya tratamos la importancia de los números y como estos crean la realidad que vivimos. Son, como dijimos en el anterior podcast, los ladrillos del universo. Leere unos pasajes de la tesina “Los conjuntos numéricos a través de la historia” de Veronica Valdez: “En el pasado la matemática fue considerada una ciencia relacionada directamente a las cantidades, en relación con las magnitudes (desde la geometria); a los números (desde la aritmética) o a la generalización de los dos (desde el álgebra). Las primeras nociones de número y la acción de contar datan de la prehistoria. La causa que originó el desarrollo de este conocimiento en el hombre primitivo fue su necesidad de proteger sus bienes, la adaptación a los ciclos que la madre naturaleza le imponía le aseguraban su alimentación. El hombre prehistórico plasmó los primeros indicios matemáticos en sus vasijas (dibujos geométricos) y sus primeros sistemas de cálculos se basaron en el uso de los dedos de las manos o la utilización del cuerpo, este método resulta evidente al ver que muchos de los sistemas de numeración son de base 5 o 10.” Fueron los egipcios en el tercer milenio antes de cristo los que desarrollan unas matemáticas más avanzadas llegando a plantear problemas complejos como el calculo de superficies, lo cual era vital para el reparto de la tierra fértil fecundada por las crecidas del Nilo. La tierra se movia y cambiaba ligeramente de aspecto y era imprescindible para que reinase el orden que dicho reparto fuera lo mas ajustado a derecho posible. Luego los romanos mejoraron hasta cierto aspecto el uso de jeroglíficos de los egipcios por simples letras. En ese momento se seguía utilizando todavía el sistema babilónico que consistía en escribir en tablillas de arcilla utilizando un palito en forma de cuña. Una cuña apuntaba hacia abajo y la otro hacia la izquierda. El problema consistia en que era un sistema con solo 60 números, lo cual limitaba mucho el calculo mental. Los babilonios utilizaban, eso si, la forma en que cada dígito tenia un valor disitinto dependiendo de la posición que ocupase. El primer sistema matematico que utilizo al mismo tiempo el principio posicional y el cero fue el sistema de los mayas. “En este sistema 1 kin (sol) representa un día, 20 kines forman un huinal. Como 20 huinales representan 400 días, lo cual es mucho mayor que la duración exacta del año (este sistema fue utilizado para cálculos astronómicos), los mayas llamaron tun a 18 huinales, o 360 días. Excepto por este nivel, el resto del sistema es vigesimal.” “No se tiene conocimiento con exactitud cómo surgió, pero se sabe que fue un sistema de numeración mejorado por los hindúes y los árabes lo llevaron a Europa. De esta forma a las cifras se las llamó árabes debido a su origen, de la misma manera que escribirlas de derecha a izquierda (unidad, decena, centena, etc.) Hacia el año 976 Gerberto Aurillac (futuro Papa) conoce las primeras cifras en España, que ya estaba influenciada por la cultura musulmana, pero su influencia fue limitada. En el siglo XII se conoce las primeras traducciones al latin de las obras de un matemático árabe al- Jwarizmi, de quien se conocen los términos algoritmo y guarismo; de esta forma las cifras árabes comienzan a introducirse en el círculo culto europeo. En el año 1202, Fibonacci publica el "Libro del ábaco" que acopía y amplia las cifras y los procedimientos de cálculo utilizados por los árabes. Durante este siglo se consolidó la aritmética decimal sobre todo en los concerniente a las actividades comerciales. Sin embargo el método árabe y sus ventajas para calcular debieron sortear varios inconvenientes por parte de los calculistas de la época que ante la amenaza de un nuevo método mucho más sencillo, que atentaba supuestamente a su fuente de trabajo, recurrieron a estrategias bajas como hacer correr el rumor que el sistema de cálculo árabe tan sencillo, debía tener algo de magia o un cierto poder demoníaco. Esta acusación fue astutamente utilizada en la época de la Inquisición. Recién a fines del siglo XVI con Montaigne comenzó a abrirse paso nuevamente el sistema de numeración árabe y finalmente se generalizó con la Revolución Francesa. A partir de dicho momento histórico se comenzó a utilizar al 10 como base del sistema métrico decimal.” Con todo este resumen vengo a comentar que el enorme poder de los números estaba en poquísimas manos hasta bien entrado siglo 16 y que para ese entonces muchos de los secretos y la simbología que escondían estos paso a ser solo aprendido en las sectas, en las logias y en las futuras universidades que estaban también creadas por los mismos. LA EDUCACION según Lord Bertrand Russell en su obra "La Perspectiva Científica", 1931, nos dice: "Los jesuitas proporcionan una clase de educación a los niños que han de ser hombres corrientes en el mundo, y otra distinta a áquellos que han de llegar a ser miembros de la Compañía de Jesús. De análoga manera, los gobernantes científicos proporcionarán un género de educación a los hombres y mujeres corrientes, y otro diferente a aquéllos que hayan de ser el poder científico. Los hombres y mujeres corrientes es de esperar que sean dóciles, diligentes, puntuales, de poco pensar y que se sientan satisfechos. Por otro lado, aquellos niños y niñas que estén destinados a ser miembros de la clase gobernante, recibirán una educación muy diferente. Serán seleccionados, algunos antes de nacer, otros durante los primeros tres años de vida, y unos pocos entre los tres y seis años. Toda la ciencia conocida se aplicará al desarrollo simultáneo de su inteligencia y de su voluntad. ….." Y es que para todos la ciencia ha sido creada supuestamente por científicos, ¿no? Uno de los parangones mundiales es la Royal Society fundada el 28 de noviembre de 1660 en Londres. Sus fundadores fueron un grupo de 12 científicos y pensadores, entre los que destacan Christopher Wren, Robert Boyle, John Wilkins y William Petty. Lo que no nos cuentan es que el milenarismo y la cábala estaba en los orígenes de la Royal Society. Pero como escribió Boyle, los científicos, "sacerdotes de la naturaleza", habrían de adquirir, durante el milenio, "un conocimiento mucho mayor del que Adán pudo tener del maravilloso universo de Dios". Esta afirmación supone que, en la expectativa de Boyle, la ciencia permitiría alcanzar un estadio más avanzado que el presupuesto por la condición adánica, y acceder, en cierto modo, a la condición divina. Con palabras de la serpiente a Eva, ya había asegurado Bacon en la Nueva Atlántida que algún día los hombres serían como dioses, y ésta habría de ser, decía Lewis Mumford, "la meta final no declarada de la ciencia moderna”. (Noble 1999, pág 88). Dentro de la UNED (la universidad a distancia en España) podemos leer un texto titulado “LA ROYAL SOCIETY Y LA MASONERÍA” que dice asi: “La Royal Society se origina cuando doce hombres cultivados adoptaron la costumbre, poco después de 1640, de reunirse esporádicamente en Londres para conversar y discutir en la residencia de uno de ellos o bien en una taberna próxima al Gresham College. Al poco tiempo, bajo patrocinio del monarca, decidieron crear una asociación para el estudio de los mecanismos de la naturaleza. Para asegurarse de que los dogmas no fueran un obstáculo, desterraron de sus asambleas toda discusión de tintes religiosos y políticos. Y eso a pesar de que los doce fundadores diferían tanto en cuestiones políticas y religiosas, como en experiencia científica y rango social. Entre los nombres de los primeros miembros de la Royal Society se encuentran científicos que dieron nombre a sus descubrimientos; así, la Ley de Hooke, la Ley de Boyle, la construcción de Huygens, las leyes de Newton, el movimiento browniano, y esto sin contar a científicos de menor talla como Christopher Wren, John Eveyn, John Wilkins, Elias Ashmole, John Flamsteed o Edmund Halley. Sin embargo, los hombres que fundaron esta Sociedad no sólo fueron los primeros científicos, sino, al mismo tiempo, los últimos "magos". De hecho, Ashmole pertenecía a una sociedad de rosacruces y practicaba la astrología, Newton estudió y escribió acerca de los conceptos alquímicos de los rosacruces, y Hooke llevó a cabo experimentos con arañas y cuernos de unicornio.” Mucho antes John Dee, el asesor de la reina Isabel I de Inglaterra aunque no participó directamente en la creación de la Royal Society, su legado como defensor de las matemáticas, la navegación y el conocimiento empírico influyó en el ambiente intelectual que dio lugar a esta institución. Su reputación como "mago" y las acusaciones de nigromancia reflejan la percepción de sus prácticas herméticas y adivinatorias, que, aunque controvertidas, eran parte de su búsqueda de conocimiento universal. Recordemos que hoy dia podemos ver en el museo de Londres su piedra de obsidiana negra donde el mismo reconocía que veía a seres de otro mundo con los que decia comunicarse. Dee creo el alfabeto enoquiano, también conocido como el "lenguaje angélico" o "alfabeto mágico" desarrollado por Dee y su colaborador Edward Kelley durante sus sesiones de videncia (scrying) en la década de 1580. Mientras Isabel I valoraba a Dee como consejero (eligió la fecha de su coronación en 1559 basándose en sus cálculos astrológicos), otros lo veían como un charlatán peligroso. Su casa fue saqueada tras su partida a Europa en 1583, y bajo Jacobo I, enemigo de la brujería, Dee perdió ese trato de favor. Su imagen como "mago" inspiró personajes como Próspero en La Tempestad de Shakespeare y perduró en la cultura popular, como en la ópera de Damon Albarn o la canción de Iron Maiden “El Alquimista”. Termino esta entradilla con otro texto de Lord Bertrand Russell extraído de su obra, "El Impacto de la Ciencia en la Sociedad", 1951: "Aunque esta ciencia será estudiada con diligencia, deberá reservarse estrictamente a la clase gobernante. Al populacho no habrá de permitírsele saber cómo fueron generadas sus convicciones. Una vez perfeccionada la técnica, cada gobierno que haya estado a cargo de la educación por una generación, podrá controlar a sus sujetos de forma segura, sin la necesidad de recurrir a ejércitos ni policías. Actualmente, la población del mundo crece a razón de unos 58.000 individuos por día. La guerra, hasta ahora, no ha tenido un gran efecto en este crecimiento, que continuó a lo largo de cada una de las dos guerras mundiales... La guerra hasta la fecha ha sido decepcionante al respecto... pero quizás la guerra bacteriológica resultare más efectiva. Si una peste negra se propagare una vez en cada generación, los sobrevivientes podrían procrear libremente sin llenar al mundo demasiado... La situación seguramente sería poco placentera, pero, ¿qué importa?" ………………………………………………………………………………………. Imagina por un momento que entras en una antigua ciudad del sur de Italia, hace más de dos mil quinientos años. Calles de piedra, templos consagrados a dioses griegos... y una puerta. Una puerta modesta, sin adornos ostentosos, pero con una inscripción grabada con precisión geométrica: "No entre aquí quien no sepa geometría”. Estás ante la escuela de los pitagóricos, una de las sociedades más enigmáticas de la historia antigua. Fundada por Pitágoras de Samos, no era solo una escuela de matemáticas, como a veces se enseña en las aulas. Era una hermandad. Una especie de secta del conocimiento, donde los números eran algo más que herramientas: eran divinidades, principios cósmicos, claves para entender el alma del universo. Los pitagóricos creían que todo en la naturaleza —el movimiento de los astros, los ciclos vitales, incluso la música— respondía a proporciones numéricas. El número uno simbolizaba la unidad, el origen. El dos, la dualidad, lo femenino. El tres, la perfección. El cuatro, la justicia. Y el diez... el número perfecto, resultado de sumar 1+2+3+4. Un número sagrado. Este triángulo tiene cuatro filas y, si las cuentas todas, suma diez puntos. Ese número —el 10— era considerado el número perfecto por los pitagóricos, porque resultaba de la suma de los cuatro primeros números naturales: 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 10 Pero esto no era solo una curiosidad matemática. Cada número tenía un significado simbólico y cosmológico: 1 representaba la unidad, el origen, el punto de partida de toda existencia. 2 simbolizaba la dualidad: luz y oscuridad, masculino y femenino, arriba y abajo. 3 era la tríada perfecta, el equilibrio entre los opuestos (principio muy común también en filosofías orientales). 4 simbolizaba la estabilidad, los cuatro elementos (tierra, agua, aire y fuego), las cuatro estaciones, los puntos cardinales. Así, la Tetraktys se convertía en un resumen místico del universo: todo lo que existe puede explicarse a través de esta progresión sagrada. No era un simple dibujo. Los pitagóricos juraban sobre la Tetraktys, como otros juran sobre la Biblia o una constitución. Su fórmula era: "Juro por el que entregó a nuestra alma la Tetraktys, fuente que contiene en sí la raíz y fuente de la eterna naturaleza." ¿Lo notas? No están hablando solo de matemáticas. Están hablando de la naturaleza eterna, de algo fundamental que estructura el cosmos. Este juramento era una especie de sacramento, una alianza con la armonía universal. Utilizaban símbolos que aún hoy reconocemos. La estrella pentagonal, también conocida como pentagrama, era para ellos un emblema de perfección y salud. Cada ángulo de la estrella formaba la razón áurea, ese número casi mágico que sigue apareciendo en la naturaleza, en la arquitectura, en el arte… y, para algunos, incluso en el diseño de logotipos de poderosas organizaciones contemporáneas. Y aquí es donde la cosa se pone interesante. Los pitagóricos dividían a sus miembros en dos categorías: los akusmáticos, que solo escuchaban y obedecían sin cuestionar, y los matemáticos, que accedían a las enseñanzas ocultas. Este modelo jerárquico, basado en el secreto y la iniciación progresiva, suena familiar. Muy familiar. ¿A qué otras organizaciones te recuerda? Algunas sociedades secretas modernas —como ciertas logias masónicas— han heredado no solo la estructura iniciática, sino también muchos símbolos y conceptos pitagóricos. La estrella de cinco puntas, el ojo que todo lo ve, el uso de números y proporciones sagradas, la idea de que el verdadero conocimiento no debe estar al alcance de todos, sino reservado para una élite que lo custodia. La Tetraktys no desapareció con la caída de los pitagóricos. Su simbolismo se filtró a través de corrientes esotéricas posteriores. Por ejemplo: En la Cábala judía, el Árbol de la Vida también parte de una estructura numérica y jerárquica del universo. En la masonería, aunque no se usa directamente la Tetraktys, la idea del triángulo sagrado, la progresión simbólica del número y la veneración de la geometría sagrada están muy presentes. En el hermetismo y el neoplatonismo, se reutiliza el simbolismo pitagórico para hablar de los planos de existencia, del alma y del conocimiento secreto. Incluso en el mundo moderno, algunos investigadores creen que ciertos símbolos corporativos y arquitectónicos siguen patrones de proporción y estructura que tienen su origen, directa o indirectamente, en la Tetraktys. La Tetraktys no era un dibujo bonito. Era una clave esotérica. Un mandala numérico. Una representación del orden invisible que rige el universo. Para los pitagóricos, entenderla era un paso hacia la iluminación intelectual y espiritual. Y ahora, volvamos a los números. Porque hay una historia que suele pasar desapercibida en los libros de texto... Se cuenta que los pitagóricos sabían más de lo que enseñaban. Por ejemplo, que ocultaron deliberadamente conceptos como los números negativos. ¿Por qué? Porque esos números, que hoy usamos sin pensar, eran perturbadores. ¿Cómo podía existir algo menos que nada? ¿Cómo explicar al pueblo llano la idea de restar una cantidad mayor a una menor y obtener un resultado real, aunque invisible? La respuesta fue simple: lo escondieron. Evitaron esas operaciones, redefinieron los problemas, o simplemente los consideraron imposibles. Para ellos, un universo perfecto no podía contener números "erróneos", "oscuros" o "negativos". Así de poderosa era su creencia en la armonía matemática del mundo. Y ahora piensa en esto: ¿cuántas cosas damos hoy por verdaderas sin entenderlas? ¿Cuántas ideas nos han sido negadas por parecer “imposibles”? La sombra de los pitagóricos es alargada. Y si miras con atención, quizá todavía la veas en las instituciones que dirigen el conocimiento, en los rituales simbólicos que acompañan actos de poder, o incluso… en las matemáticas que se enseñan en nuestras escuelas. Porque como decía otro sabio antiguo: la ignorancia no es falta de información, sino la imposición del silencio. ………………………………………………………………………………………. Los terrenos donde se construyó Washington, D.C., eran parte de una zona conocida como "Rome" (Roma) antes de que se estableciera la capital de Estados Unidos. Este nombre se debe a que, en el siglo XVII, un terrateniente llamado Francis Pope, quien era propietario de una parcela en la zona, nombró su propiedad "Rome" en un guiño humorístico a la ciudad de Roma, Italia, y al río Tíber, comparándolo con el río Anacostia o el Potomac. Incluso se dice que Pope se autoproclamó "Papa de Roma" en tono jocoso. Cuando se decidió construir la nueva capital federal en 1790, los terrenos de "Rome" fueron parte de las tierras cedidas por Maryland para crear el Distrito de Columbia. Sin embargo, el nombre "Rome" cayó en desuso con el desarrollo de la ciudad planificada por Pierre Charles L'Enfant y la adopción del nombre "Washington" en honor a George Washington. El hombre que recibió el encargo de diseñar la nueva capital de Estados Unidos en 1791 fue Pierre Charles L’Enfant, un arquitecto y urbanista nacido en Francia que había luchado en la Guerra de Independencia estadounidense junto a George Washington. Era un apasionado de la arquitectura monumental y tenía una visión muy clara: la ciudad debía ser una representación del nuevo orden del mundo. Aunque no hay registros definitivos que lo identifiquen como masón —al contrario que muchos de sus contemporáneos como George Washington, Benjamin Franklin o Thomas Jefferson—, su diseño está repleto de símbolos que son clave en la tradición masónica y pitagórica. Esto ha llevado a muchos estudiosos a pensar que, si no era miembro formal de la masonería, al menos estaba fuertemente influenciado por ella. Cuando observamos desde el aire (o en un plano detallado) el trazado urbano de Washington D.C., comienzan a aparecer formas geométricas muy específicas que nos indican el uso de la geometría sagrada en el plano de la ciudad: La estrella de cinco puntas Una de las figuras más debatidas del diseño de Washington es la estrella pentagonal (el pentagrama), que muchos dicen puede verse trazando líneas entre la Casa Blanca, el Capitolio, y varios otros puntos clave como el Washington Monument y el Jefferson Memorial. El pentagrama es un símbolo ancestral que los pitagóricos veneraban como representación del equilibrio, la salud y la proporción áurea. Los masones lo heredaron y lo usan como símbolo del hombre perfecto, microcosmos del universo. La escuadra y el compás Estos dos instrumentos, esenciales en la arquitectura, son símbolos masónicos por excelencia. La escuadra representa la rectitud moral y el compás, los límites que uno debe imponer a sus pasiones. En el plano de Washington, las avenidas diagonales que cruzan la cuadrícula ortogonal tradicional parecen estar trazadas con escuadra y compás. Por ejemplo, Pensylvania Avenue y Maryland Avenue se cruzan formando ángulos casi rituales, como si fuesen dibujadas con instrumentos de aprendiz de logia. El triángulo y la Tetraktys Al unir algunos de los puntos clave de la ciudad se forman triángulos equiláteros y escaleno, que recuerdan tanto a la Tetraktys pitagórica como al Delta radiante masónico, el triángulo con el ojo que todo lo ve en su interior. Washington D.C. no fue construida al azar. Su disposición recuerda más a la de un templo iniciático que a la de una ciudad práctica. Cada monumento, cada calle y cada eje visual parece tener una función simbólica. La ciudad se convierte así en un espacio ritualizado, diseñado para canalizar no solo el poder político, sino el espiritual. Esto concuerda con la visión de muchos de los Padres Fundadores, que eran masones y creían en una forma de deísmo ilustrado, donde Dios no era el dios de una religión concreta, sino el Gran Arquitecto del Universo, la divinidad racional que había creado el cosmos a través de leyes matemáticas y geométricas. Hay quienes consideran todas estas conexiones como meras coincidencias. Pero otros —historiadores, ocultistas, arquitectos, e incluso funcionarios del propio Capitolio— han reconocido que la influencia masónica en el diseño de Washington D.C. no puede negarse. George Washington, masón de alto grado, puso la primera piedra del Capitolio en una ceremonia masónica el 18 de septiembre de 1793, vistiendo su delantal de logia. La colocación de monumentos, obeliscos (como el del Washington Monument) y referencias astrológicas refuerzan la idea de que la ciudad está alineada no solo con principios políticos, sino con principios cósmicos. Washington sigue siendo una ciudad codificada. Muchos de sus símbolos están a la vista, pero pocos los reconocen. El diseño original de L’Enfant fue alterado con el tiempo, sí, pero los patrones geométricos centrales permanecen. Y algunos sostienen que el espíritu de los antiguos pitagóricos, con su amor por los números sagrados y la geometría divina, vive hoy en las estructuras de poder moderno… solo que oculto entre calles, columnas y monumentos. ………………………………………………………………………………………. Bueno y me despido con algunas de mis ultimas Frases_UTP, ya saben, esas perlas que voy soltando de vez en cuando y que tienen agrupadas en Twitter bajo ese hastag: “Somos jockeys ocasionales de almas inmanentes, montando a galope los corceles efímeros de nuestra existencia terrenal, en un fugaz viaje donde el viento del tiempo susurra nuestra impermanencia y la tierra guarda el eco de nuestras huellas pasajeras." “Tanto el sabio como el ignorante pueden tomar malas decisiones, pero solo el ignorante no admite haberlas tomado.” “Si trabajas el presente nunca sentirás vergüenza por el pasado y te sentirás orgulloso en el futuro.” ………………………………………………………………………………………. Conductor del programa UTP Ramón Valero @tecn_preocupado Un técnico Preocupado un FP2 IVOOX UTP http://cutt.ly/dzhhGrf BLOG http://cutt.ly/dzhh2LX Ayúdame desde mi Crowfunding aquí https://cutt.ly/W0DsPVq Invitados Dra Yane #JusticiaParaUTP @ayec98_2 Médico y Buscadora de la verdad. Con Dios siempre! No permito q me dividan c/izq -derecha, raza, religión ni nada de la Creación. https://youtu.be/TXEEZUYd4c0 …. soros triplehijueputa @soroshijueputa2 En contra de un sistema corrupto al servicio de la élite globalista …. José Antonio @jasava7 Mensajero de la Nueva Era. Librepensador y escritor. Ciudadano del Mundo. Derecho Natural. DDHH. Paz, equidad y fraternidad. Jinete en lucha por un Mundo Mejor. …. SirGalahad @Sirgalahad79 Mi honor se llama lealtad. …. LaJessi @LaJessibot Donde hay bromas hay verdades | Qué no te engañen la pena es la novia del pene #NoTeRaye #TweetStar Filósofa del barrio #CBD No me llames cani o #tekillyulabida …. Ernesto @Ernesto22596980 A mi me paga Putin EXPEDIENTE ROYUELA …. Luz Madeleine Munayco @lecabel8 ………………………………………………………………………………………. Enlaces citados en el podcast: AYUDA A TRAVÉS DE LA COMPRA DE MIS LIBROS https://tecnicopreocupado.com/2024/11/16/ayuda-a-traves-de-la-compra-de-mis-libros/ UTP8 Universo fractal https://www.ivoox.com/utp8-universo-fractal-audios-mp3_rf_9991951_1.html El Papa y Roma… https://x.com/ElHiloRojoTV/status/1914235914999521647 Hilo sobre el papa https://x.com/tecn_preocupado/status/1914770003712467453 Féretro de papa Francisco como bandera de España https://x.com/ayec98_2/status/1915421017083711970 Capilla ardiente papa Francisco como sexo femenino https://x.com/ayec98_2/status/1915173455655215303 UTP268 Matematicas Vorticiales: Explorando el Tejido del Universo https://www.ivoox.com/utp268-matematicas-vorticiales-explorando-tejido-del-universo-audios-mp3_rf_121126662_1.html UTP272 Matemáticas Vorticiales: los vórtices de la vida https://www.ivoox.com/utp272-matematicas-vorticiales-vortices-vida-audios-mp3_rf_122197421_1.html ………………………………………………………………………………………. Música utilizada en este podcast: Tema inicial Heros ………………………………………………………………………………………. Epílogo ÚRSULA - AGUA DE LIMÓN https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKfs8GIorhc

"Dies ist ein aufrichtiges Buch, Leser [...] Ich habe es dem persönlichen Gebrauch meiner Freunde und Angehörigen gewidmet [...]" Montaigne, am ersten März 1580. Dieses Zitat stellt Max Frisch seiner Erzählung "Montauk" voran. Während einer Lesereise lernt der Schriftsteller in New York die halb so alte Verlagsangestellte Lynn kennen. Sie verbringen ein Wochenende im Mai 1974 in Montauk, an der Nordspitze von Long Island. Doch ist ihnen beiden von Anfang an klar, dass er am darauf folgenden Dienstag zurück nach Europa fliegen wird, um dort seinen 63. Geburtstag zu feiern. Nach der gleichnamigen Erzählung von Max Frisch Ergänzt durch Briefe von Uwe Johnson, Marianne Frisch und Max Frisch Hörspielbearbeitung und Regie: Leonhard Koppelmann Mit: Ueli Jäggi, Monica Gillette, Thomas Sarbacher, Susanne-Marie Wrage u. a. Musik: Fritz Hauser SWR/DRS 2011

This week, reflections on Michel de Montaigne's perception of his changing character throughout his life.---Click here to support the Wednesday Blog: https://www.patreon.com/sthosdkane

Aloneness is forced, solitude is a choice. Loneliness forces me unwillingly to be with myself. But solitude, as the great Montaigne said, gives me a chance to know how to belong to myself. A mental stand - and an entire outlook changes.   But, of course, it is not so simple!   Ironically in our worlds, we have to forcefully claim our aloneness, often to fight for it. It is antithetical, nay, antisocial, to voluntarily eschew company, and be alone. In its own way, it's a rejection of social norms, company, to say that 'hey I prefer myself to you.' We are all meant to be social animals, and nothing should deviate from that. If you seek droplets of solitude - that is acceptable. We need 'me-time'. That's hip. It's new age, recommended.   But to deliberately and pointedly eschew company - to travel alone, to go to a film on one's own, to decline an invitation to a party for no reason whatsoever - is anathema, non-understandable, hence, well, 'unacceptable'!   Because nobody can understand solitude.    How can I explain its texture, its ability to embrace like a warm comforting room, to give the feeling of teetering on the edge and of being held at the same time, of getting the feeling of being with a stranger you know well, of discovering the undefinable in the person who's definition you thought you had down pat, of having the full force of freedom with oneself and of pulling oneself back all the time, of being excited because you've just said yes to something which all company would have abhorred.   And one discovers what the great Soraya once said - "Sometimes being surrounded by everyone is the loneliest, because you'll realize you have no one to turn to.”   If you liked this poem, consider listening to these other poems on the loneliness -  Sometimes We Remember So Hard I Can Sense Her Loneliness The Art of the Lonely Good Deed Follow me on Instagram at @sunilgivesup. Get in touch with me on uncutpoetrynow@gmail.com   The details of the music used in this episode are as follows - Time Is Now by Sascha Ende Colossus by Sascha Ende Link: https://filmmusic.io/en/song/Time-Is-Now Link: https://filmmusic.io/en/song/Colossus Licence:  https://filmmusic.io/standard-license

Nous sommes le 1er mars 1580. Date des premières impressions, à Bordeaux, des « Essais », œuvre majeure de Michel de Montaigne. Elle traite de sujets divers et variés : médecine, arts, affaires domestiques, histoire ancienne, chevaux, entre autres, auxquels l'auteur mêle des réflexions sur sa propre vie et sur le genre humain. Montaigne s'observe. Ainsi, il écrit : « Moi qui m'épie de plus près, qui ai les yeux incessamment tendus sur moi, comme celui qui n'a pas fort à faire ailleurs, [...] à peine oserai-je dire la vanité et la faiblesse que je trouve chez moi.» Plus loin, il ajoute : « Les auteurs se communiquent au peuple par quelque marque particulière et étrangère ; moi le premier par mon être universel, comme Michel de Montaigne, non comme grammairien ou poète ou jurisconsulte. » Enfin : « Toute gloire que je prétends de ma vie, c'est de l'avoir vécue tranquille : tranquille non selon Métrodore, ou Arcésilas, ou Aristippe, mais selon moi. Puisque la philosophie n'a su trouver aucune voie pour la tranquillité qui fût bonne en commun, que chacun la cherche en son particulier ». Le philosophe humaniste de la Renaissance a-t-il des choses à nous dire, aujourd'hui ? Lui qui s'est attaché à démontrer la faiblesse de la raison humaine et à fonder l'art de vivre sur une sagesse prudente, faite de bon sens et de tolérance. Revenons à Montaigne … Avec les Lumières de : Jean-Michel Delacomptée. « Grandeur de l'esprit français – Dix portraits d'Ambroise Paré à Saint-Simon » ; éd. Le Cherche Midi Sujets traités : Michel de Montaigne, essais, oeuvre, philosophie, renaissance, sagesse Merci pour votre écoute Un Jour dans l'Histoire, c'est également en direct tous les jours de la semaine de 13h15 à 14h30 sur www.rtbf.be/lapremiere Retrouvez tous les épisodes d'Un Jour dans l'Histoire sur notre plateforme Auvio.be :https://auvio.rtbf.be/emission/5936 Intéressés par l'histoire ? Vous pourriez également aimer nos autres podcasts : L'Histoire Continue: https://audmns.com/kSbpELwL'heure H : https://audmns.com/YagLLiKEt sa version à écouter en famille : La Mini Heure H https://audmns.com/YagLLiKAinsi que nos séries historiques :Chili, le Pays de mes Histoires : https://audmns.com/XHbnevhD-Day : https://audmns.com/JWRdPYIJoséphine Baker : https://audmns.com/wCfhoEwLa folle histoire de l'aviation : https://audmns.com/xAWjyWCLes Jeux Olympiques, l'étonnant miroir de notre Histoire : https://audmns.com/ZEIihzZMarguerite, la Voix d'une Résistante : https://audmns.com/zFDehnENapoléon, le crépuscule de l'Aigle : https://audmns.com/DcdnIUnUn Jour dans le Sport : https://audmns.com/xXlkHMHSous le sable des Pyramides : https://audmns.com/rXfVppvN'oubliez pas de vous y abonner pour ne rien manquer.Et si vous avez apprécié ce podcast, n'hésitez pas à nous donner des étoiles ou des commentaires, cela nous aide à le faire connaître plus largement. Distribué par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

This is a teaser preview of one of our Fireside Chat episodes, made exclusively for our supporters on Patreon. You can listen to the full 65-minute episode without ads and support our work at https://www.patreon.com/posts/e102-fireside-124623473The date this episode aired, March 19, Luigi Mangione was scheduled to have his first court hearing on federal death penalty charges, accused of assassinating healthcare CEO Brian Thompson.So we sat down for a Fireside Chat about the case, about the US healthcare system, about Mangione and his past, about media and public reactions to the killing, and about historical parallels and differences with past assassinations.Our podcast is brought to you by our Patreon supporters. Our supporters fund our work, and in return get exclusive early access to podcast episodes, ad-free episodes, bonus episodes, free and discounted merchandise and other content. Join us or find out more at patreon.com/workingclasshistoryAcknowledgementsThanks to our patreon supporters for making this podcast possible. Special thanks to Jazz Hands, Jamison D. Saltsman, Fernando López Ojeda, and Old Norm.Edited by Jesse FrenchOur theme tune is Montaigne's version of the classic labour movement anthem, ‘Bread and Roses', performed by Montaigne and Nick Harriott, and mixed by Wave Racer. Download the song here, with all proceeds going to Medical Aid for Palestinians. More from Montaigne: website, Instagram, YouTube.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/working-class-history--5711490/support.

MONTAIGNE IS GOING TO DIEPop royalty, twitcher, songwriter, activist, artist. Montaigne released their first album, Glorious Heights, in 2016 and won Breakthrough Artist in the ARIA awards that same year. Their third album, Making It! ‘explored relationships, death, the universe and the anxieties of modern life' and their latest music - self-produced after liberating themselves from corporate management - goes deep into family trauma and survival. Montaigne has been open about both their creative practice and their mental health over the years - so what does this free-thinking, articulate maker have planned for their own Dream Funeral?Instagram (IG @ActualMontaigne)Patreon.com/MontaigneMarieke Hardy Is Going To Die is a podcast made by Marieke Hardy (IG @marieke_hardy).You can follow at IG @GoingToDiePodMusic by Lord Fascinator (IG @lordfascinator)Produced by Darren Scarce (IG @Dazz26)Video edits by Andy Nedelkovski (IG @AndyNeds)Artwork by Lauren Egan (IG @heylaurenegan)Photography by Eamon Leggett (IG @anxietyoptions)With thanks to Amelia Chappelow (IG @ameliachappelow)Camilla McKewen (IG @CamillaLucyLucy)and Rhys Graham (IG @RhysJGraham)Drop an email to mariekehardyisgoingtodie@gmail.comWhilst acknowledging the privilege that comes with having the space to discuss death and mortality, we want to also recognise that discussing these topics can raise some wounds. Should you wish to seek extra support, please consider the following resources:https://www.healthline.com/health/mental-health/online-grief-support-groupshttps://www.grief.org.au/ga/ga/Support/Support_Groups.aspxhttps://www.headspace.com/meditation/griefhttps://www.mindful.org/a-10-minute-guided-meditation-for-working-with-grief/https://griefline.org.au/get-help/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This lecture discusses key ideas from the Renaissance-era philosopher, critic, and essayist Michel De Montaigne's work Essays, specifically his essay On Affectionate Relationships It focuses upon his discussion of friendship, in which he distinguishes between the fullest sort of friendship, which involves an interpenetration of wills and which is valued for its own sake, and the more common sorts of friendship which are less lasting, don't involve the whole person, and are for the sake of some other goal To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 3,000 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler You can find Montaigne's Essays here - https://amzn.to/4l3iKfH

This lecture discusses key ideas from the Renaissance-era philosopher, critic, and essayist Michel De Montaigne's work Essays, specifically his essay On Affectionate Relationships It focuses upon several different types of relationships that are oriented around sexual desire and enjoyment, including romantic and sexual involvements between men and women, marriages, and male-male relationships in ancient Greece. To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 3,000 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler You can find Montaigne's Essays here - https://amzn.to/4l3iKfH

This lecture discusses key ideas from the Renaissance-era philosopher, critic, and essayist Michel De Montaigne's work Essays, specifically his essay On Three Kinds Of Social Intercourse It focuses upon the three kinds of interactions that Montaigne enjoys the most, which are conversations with good friends, engagements with attractive and intelligent women, and reading the thoughts of authors in books. To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 3,000 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler You can find Montaigne's Essays here - https://amzn.to/4l3iKfH

This lecture discusses key ideas from the Renaissance-era philosopher, critic, and essayist Michel De Montaigne's work Essays, specifically his essay On Affectionate Relationships It focuses upon the range of various relationships in which people exhibit affection towards each other that are discussed in this essay. Montaigne devotes a significant part of the work to discussing friendship, both the rare full type of friendship and the common sorts of friendship. He also discusses erotic or romantic relationships between men and women, marriages, and the male-male sexual relationships of ancient Greece. There are also familial relationships, which would fall under what he calls natural relationships. He also mentions social and hospitable relationships as well To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 3,000 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler You can find Montaigne's Essays here - https://amzn.to/4l3iKfH

This lecture discusses key ideas from the Renaissance-era philosopher, critic, and essayist Michel De Montaigne's work Essays, specifically his essay On Cato The Younger It focuses upon that Stoic statesman and philosopher, Cato, who fought in the Civil War against Julius Caesar and killed himself rather than accept Caesar's offered amnesty. While discussing him, Montaigne makes some important points about not judging the capacities of other people by reference to our own, or thinking that because our times are particularly badly off with respect to virtue, that all times and cultures are. To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 3,000 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler You can find Montaigne's Essays here - https://amzn.to/4l3iKfH

This lecture discusses key ideas from the Renaissance-era philosopher, critic, and essayist Michel De Montaigne's work Essays, specifically his essay On Liars (Des Menteurs) It focuses upon the distinction between lying and telling falsehoods, why lying is a particularly bad vice, how to catch liars, and why people who want to lie need good memories To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 3,000 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler You can find Montaigne's Essays here - https://amzn.to/4l3iKfH

The director Steven Soderbergh has just released his second film of 2025: the spy thriller "Black Bag," starring Michael Fassbender and Cate Blanchett. In January 2024, Soderbergh spoke with host Gilbert Cruz about some of the more than 80 books that he read in the previous year. (This episode is a rerun.)Books discussed:"How to Live: A Life of Montaigne," by Sarah Bakewell"Stanley Kubrick's 'The Shining,'" by Lee Unkrich and J.W. Rinzler"Cocktails with George and Martha," by Philip GefterThe work of Donald E. Westlake"Americanah," by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie"Pictures From an Institution," by Randall Jarrell"Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will," by Robert M. Sapolsky Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

This lecture discusses key ideas from the Renaissance-era philosopher, critic, and essayist Michel De Montaigne's work Essays, specifically his essay On The Inconstancy Of Our Actions It focuses upon his discussion of whether people really do have the fixed character many like to attribute to them or not, and advocates looking at a person's actions over time to determine what sort of person they are. Montaigne also provides some explanation for why and how we human beings often seem at variance with ourselves. To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 3,000 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler You can find Montaigne's Essays here - https://amzn.to/4l3iKfH

Etienne de la Boetie² is the pen name of a voluntaryist author, father, technology entrepreneur, runner, hot yogi, multi-disciplinarian truther, arm chair economist, cryptocurrency enthusiast and neo-abolitionist who is experimenting with large-scale cult deprogramming. All is explained in his very readable and well-illustrated bestseller “Government” - the Biggest Scam in History. The original Etienne, a friend of 16th century French essayist de Montaigne, wrote the political treatise Discourse on Voluntary Servitude and was one of the first modern advocates of civil disobedience and anti-statism. His 21st century successor was born in Texas, his real name is Howard and is similarly unenthusiastic about government, all government, which he believes to be an intergenerational organised crime syndicate. https://artofliberty.org ↓ If you need silver and gold bullion - and who wouldn't in these dark times? - then the place to go is The Pure Gold Company. Either they can deliver worldwide to your door - or store it for you in vaults in London and Zurich. You even use it for your pension. Cash out of gold whenever you like: liquidate within 24 hours. https://bit.ly/James-Delingpole-Gold ↓ ↓ How environmentalists are killing the planet, destroying the economy and stealing your children's future. In Watermelons, an updated edition of his ground-breaking 2011 book, JD tells the shocking true story of how a handful of political activists, green campaigners, voodoo scientists and psychopathic billionaires teamed up to invent a fake crisis called ‘global warming'. This updated edition includes two new chapters which, like a geo-engineered flood, pour cold water on some of the original's sunny optimism and provide new insights into the diabolical nature of the climate alarmists' sinister master plan. Purchase Watermelons (2024) by James Delingpole here: https://jamesdelingpole.co.uk/Shop/Products/Watermelons-2024.html ↓ ↓ ↓ Buy James a Coffee at: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jamesdelingpole The official website of James Delingpole: https://jamesdelingpole.co.uk x

This lecture discusses key ideas from the Renaissance-era philosopher, critic, and essayist Michel De Montaigne's work Essays, specifically his essay On Anger It focuses upon his views on this emotion, partly drawn from other thinkers like Seneca and Plutarch. First Montaigne discusses children and other vulnerable people who suffer from cruel and violent punishments doled out in anger. He then discusses how anger tends to deform our judgements, leading angry people to dig in and get angry with truth or innocence itself. He also discusses the example Plutarch himself provides of imposing punishment when needed but not doing so out of anger To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 3,000 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler You can find Montaigne's Essays here - https://amzn.to/4l3iKfH

This lecture discusses key ideas from the Renaissance-era philosopher, critic, and essayist Michel De Montaigne's work Essays, specifically his essay On Habit It focuses upon how habit or custom has much more impact upon our lives than we often give it credit for, supplanting rules of nature, altering our perceptions, giving rise to judgements and opinions, and resisting our reasonings. To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 3,000 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler You can find Montaigne's Essays here - https://amzn.to/4l3iKfH

This lecture discusses key ideas from the Renaissance-era philosopher, critic, and essayist Michel De Montaigne's work Essays, specifically his essay On Habit It focuses upon the second topic of the essay, and Montaigne provides a number of reasons for being very leery about changing traditional laws and arrangements within society, spurred not least by the civil discord that developed in France during his lifetime. To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 3,000 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler You can find Montaigne's Essays here - https://amzn.to/4l3iKfH

00:00 9. Тертулиан 13:14 10. Климент Александрийский 35:28 11. Порфирий 1:26:30 12. Златоуст 1:50:31 13. Корнаро (Cornaro) 2:17:02 14. Томас Мор (Sir Thomas More) 2:33:52 15. Монтень (Montaigne) 2:56:52 16. Лессио (Lessio) 3:07:31 17. Гассенди (Gassendi) 3:28:08 18. Франсиск Бэкон (Francis Bacon) 3:31:54 19. Рэй (Ray) 3:36:51 20. Коулэй (Cowley) 3:39:23 21. Эвелин (Evelyn) 3:51:16 22. Мильтон (Milton) 3:56:39 23. Боссюэт (Bossuet) 4:00:34 24. Трайон (Tryon) 4:27:03 25. Эке (Hecquet) 4:42:09 26. Бернар Де Мондевиль (Bernard de Mandeville) 4:51:05 27. Гэй (Gay) 5:11:07 28. Чайн (Cheyne) 5:44:49 29. Поуп (Pope) 6:18:34 30. Томпсон (Thomson) 6:36:01 31. Гартлэй (Hartley) 6:39:35 32. Честерфильд (Chesterfield) 6:51:42 33. Вольтер (Voltaire) ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀

This lecture discusses key ideas from the Renaissance-era philosopher, critic, and essayist Michel De Montaigne's work Essays, specifically his essay On Moderation It focuses upon Montaigne's claim that we human beings can treat even virtue and justice immoderately, when we go too far with it and lose a sense of proportion. He also advocates that we ought to be moderate in our indulgence in sexual pleasure in marriage, and notes that people use all sorts of painful remedies to keep pleasure in check, when we would be better off just behaving in a moderate and temperate manner To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 3,000 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler You can find Montaigne's Essays here - https://amzn.to/4l3iKfH

This lecture discusses key ideas from the Renaissance-era philosopher, critic, and essayist Michel De Montaigne's work Essays, specifically his essay How We Weep And Laugh At The Same Thing It focuses upon the inconsistency of emotions we witness in a number of different people (including Montaigne himself), which should keep us from ascribing a fixed an immutable character to them. Montaigne explains that this has two sources, one within us, as we have a number of different emotions at any given time, though one dominates. The other source is that reality is complex and as we change our perspective, changes in emotional response can also take place To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 3,000 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler You can find Montaigne's Essays here - https://amzn.to/4l3iKfH

This lecture discusses key ideas from the Renaissance-era philosopher, critic, and essayist Michel De Montaigne's work Essays, specifically his essay To Philosophise Is To Learn To Die It focuses upon his examination of pleasure as a motivation for human choices, commitments, and actions. Montaigne argues that rightly understood, there is a better and higher form of pleasure than simple base pleasure, and that this is something that we ought to feel when we develop and practice the virtues To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 3,000 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler You can find Montaigne's Essays here - https://amzn.to/4l3iKfH

Andrés Amorós habla de los Ensayos. (Antología) de Michel de Montaigne.

This lecture discusses key ideas from the Renaissance-era philosopher, critic, and essayist Michel De Montaigne's work Essays, specifically his essay Same Design, Different Outcomes It focuses upon his views that much of our lives are subject to fortune, so that events or consequences can go differently than our intentions or plans. This does not mean that we shouldn't do what seems most just, virtuous, and reasonable to ourselves, since we do have control over that. To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 3,000 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler You can find Montaigne's Essays here - https://amzn.to/4l3iKfH

This lecture discusses key ideas from the Renaissance-era philosopher, critic, and essayist Michel De Montaigne's work Essays, specifically his essay To Philosophise Is To Learn To Die It focuses upon the ways in which Montaigne understands life and death as being related to each other, as not merely opposites To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 3,000 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler You can find Montaigne's Essays here - https://amzn.to/4l3iKfH

This lecture discusses key ideas from the Renaissance-era philosopher, critic, and essayist Michel De Montaigne's work Essays, specifically his essay To Philosophise Is To Learn To Die It focuses upon his analysis of why people unnecessarily fear death, and how we can make death something familiar and thereby less scary to ourselves. To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 3,000 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler You can find Montaigne's Essays here - https://amzn.to/4l3iKfH

Today on the Christian History Almanac, we remember the greatest essayists of all time and a Christian “skeptic”: Michel de Montaigne. Show Notes: Support 1517 Podcast Network 1517 Podcasts 1517 on Youtube 1517 Podcast Network on Apple Podcasts 1517 Events Schedule 1517 Academy - Free Theological Education What's New from 1517: Pre-order: Ditching the Checklist by Mark Mattes Broken Bonds: A Novel of the Reformation, Book 1 of 2 by Amy Mantravadi  Bible in One Year with Chad Bird Junk Drawer Jesus By Matt Popovits Take 20% Off Our Lenten Devotionals until March 5th: The Sinner/Saint Lenten Devotional Finding Christ in the Straw: A Forty-Day Devotion on the Epistle of James More from the hosts: Dan van Voorhis SHOW TRANSCRIPTS are available: https://www.1517.org/podcasts/the-christian-history-almanac CONTACT: CHA@1517.org SUBSCRIBE: Apple Podcasts Spotify Stitcher Overcast Google Play FOLLOW US: Facebook Twitter Audio production by Christopher Gillespie (gillespie.media).

IntroductionMy mission is to help the world be shamelessly sexy. To me, that means not feeling ashamed about who you are or the type of sex you want to have. It means going after the things that you want in bed and in life. Being shamelessly sexy looks different for everyone. It's something you need to define for yourself on your own terms. Also, no one can ever be perfectly shamelessly sexy. That's because shame is a normal human emotion that will continue to crop up in life. But being perfect is not the point, people! Not feeling shame is not the point, either. This is about self-discovery. It's about living your own life that is pleasurable and “totally rad,” as the surfer dudes say. It's about feeling aligned with yourself and courageous enough to pursue what you want.I may be more shamelessly sexy now, but I wasn't always this way. I grew up in London, where I was trained at all-girls private schools to be a prim and proper young lady. The red shoes of my school uniform were always perfectly polished. As I failed to color inside the lines in my lessons, I developed a dangerous curiosity.One day, I secretly came across what one might call a “spicy book” or “smut” in my school library. Heavens! When I read it, I felt excited. It was a beacon, an acknowledgment from the adult world:“There are other horny teenagers just like you out there. In fact, being a horny teenager is normal. All those boring adults? Well, they were once one, too.”That day, my perspective on sexuality changed. That smut book opened my mind to the possibility that sex and lovemaking are some of the most beautiful things in the world, even if nobody overtly champions them. I still believe that it's one of life's greatest joys to love another person fully, honestly, and vulnerably. And yet, this is totally hidden in our culture, which makes us feel guilty for simply enjoying ourselves. To this day, that doesn't make sense to me. I've come to wonder whether there is a screw missing in my brain or if it's that I simply transcended the confines of the world I grew up in all those years ago when I read that smut book in the library. Now, I try to help others do the same: to love ourselves and our partners openly in our own unique, beautiful, and messy ways.This piece is for heterosexual-leaning females because that's my experience. Men experience shame differently, and I'll address that in another piece. So, let's dive into how we can get you there!Defining Shame About SexIn my article, “How To Be Shameless,” I shared Brené Brown's definition of shame: “Shame is an epidemic in our culture” that is “highly correlated with addiction, depression, violence, aggression, bullying, suicide, eating disorders." She shares that "[f]or women, shame is: do it all, do it perfectly, and never let them see you sweat.”Here's an example of this in my friend Emily's day-to-day life. Emily is fresh out of a relationship, and she wants to feel good about her body. Last week, we identified where her ideas about her body and her sexuality are coming from.* Feminine conservatism from her mother: Emily's mother is Catholic. For her whole life, Emily's mother wanted her to cover her shoulders and wear longer, feminine dresses, especially when they went to her grandmother's house for Sunday brunch.* Bikini bodies from Instagram: Emily saw a beautiful woman wearing a bikini on Instagram, so she ordered one. It has a G-string bottom that Emily is a bit nervous about trying, but since she lives by the beach, she wants to give it a go.* Pressure from her ex: When Emily was 18, she dated a guy who was 23, and he was more sexually experienced than her. He made her feel guilty that she had never had a threesome and that she didn't want to watch porn with him. In his eyes, she was never sexually experienced enough.* Social Comparison: With her last boyfriend, Emily noticed when they passed other girls on the beach who were prettier than her. Those girls were tanned and wore the G-string bikinis like it was nobody's business. Emily knew that comparison was the thief of joy, but she still wondered if her boyfriend wanted to be with someone prettier.Emily's experiences mirror exactly how Brené Brown described shame in women: “unobtainable, conflicting, competing expectations about who we are supposed to be.” Still, Emily's situation confused me. If her sexuality and her feelings about her own body weren't these messages from others, then what were they? This was something far deeper than her mother's conservatism or her ex pressuring her to have sex. Perhaps this was something internal. Perhaps this was something to do with her “self,” and that required an energetic, internal transformation. We agreed that it sounded woo-woo, but her feelings about her sexuality and her body are a form of energy that she embodies.Being Shameless SexyEmily and I agreed that being shamelessly sexy comes down to three fundamental things: knowing what you want, believing you deserve what you want, and asking for it. There's a lot to say here, so I'll address the tips for each of them separately.Know What You Want“If the desert is holy, it is because it is a forgotten place that allows us to remember the sacred. Perhaps that is why every pilgrimage to the desert is a pilgrimage to the self.” (Terry Tempest Williams).I could probably write a whole book with tips on how to help you figure out what you want in your sex life. I don't claim to be a witch or a genius, so I'll share what's helped me so far.* Work On Your Shame.As I explored previously, facing your shame can help you change your perspective and let go of the past. So, pull up a shameful memory or two from your past that involves your body or having sex. Try not to pick something too overwhelming to begin with. You might need to repeat this exercise multiple times if you have various memories bringing you shame about sex in your past. For this exercise, I picked Valentine's Day with my high school boyfriend when I was 17 when my younger sister walked in on us trying to have a romantic bath together, and my dad found out and gave me the awkward sex talk. It was terrible.Hold your experience in your mind's eye. Remember as many details as you can about the situation. Notice what you feel. Do you feel any physical sensations in your body, your chest, or your throat? Where are you holding the shame in your body? Now, turn toward your younger self with compassion. Acknowledge the pain of the experience. Find a loving gesture you can give yourself for comfort. For this experience, I held my hand and told myself,“Taking a bath is a rather wonderful thing to do with someone. That experience was cruel. You didn't deserve that.”If you don't want to hold your hand, you could also hug yourself, squeeze your arm, or put your hand on your heart. Think of what a loving parent or a kind adult would say to your younger self now. What does your younger self need to hear? It could be something like,“Experiencing shame is part of life. You're not alone. You made a mistake. That doesn't mean you are a mistake. I forgive you.”The more you can give yourself love and acceptance, the less shame you'll eventually feel about that experience. It is totally okay if you cry or feel a big wash of emotion. That's a good sign that you're processing pain and grief.You can listen to my Misseducated interview with Dr. Kristin Neff, the world's leading expert on self-compassion, here: “How to Be Kind to Yourself, and Why It Matters.”* Keep a sex diary or journal.Writing helps to make what we know subconsciously about ourselves conscious. For three years, I've written about my sex life on my blog, Misseducated. Exploring my experiences in pieces like “Why I Never Swallow Cum” has had an incredible benefit that I didn't expect: it has helped me figure out what I like in bed. Writing about your sex life can help you figure out what you want to explore and where your limitations are. You can also learn the exact techniques that make you orgasm and how you like to receive pleasure (for me, the secret tip is always a little bit of butt stuff).So, I encourage you to start keeping a separate journal where you can explore sexual experiences from your past and what you liked and didn't like about them. Start with a prompt like “Losing My Virginity,” “My First Kiss,” or “The Best Sex I Ever Had,” and go from there. Try to bring in all the senses: what you saw, what you heard, what you touched, what you smelt, what you tasted, and what you felt. A candlelit dinner? Grinding at the club? It's all part of your arousal and your sexuality. It can be as simple as a private note on your phone, which you can then giggle to yourself about secretly.Subscribe to the Misseducated Calendar to learn more about when I host Sex Writing Workshops in the future.* Separate the voices of others from your own.“We have lived quite enough for others: let us live at least this tail-end of life for ourselves.” (Page 271, Michel de Montaigne)As you distinguish your voice in your sex diary, it's important to keep the voices of other people separate. For example, you can make a quick list of self-critical words or phrases that often come up for you. Now, try to figure out where you learned each voice and to whom it belongs. Are these your mother's words? Or did Mrs. Screech from 2nd Grade plug those into your brain?Imagine your brain. Clear a dedicated little space at the back of it, which is solely reserved for your thoughts and feelings about your life. This is where you are going to store your unique thoughts. As the old French philosopher Montaigne says,“We should aside a room, just for ourselves, at the back of the shop, keeping it entirely free and establishing there our true liberty, our principal solitude, and asylum.” (Page 270, Michel de Montaigne)* Define success in your sex life.What are your aspirations when it comes to your sex life? Would you like to orgasm or squirt with your partner at least twice every time you sleep together? Is it dancing bachata? Or is it throwing away your razor and just living like you want to, hairy armpits and all? Take some time to define success on your own terms. This exercise is about self-acceptance, not about judging yourself in any way or stressing yourself out. It's supposed to be fun!For me, success in my sex life does not involve jet-setting around the world to attend giant orgies every weekend (though it might look like that for you). It's probably just having a loving relationship where I can enjoy plenty of butt stuff, and we can be open enough for an optional third person who we can play with together, and I can have lots of earth-shattering orgasms, of course.* De-stigmatize your body and other people's.Going to clothing-optional events has brought me a lot of acceptance and love for my body. As I've shared, while it's normal to feel nervous at first, I find being naked around other people very freeing. Attending an event like The Naked Bike Ride in Philadelphia has shown me that when you get a whole bunch of naked bodies together for a brief moment, the intensity of our insecurities and self-consciousness totally melts away.The prospect of going to these events might terrify you. But just remember that our obsession with our bodies being perfect or looking a certain way is a social construct that we need to unlearn if we want to feel truly shameless about who we are. I hope you can find ways to explore de-stigmatizing your body for yourself, whether that be going to the sauna, skinny-dipping in a river, or going to a nudist beach.* Follow your curiosity.Sexuality is a journey of exploration, constant evolution, and discovery. As I've shared previously, “God” is not going to part the clouds and bestow upon you your one true perfect sexual experience. What you're curious about exploring may well just start as a whisper, which you're going to need to listen for closely.Imagine that sexuality is like a pair of shoes that you're trying on in a shop. Does this activity or idea feel very “you”? Could you see yourself wearing those sparkly heels on the right occasion? Like Emily wearing a G-string bikini on the beach, try something new when you're not sure if you'll like them or not, and see how it feels. There's power in courage, which, as Maya Angelou reminds us, is the most important of all the virtues.* Talk to yourself.Talking to yourself is usually considered weird. But I highly encourage you to sit down and do it to figure out what you're comfortable with and what you're not. As Pauline said wisely in our interview about open relationships,“Sexuality is an emotion…It depends on where you are in your mind…You always have to sit down with your thoughts and kind of like ask yourself this question: am I okay right now? Do I feel safe?”Knowing your limits is a beautiful thing. For example, I consider myself a sexually open person, but almost four years ago, I experienced what can only be described as a doozy of a sexual assault. I still don't feel comfortable with men I don't know touching me, and I am so thankful to know that about myself.If you feel like you're crossing the line for any reason, remember what Pauline shared,“I'm able to stop at any time. Like that's also something that is like really important…You can stop at any time and say goodbye. Like, I'm done. And it's okay. It doesn't mean you're a loser. It doesn't mean anything. It just means that right here, right now, you just don't want it. And it's okay.”* Make up your own rules.Despite being a huge people pleaser for most of my life, I made up a rule that I would only allow a guy to stay over at my house once he was my boyfriend. I decided this because I noticed how disrupted my sleep gets when a guy stays over, and it often ruins my next day. Admittedly, I don't always stick to my own rules when I'm hooking up with a dude who is particularly hot and cool (I'm allowed to make exceptions to my own rules, lol.) But the point is that I've taken time beforehand to identify my needs and figure out what is important to me.Get some space and peace of mind. And while you're alone, off on a solo adventure or single, go ahead and put your own rules in place. These could be rules about your sleep, your safety, and where you want things inserted into your body. Write these down in your sex journal, also. It's easier to decide what you want when there is no one else in the picture because biology is a stronger force than anything else in the world, and having a hot guy in your life is incredibly distracting. And, of course, once you make a rule for yourself, don't be pansy like me. The first step is to recognize that you deserve to have needs and boundaries. The second step is actually to enforce them.* Explore the underworld.This is about getting a handle on what's possible in terms of your sexuality. While porn is acting and often misleading, if you're open to it, I encourage you to watch some. You can watch some female-friendly porn here and here. Watching porn is a good way to see what's possible, and who knows, you might find it arousing.I thought that everyone was like me and had watched porn in secret, but it turns out I have female friends who have never watched porn, who are virgins, and who have never had an orgasm. Everyone is on their own journey, and that's a beautiful thing. I encourage you to meet yourself where you are right now and go from there. Also, try taking the BDSM test. It might help you figure out what type of sex you like to have. If some questions come up that you have no idea about, read the definitions and see if that's something you might want to explore.“When you're in a relationship, it shouldn't be the end of exploring your sexuality.” – Pauline, Open Relationships 101* Explore your body, guilt-free.Planned Parenthood quoted research published in 1994, which said, “half of the adult women and men who masturbate feel guilty about it.” Quotes like this depress me because, as far as I am concerned, guilt is a totally useless emotion. Meanwhile, “the medical community considers masturbation to be a natural and harmless expression of sexuality for both men and women” (Masturbation Guide, WebMD).Every time you feel guilty about touching yourself, buying a new toy, or feeling hot as f**k, just remember that there are literally 5,000 worse things you could be in the world than being a masturbater. You could be a murderer. You could be intentionally stomping on all the flowers in your neighbor's garden. Masturbation is harmless, pleasurable, and fun. So, take time for it like you take time for a friend who wants to get coffee and talk about her most recent breakup. Seriously, give yourself an hour at least and see what you can do. And also, put what you discover in your sex journal.* Question everything.Something is only “normal” because some people in our society decided it was. So, take all the assumptions you have about yourself, your life, who you can be, and what you can do, and turn them upside down. As Pauline expresses beautifully:“I deconstruct a lot by myself, about like patriarchy, about like me as a woman, like sexuality…And a lot of stuff, you're like, “But why the f**k am I doing this?”… Why are we even like, I don't know, blowing candles for a birthday? Like a lot of questions. And yeah, you know, why? "Yeah, it's normal.” I'm like, “No, it's not. Like how the f**k we ended up doing this?”Why the f**k do we blow our candles on a birthday cake, indeed?Believe You Deserve What You WantThis next step is about self-esteem. It's about standing up for your needs, saying f**k yes to people or f**k no to people, and not feeling guilty either way.* Be selfishWikipedia defines selfishness as “being concerned excessively or exclusively for oneself or one's own advantage, pleasure, or welfare, regardless of others.” I find this definition so funny! Because being socialized as a woman, it's clear to me that women are often branded as being selfish for having any concern for ourselves at all. The example comes to mind of my mother calling me selfish because, at age 28, I refused to share a bed with my brother, who is 6'5” tall (195cm), on the family holiday. In the world I grew up in, I wasn't really allowed to have needs, let alone express them.It's a crime in our society for a woman to put herself first. Yet, this is the moment when we decide to stop being doormats, even if we risk being branded as “difficult” in the process. I wholeheartedly encourage you to start being selfish.* Believe your pleasure matters.In the bedroom, this means taking up space and time to make sure you get the pleasure you deserve. As someone who has written a lot about the orgasm gap and experienced it firsthand, I know that we are simply not there yet. According to the International Academy of Sex Research in 2017, quoted in the Guardian,“95% of heterosexual men said they usually or always orgasmed when sexually intimate, followed by 89% of gay men, 88% of bisexual men, 86% of lesbian women, 66% of bisexual women, and 65% of straight women.”I've explained how the world would be a very different place if straight females were orgasming 65% of the time. I estimated I had orgasmed with 8% of my partners and maybe 25% of all the times I have had sex. To be shamelessly sexy, we have to believe that our pleasure is just as important as our partner's pleasure. We're talking about getting equal pleasure for equal measure.* Remember that nothing is wrong with you.With shame being blasted at you from all directions, it's easy to believe that it's your fault for being alive in the body that you're in. I fundamentally disagree with this. Books like “Invisible Women” teach us that the reason why nothing ever seems right for us is because the world was not designed with us in mind. Literally, the people who designed airbags in cars, sidewalks, and even medications didn't bother to test them on female bodies, and this has real-world consequences. If you've ever had weird side effects from medication, just remember that women were all but left out of medical research until 1993. This costs female lives.It's not that there is something with you. It's that there is something wrong with the world. Nothing is wrong with you. You are simply a woman, and because of that, you will never be typical or be the default.* Prioritize your relationship with yourself.The harsh truth is that our relationship with ourselves is the only constant relationship we will have in until we die. Everyone else will come and go—friends, partners, parents, lovers, siblings, and children, even. Your relationship with yourself is the only one that truly sticks.So, for God's sake, put yourself first. What you think about yourself matters much more than what other people think of you. And don't be like the guy from The Onion article titled, “Man Waiting Until Parents Die Before Doing A Single Thing That Makes Him Happy.”* Your experiences are valid. Your feelings are real.I used to have very low self-esteem until I started going to a 12-step Program called ACA. Over time, I learned from the program to ground myself on the basis of my experience rather than constantly defining myself by the actions of other people. One example of this new thinking came at the end of my most recent fling. Here's how I can choose to react:My old self says: “He doesn't want a relationship with me. I'm not worthy of being his girlfriend.”My new self says: “I want to be in a relationship with someone who wants to be in a relationship with me.”It's the same experience, but I now have a totally different perspective on it, one that is rooted in self-respect and dignity. So, remember that your feelings are valid. Your experiences are real. And be sure to define yourself in terms of your own needs and dignity, not from the broken actions of other people.* Define your body on your terms, also.When I was 15, I went to get bras fitted with my mother. I had armpit hair at that point and didn't bother using a razor (at least, I've been consistent with that to this day). When I noticed that she saw my armpit hair, I said something like,“Will doesn't mind.”Will was my boyfriend at the time. As a young person, I felt the need to justify the existence of my armpit hair to my mother. If my mother wasn't defining me, I had to justify my body in the context of another person, my boyfriend, and a male person, nonetheless. I had no idea that I was allowed to keep my body the way I wanted to, armpit hair and all.If you find yourself stressing out about external standards, just remember that it's not up to other people to define who you are. Only you can and should define that. And if other people aren't comfortable with that, that's their deal.* Take up space. Take up time.Some of my female friends find it impossible to go to a café, buy themselves a treat, and sit down to read a book on their own. What if someone else wanted to use that table? They've asked me, perplexed. Existing on their terms in a public space is a struggle. Whether it's having an orgasm with a partner or buying a cookie from a café, because of culture or history, many of us have internalized that whatever this is, it is not for people like us.But have you ever sat in a vast canyon, totally alone? Have you ever climbed to the top of a small hill in the desert in New Mexico, with 360 panoramic views, and cried and felt held by the vastness of the desert all around you? Well, I have. And I can tell you that that's plenty of room for you there, in the desert and in the world. It might take a quick adventure into nature. But just remember that the sky and the earth can hold all of you and so much more, just as they've held your ancestors since the beginning of time. As Maya Angelou says, “Take up the battle. Take it up. This is your life. This is your world.”So, please sit down at the table for as long as you like and eat the cookie.Ask for What You WantIt's time to express yourself, your desires, and your needs to the people you're having sex with. Otherwise, all this hard work you've done internally won't actually go anywhere. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. And it's time to squeak!* Safety, first.It's very important that you trust the person you are going to ask these things for. Before I pegged my boyfriend, we had already been dating for a couple of months. The act of an ask itself can be a very vulnerable moment, so make sure you're with a compassionate partner who respects your body and who will honor your needs and desires. If your partner sucks at listening or makes you feel judged or inadequate in any way, they might not be the right person to explore your sexuality with.* Muster up your courage.“Courage is more important than confidence. Taking that first step in doing anything is the real key to begin to manifest the possibility of that thing happening” — Debbie Millman, The Tim Ferriss Show.The art of asking takes courage. You're also opening up to the possibility of being rejected by the other person. But you can't say the wrong thing to the right person. It's better to rip off the band-aid than spend your whole life wondering whether or not to say something, second-guessing, and tiptoeing. You deserve an answer.* Over-communicate with your partner.Each time will be different because, as a human, you are evolving. Be sure to check in regularly to see whether your partner is still comfortable with this or if you want to try something new. Here's how Pauline communicates with her partner:“We look at each other in the eyes a lot. Like, okay, what do you think? We communicate a lot through the night. We send like text messages…But each time we were doing it, we kind of like sit before and we're like, “Okay, what's your mind in today? What do you want to do? What do you want to explore? How do you feel? Where's your head at today?”* Pick the right people. Curate the right spaces.I'll share more another time, but I went to some sex parties in New York where I didn't feel comfortable at all. I wouldn't go back there again, but I would consider going to a play party if I was with the right people. It really depends on the context, who the people are, and if this feels like the kind of place you want to be in.“You should pick whatever you like and create your own community and yourself and like whoever bonds with you and agrees with you, and that's cool.” – Pauline* Leave if you need to.If your partner does not want to explore the same things as you, you may need to find someone else who you are more compatible with and who celebrates you exploring your sexuality. Refuse to settle. As Pauline shared,“I think like you have to find your own way, which is nice because I think, as a girl, I have never been taught that you can find your own way in your sexuality. It was more like you'll have what you got. And then, if you're not happy, that's what it is.”ConclusionIf you've made it this far, thank you so much for reading my guide to being shamelessly sexy. I hope you loved it, that you found something here that made you smile, or maybe it inspired you to explore something new. Please feel free to reach out to me with what you discovered, as I would love to hear from you, and share this article with a like-minded friend if you think it could help them.There's one final phrase that I want you to keep in mind:“You can do it on your terms. It's your sexuality in the end. So, do yourself on your terms.” – Pauline.Amen.

“It is an atmosphere we breathe in, rather than an argument we consider.” Thus wrote T. S. Eliot about the very idea of happiness Americans have adopted for their own. When raising sons in modern America, we should understand what cultural air they—and we—are breathing. Is that “pursuit of happiness” keeping our hearts and minds restless? In their book, Why We Are Restless, Dr. Benjamin Storey and his wife Dr. Jenna Silber Storey explore the inheritance of American-style happiness: where did it come from? Who has wrestled with it before? And how should we really engage with it? Ben Storey sits down with us to discuss this week on HeightsCast. Chapters: 00:08:44 Montaigne's recipe for happiness 00:15:16 “Immanent contentment”: now is enough 00:17:19 Pascal's reach for God 00:20:11 Rousseau's earthly transcendence 00:29:09 The American Dream 00:33:45 Democracy and restlessness 00:39:38 The highs and lows of infinite possibility 00:45:02 Advice for high school seniors 00:49:30 Advice for parents Links: Why We Are Restless: On the Modern Quest for Contentment by Benjamin Storey and Jenna Silber Storey Also on the Forum: ChatGPT Holds These Truths to Be Self-Evident by Mark Grannis The Importance of History, Part I featuring Dr. Matthew Spalding

durée : 00:48:20 - Grand bien vous fasse ! - par : Ali Rebeihi - Le philosophe André Comte-Sponville publie à 72 ans ses ultimes études, "L'opportunité de vivre" (PUF). L'occasion de revenir avec lui sur les messages des stoïciens, d'Epicure et de Montaigne.

Platón y el amor idealista. Montaigne y la lujuria. Kant y la abstinencia. Schopenhauer y la trampa de la procreación. ¿Qué han dicho los filósofos sobre el amor? ¿Es cierto que apenas se han preocupado por él? ¿Y qué relación han tenido con el sexo, o el matrimonio? Lo debatimos, a cuenta de la novedad editorial ‘Los filósofos y el amor', con Carlos Alsina, Rubén Amón, Rosa Belmonte, Guillermo Altares, Sergio del Molino y Nacho Vigalondo. Además, anticipamos opinión sobre ‘Daniela Forever', la película de Vigalondo que se estrena la semana que viene y de cuyo rodaje nos da detalles. ¿Con qué formato de imagen la ha filmado y por qué?

Platón y el amor idealista. Montaigne y la lujuria. Kant y la abstinencia. Schopenhauer y la trampa de la procreación. ¿Qué han dicho los filósofos sobre el amor? ¿Es cierto que apenas se han preocupado por él? ¿Y qué relación han tenido con el sexo, o el matrimonio? Lo debatimos, a cuenta de la novedad editorial ‘Los filósofos y el amor', con Carlos Alsina, Rubén Amón, Rosa Belmonte, Guillermo Altares, Sergio del Molino y Nacho Vigalondo. Además, anticipamos opinión sobre ‘Daniela Forever', la película de Vigalondo que se estrena la semana que viene y de cuyo rodaje nos da detalles. ¿Con qué formato de imagen la ha filmado y por qué?

February 7-14 is Congenital Heart Disease Awareness Week. In this, Dr. Sergio Zanotti discuss adult congenital heart disease through the lens of his experience as a patient. He shares some reflections based on my experience as a lifelong patient with complex adult congenital heart disease and a recent procedure that allowed him to experience medical care from the patient side. Additional resources: ACC/AHA 2008 Guidelines for the Management of Adults With Congenital Heart Disease. Circulation 2008: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.190690 The Bell Curve. By Atul Gawande. The New Yorker 2004: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2004/12/06/the-bell-curve Website for the Adult Congenital Heart Association: https://www.achaheart.org/ Books and music mentioned in this episode: Montaigne. By Stefan Zweig: https://bit.ly/4gEOVP2 The Heart. A Novel. By Maylis De Kerangal: https://bit.ly/41ehqin The Essays: A Selection (Penguin Classics). By. Michel de Montaigne: https://bit.ly/3EvFwvW

February 7-14 is Congenital Heart Disease Awareness Week. In this, Dr. Sergio Zanotti discuss adult congenital heart disease through the lens of his experience as a patient. He shares some reflections based on my experience as a lifelong patient with complex adult congenital heart disease and a recent procedure that allowed him to experience medical care from the patient side. Additional resources: ACC/AHA 2008 Guidelines for the Management of Adults With Congenital Heart Disease. Circulation 2008: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.190690 The Bell Curve. By Atul Gawande. The New Yorker 2004: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2004/12/06/the-bell-curve Website for the Adult Congenital Heart Association: https://www.achaheart.org/ Books and music mentioned in this episode: Montaigne. By Stefan Zweig: https://bit.ly/4gEOVP2 The Heart. A Novel. By Maylis De Kerangal: https://bit.ly/41ehqin The Essays: A Selection (Penguin Classics). By. Michel de Montaigne: https://bit.ly/3EvFwvW

This is a teaser preview of one of our Radical Reads episodes, made exclusively for our supporters on patreon. You can listen to the full 87-minute episode without ads and support our work at https://www.patreon.com/posts/e101-radical-and-120598405In this episode, we speak to Alex Charnley and Michael Richmond about their excellent book, Fractured: Race, Class, Gender and the Hatred of Identity Politics. The book pushes back against the idea of 'identity politics' as a vaguely defined and universal bogeyman for both left and right-wing politics.Instead, they show how 'identity' is not just a ‘subjective' idea in people's heads, but the result of real, material ways the working class is structured according to race, gender, nationality etc by the various divisions of labour, immigration laws, etc. And, as we discuss in the episode, what often gets called ‘identity politics' is actually an attempt to think through how class functions, and is acted upon, in the reality through which it's lived.Listen to the full episode here:E101: Radical Reads – ‘Fractured: Race, Class, Gender and the Hatred of Identity Politics'More information:Buy Fractured: Race, Class, Gender and the Hatred of Identity Politics from an independent bookshop'Aliens at the Border' – a lightly edited version of Chapter Four from Fractured, looking at Jewish immigration to Britain from Eastern Europe in the late nineteenth/early twentieth century'Fascism and the Women's Cause: Gender Critical Feminism, Suffragettes and the Women's KKK' – piece by Alex and Michael looking at the link between contemporary transphobic feminists and the far-right by placing it against reactionary elements within the women's suffrage movement, and trajectories which led some into the Ku Klux Klan and British Union of FascistsListen to an earlier Radical Reads episode with Michael, discussing David Baddiel's hilariously terrible book, Jews Don't CountBooks and merch related to Black history and struggleBooks and merch related to women's history and struggleBooks and merch related to LGBTQ history and struggleWebpage for the episode is available here: https://workingclasshistory.com/blog/e101-radical-reads-fractured-race-class-gender-and-the-hatred-of-identity-politics/AcknowledgementsThanks to our patreon supporters for making this podcast possible. Special thanks to Jazz Hands, Jamison D. Saltsman, Fernando López Ojeda, Jeremy Cusimano, and Nick Williams.The episode image of a London Black Lives Matter protest, 2020. Credit: Katie Crampton, Wikimedia UK (with additional design by WCH). CC BY-SA 4.0.Edited by Louise BarryOur theme tune is Montaigne's version of the classic labour movement anthem, ‘Bread and Roses', performed by Montaigne and Nick Harriott, and mixed by Wave Racer. Download the song here, with all proceeds going to Medical Aid for Palestinians. More from Montaigne: website, Instagram, YouTubeBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/working-class-history--5711490/support.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comJohn Gray is a political philosopher. He retired from academia in 2007 as Professor of European Thought at the London School of Economics, and is now a regular contributor and lead reviewer at the New Statesman. He's the author of two dozen books, and his latest is The New Leviathans: Thoughts After Liberalism. I'd say he's one of the most brilliant minds of our time — and my first podcast with him was a huge hit. I asked him to come on this week to get a broader and deeper perspective on where we are now in the world. He didn't disappoint.For two clips of our convo — on the ways Trump represents peace, and how heterosexuals have become more like gays — pop over to our YouTube page.Other topics: this week's inauguration; the peaceful transfer of power; the panic of the left intelligentsia; the contradictions in the new Trump administration; Bannon vs Musk; Vivek's quick exit; the techno-futurist oligarchs; Vance as the GOP's future; tariffs and inflation; the federal debt; McKinley and the Gilded Age; Manifest Destiny; Greenland; isolationism; the neocon project to convert the world; Hobbes and “commodious living”; Malthus and today's declining birthrates; post-industrial alienation; deaths of despair; Fukuyama's “End of History”; Latinx; AI and knowledge workers; Plato; Pascal; Dante; CS Lewis' Abolition of Man; pre-Christian paganism; Puritans and the woke; Žižek; Rod Dreher; Houellebecq; how submission can be liberating; Graham Greene; religion as an anchor; why converts are often so dangerous; Freudian repression; Orwell and goose-stepping; the revolution of consciousness after Christ; Star Wars as neo-Christian; Dune as neo-pagan; Foucault; Oakeshott's lovers; Montaigne; Judith Shklar; Ross Douthat; the UK's rape-gangs; Starmer and liberal legalism; the Thomist view of nature; the medieval view of abortion; late-term abortions; and assisted dying.Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy (the first 102 are free in their entirety — subscribe to get everything else). Coming up: Sebastian Junger on near-death experiences, Jon Rauch on “Christianity's Broken Bargain with Democracy,” Evan Wolfson on the history of marriage equality, Yoni Appelbaum on how America stopped building things, Nick Denton on the evolution of new media, and Ross Douthat on how everyone should be religious. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

Pastor Kelly Soiles shares a personal journey with worry, likening it to fog that obscures vision, and highlights the reassurance and peace found in trusting God, who remains present and supportive in every circumstance.

This is a teaser preview of one of our Radical Reads episodes, made exclusively for our supporters on patreon. You can listen to the full 85-minute episode without ads and support our work at https://www.patreon.com/posts/e97-radical-10-116392240In this episode, we talk to Michael Richmond, a Jewish communist author and anti-racist activist, about David Baddiel's ridiculous book, Jews Don't Count. In this book, Baddiel claims that the key thing about contemporary antisemitism is the left's confusion over it, and how this confusion means that Jews are uniquely excluded from left-wing political discourse and activism.We discuss (and make fun of) Baddiel's book for about an hour and a half covering every aspect of his shallow understanding of racism, whiteness, Jewishness and antisemitism, and why Baddiel should probably get new friends.Listen to the full episode here:E98: Radical Reads – ‘Jews Don't Count' by David BaddielMore information:Read Michael's excellent book (co-authored with Alex Charnley), Fractured: Race, Class, Gender and the Hatred of Identity PoliticsA number of Michael's articles can be found here and here. Some which are particularly relevant to this discussion are:'Philosemitism: An Instrumental Kind of Love''On "Black Antisemitism" and Antiracist Solidarity''A long way from Cable Street''Playing the Jew'Timeline of people's history stories about radical Jewish historyThe webpage for this episode is available here: https://workingclasshistory.com/podcast/e98-radical-reads-jews-dont-count-by-david-baddiel/AcknowledgementsThanks to our patreon supporters for making this podcast possible. Special thanks to Jazz Hands, Jamison D. Saltsman, Fernando López Ojeda, Jeremy Cusimano, and Nick Williams.The episode image of David Baddiel at Soho Theatre, 2020. Credit: Raph PH (with additional design by WCH). CC 2.0.Edited by Jesse FrenchOur theme tune is Montaigne's version of the classic labour movement anthem, ‘Bread and Roses', performed by Montaigne and Nick Harriott, and mixed by Wave Racer. Download the song here, with all proceeds going to Medical Aid for Palestinians. More from Montaigne: website, Instagram, YouTube.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/working-class-history--5711490/support.

It's a distress signal — from Carver? The Abnimals rush to the Carvery only to find their hero missing. Who are the soggy scum behind this repugnant ransacking? Slippin Slime performed by Montaigne: https://montaignemusic.com.au/ Abnimals Theme by Justin McElroy, Eric Near (https://bit.ly/ericnearmusic) and Jonathan Coulton (https://www.jonathancoulton.com/). Additional Music in this Episode: "Blood in the Water", "Catch and Release", "Cool Beans", "Slingshot", "Gearing Up", "Bittersweet", "Questions", and "The Heavy Three" by Mr. Smith: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSk2j0fTMw9V94UGyfWrSuA?; "Heartache" by Beat Mekanik: https://linktr.ee/beatmekanik; "Purple" by Jesse Spillane: http://www.jessespillane.com/; "Task Man" by Gamesharkoff: https://gagmesharkoff.bandcamp.com/; and "Demolition" by 1st Contact: https://freemusicarchive.org/music/1st-contact/.