POPULARITY
21 episodes with nietzschean
7 episodes with nietzschean
4 episodes with nietzschean
4 episodes with nietzschean
5 episodes with nietzschean
3 episodes with nietzschean
3 episodes with nietzschean
2 episodes with nietzschean
7 episodes with nietzschean
The Desecration of Man: How the Rejection of God Degrades Our Humanity By: Carl R. Trueman Published: 2026 256 Pages Briefly, what is this book about? In the standard story of the transition from the premodern to the modern, the world has gradually been disenchanted. Depending on who you are, this is either a good thing, a sad thing, or a mixed thing. Trueman's contention is that disenchantment has, over the last few decades, transitioned to desecration. In his telling, the modern world hasn't just outgrown the sacred, it's rebelled against it. Much like a headstrong teenager might revel in doing the opposite of what his parents expect, society has come to celebrate the transgression of things that were previously deemed to be holy. These transgressions are not only a source of rebellious pleasure, but more critically, they provide a way to make the person feel superior to the divine. Violating rules and norms allows one to feel above them. Why is this important? Because (pulling in Nietzsche) having rejected God, men now need to become gods, and this is one way to do it. But these transgressions, rather than elevating men, debase them. We see this debasement in everything from the sexual revolution down through assisted suicide and IVF. In the end Trueman claims one can either accept Christianity root-and-branch or engage in full-on Nietzschean self-creation, but that there is no middle ground, no cultural Christianity, no stable progressive moral creation. It is either one extreme or the other. What authorial biases should I be aware of? Trueman is, himself, a root-and-branch Christian, so he definitely favors one side over the other. Who should read this book? ...
What is the TLC? ("This little corner of the Internet" also know as "the corner" https://youtu.be/Y3vqSjywot8?si=IVS3bnriwje5syPO TLC Search tool. https://thislittlecorner.net The Flotilla List: https://thislittlecorner.net/channels https://www.livingstonescrc.com/give Ireland in June https://www.eventbrite.ie/e/finding-god-in-nature-and-culture-tickets-1988447493982 Event in Ireland London Breakwater Event link https://www.tickettailor.com/events/flowinthedarkproductions/2159501 Paul Vander Klay clips channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCX0jIcadtoxELSwehCh5QTg https://www.meetup.com/sacramento-estuary/ My Substack https://paulvanderklay.substack.com/ Bridges of meaning https://discord.gg/pNeCeyHx Estuary Hub Link https://www.estuaryhub.com/ There is a video version of this podcast on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/paulvanderklay To listen to this on ITunes https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/paul-vanderklays-podcast/id1394314333 If you need the RSS feed for your podcast player https://paulvanderklay.podbean.com/feed/ All Amazon links here are part of the Amazon Affiliate Program. Amazon pays me a small commission at no additional cost to you if you buy through one of the product links here. This is is one (free to you) way to support my videos. https://paypal.me/paulvanderklay Blockchain backup on Lbry https://odysee.com/@paulvanderklay https://www.patreon.com/paulvanderklay Paul's Church Content at Living Stones Channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCh7bdktIALZ9Nq41oVCvW-A To support Paul's work by supporting his church give here. https://tithe.ly/give?c=2160640 https://www.livingstonescrc.com/give
David Cunningham joins John to speak about his pathbreaking article about visiting each of the 113 communities that removed or relocated Confederate symbols between 2015 and 2023. After discussing his co-authored Social Problems article, “Contesting Commemorative Landscapes” which first got him thinking about monument removal, he posits that “expungement, amplification, and repositioning” are three ways contemporary communities contest the monuments of the past.. The conversation from there ranges onward through various kinds of contested removal, ending with Cesar Chavez and his ongoing de-monumentalization. David is author of There's Something Happening Here: The New Left, the Klan, and FBI Counterintelligence and the award-winning Klansville, U.S.A.: The Rise and Fall of the Civil Rights-Era KKK,, a member of the City of St. Louis Reparations Commission and recently has been engaged in exploring political signalling in public art and monuments, including a forthcoming article on the political and cultural work of murals in Protestant and Catholic communities and in the interface areas that connect them in Belfast. His earlier Recall This Book episodes include on racialized policing in the US, on January 6th , and also on the 2024 presidential election–and a conversation with Glenn Patterson, author of Lapsed Protestant about the mural culture and politicized spaces of Belfast and Northern Ireland. Read the episode here. Mentioned in the episode By David Cunmningham himself: “What Richmond got Right about taking down Confederate Monuments” and a 2023 article coauthored with Christina Simko, “Montgomery's Monumental Truths” On place vs space there is wonderful work by Pierre Nora and Henri Lefebvre. Interface zones and the strategic cul de sacs that continue to divide Belfast neighborhoods have been brilliantly detailed and studied by various historians; eg this tour by Neil Jarman. The lucid John Guillory article (mentioned but not discussed) is “Monuments and Documents: On the Object of Study in the Humanities.” Confederate generals whose statues were erected essentially to glorify the KKK famously include Nathaniel Bedford Forrest. Private parks built up to collect Confederate monuments (with an underlying anti-government bias) include North Carolina's Valor Memorial Park, and in Texas the SS American Memorial Foundation's military retreat space now adorned with removed Confederate statues. In Bentonville, this park glorifies a Confederate statue that has now been (dubiously) linked to Governor James H. Berry. The MOCA/Brick reimagined MONUMENTS Exhibition includes work by Kara Walker and Bethany Collins. https://www.nps.gov/boaf/learn/historyculture/shaw.htm Sylva North Carolina Confederate plaque debate. Kazuo Ishiguro, The Buried Giant and the Nietzschean problem of “creative forgetting.” The idea of Productive creative cognitive dissonance is drawn from MLK's idea of “creative tension.” Hajar Yazdiha, Struggle for the People's King How long will the Chavez National Monument last? The statue at UC Fresno is already gone…” Is The Trail of Tears a historical site the same way Confederate statues are? Denmark Vescey's Garden by Ethan J. Kytle and, Blain RobertsZore Neale Hurston Their Eyes were Watching God Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/african-american-studies
David Cunningham joins John to speak about his pathbreaking article about visiting each of the 113 communities that removed or relocated Confederate symbols between 2015 and 2023. After discussing his co-authored Social Problems article, “Contesting Commemorative Landscapes” which first got him thinking about monument removal, he posits that “expungement, amplification, and repositioning” are three ways contemporary communities contest the monuments of the past.. The conversation from there ranges onward through various kinds of contested removal, ending with Cesar Chavez and his ongoing de-monumentalization. David is author of There's Something Happening Here: The New Left, the Klan, and FBI Counterintelligence and the award-winning Klansville, U.S.A.: The Rise and Fall of the Civil Rights-Era KKK,, a member of the City of St. Louis Reparations Commission and recently has been engaged in exploring political signalling in public art and monuments, including a forthcoming article on the political and cultural work of murals in Protestant and Catholic communities and in the interface areas that connect them in Belfast. His earlier Recall This Book episodes include on racialized policing in the US, on January 6th , and also on the 2024 presidential election–and a conversation with Glenn Patterson, author of Lapsed Protestant about the mural culture and politicized spaces of Belfast and Northern Ireland. Read the episode here. Mentioned in the episode By David Cunmningham himself: “What Richmond got Right about taking down Confederate Monuments” and a 2023 article coauthored with Christina Simko, “Montgomery's Monumental Truths” On place vs space there is wonderful work by Pierre Nora and Henri Lefebvre. Interface zones and the strategic cul de sacs that continue to divide Belfast neighborhoods have been brilliantly detailed and studied by various historians; eg this tour by Neil Jarman. The lucid John Guillory article (mentioned but not discussed) is “Monuments and Documents: On the Object of Study in the Humanities.” Confederate generals whose statues were erected essentially to glorify the KKK famously include Nathaniel Bedford Forrest. Private parks built up to collect Confederate monuments (with an underlying anti-government bias) include North Carolina's Valor Memorial Park, and in Texas the SS American Memorial Foundation's military retreat space now adorned with removed Confederate statues. In Bentonville, this park glorifies a Confederate statue that has now been (dubiously) linked to Governor James H. Berry. The MOCA/Brick reimagined MONUMENTS Exhibition includes work by Kara Walker and Bethany Collins. https://www.nps.gov/boaf/learn/historyculture/shaw.htm Sylva North Carolina Confederate plaque debate. Kazuo Ishiguro, The Buried Giant and the Nietzschean problem of “creative forgetting.” The idea of Productive creative cognitive dissonance is drawn from MLK's idea of “creative tension.” Hajar Yazdiha, Struggle for the People's King How long will the Chavez National Monument last? The statue at UC Fresno is already gone…” Is The Trail of Tears a historical site the same way Confederate statues are? Denmark Vescey's Garden by Ethan J. Kytle and, Blain RobertsZore Neale Hurston Their Eyes were Watching God 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
David Cunningham joins John to speak about his pathbreaking article about visiting each of the 113 communities that removed or relocated Confederate symbols between 2015 and 2023. After discussing his co-authored Social Problems article, “Contesting Commemorative Landscapes” which first got him thinking about monument removal, he posits that “expungement, amplification, and repositioning” are three ways contemporary communities contest the monuments of the past.. The conversation from there ranges onward through various kinds of contested removal, ending with Cesar Chavez and his ongoing de-monumentalization. David is author of There's Something Happening Here: The New Left, the Klan, and FBI Counterintelligence and the award-winning Klansville, U.S.A.: The Rise and Fall of the Civil Rights-Era KKK,, a member of the City of St. Louis Reparations Commission and recently has been engaged in exploring political signalling in public art and monuments, including a forthcoming article on the political and cultural work of murals in Protestant and Catholic communities and in the interface areas that connect them in Belfast. His earlier Recall This Book episodes include on racialized policing in the US, on January 6th , and also on the 2024 presidential election–and a conversation with Glenn Patterson, author of Lapsed Protestant about the mural culture and politicized spaces of Belfast and Northern Ireland. Read the episode here. Mentioned in the episode By David Cunmningham himself: “What Richmond got Right about taking down Confederate Monuments” and a 2023 article coauthored with Christina Simko, “Montgomery's Monumental Truths” On place vs space there is wonderful work by Pierre Nora and Henri Lefebvre. Interface zones and the strategic cul de sacs that continue to divide Belfast neighborhoods have been brilliantly detailed and studied by various historians; eg this tour by Neil Jarman. The lucid John Guillory article (mentioned but not discussed) is “Monuments and Documents: On the Object of Study in the Humanities.” Confederate generals whose statues were erected essentially to glorify the KKK famously include Nathaniel Bedford Forrest. Private parks built up to collect Confederate monuments (with an underlying anti-government bias) include North Carolina's Valor Memorial Park, and in Texas the SS American Memorial Foundation's military retreat space now adorned with removed Confederate statues. In Bentonville, this park glorifies a Confederate statue that has now been (dubiously) linked to Governor James H. Berry. The MOCA/Brick reimagined MONUMENTS Exhibition includes work by Kara Walker and Bethany Collins. https://www.nps.gov/boaf/learn/historyculture/shaw.htm Sylva North Carolina Confederate plaque debate. Kazuo Ishiguro, The Buried Giant and the Nietzschean problem of “creative forgetting.” The idea of Productive creative cognitive dissonance is drawn from MLK's idea of “creative tension.” Hajar Yazdiha, Struggle for the People's King How long will the Chavez National Monument last? The statue at UC Fresno is already gone…” Is The Trail of Tears a historical site the same way Confederate statues are? Denmark Vescey's Garden by Ethan J. Kytle and, Blain RobertsZore Neale Hurston Their Eyes were Watching God Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
David Cunningham joins John to speak about his pathbreaking article about visiting each of the 113 communities that removed or relocated Confederate symbols between 2015 and 2023. After discussing his co-authored Social Problems article, “Contesting Commemorative Landscapes” which first got him thinking about monument removal, he posits that “expungement, amplification, and repositioning” are three ways contemporary communities contest the monuments of the past.. The conversation from there ranges onward through various kinds of contested removal, ending with Cesar Chavez and his ongoing de-monumentalization. David is author of There's Something Happening Here: The New Left, the Klan, and FBI Counterintelligence and the award-winning Klansville, U.S.A.: The Rise and Fall of the Civil Rights-Era KKK,, a member of the City of St. Louis Reparations Commission and recently has been engaged in exploring political signalling in public art and monuments, including a forthcoming article on the political and cultural work of murals in Protestant and Catholic communities and in the interface areas that connect them in Belfast. His earlier Recall This Book episodes include on racialized policing in the US, on January 6th , and also on the 2024 presidential election–and a conversation with Glenn Patterson, author of Lapsed Protestant about the mural culture and politicized spaces of Belfast and Northern Ireland. Read the episode here. Mentioned in the episode By David Cunmningham himself: “What Richmond got Right about taking down Confederate Monuments” and a 2023 article coauthored with Christina Simko, “Montgomery's Monumental Truths” On place vs space there is wonderful work by Pierre Nora and Henri Lefebvre. Interface zones and the strategic cul de sacs that continue to divide Belfast neighborhoods have been brilliantly detailed and studied by various historians; eg this tour by Neil Jarman. The lucid John Guillory article (mentioned but not discussed) is “Monuments and Documents: On the Object of Study in the Humanities.” Confederate generals whose statues were erected essentially to glorify the KKK famously include Nathaniel Bedford Forrest. Private parks built up to collect Confederate monuments (with an underlying anti-government bias) include North Carolina's Valor Memorial Park, and in Texas the SS American Memorial Foundation's military retreat space now adorned with removed Confederate statues. In Bentonville, this park glorifies a Confederate statue that has now been (dubiously) linked to Governor James H. Berry. The MOCA/Brick reimagined MONUMENTS Exhibition includes work by Kara Walker and Bethany Collins. https://www.nps.gov/boaf/learn/historyculture/shaw.htm Sylva North Carolina Confederate plaque debate. Kazuo Ishiguro, The Buried Giant and the Nietzschean problem of “creative forgetting.” The idea of Productive creative cognitive dissonance is drawn from MLK's idea of “creative tension.” Hajar Yazdiha, Struggle for the People's King How long will the Chavez National Monument last? The statue at UC Fresno is already gone…” Is The Trail of Tears a historical site the same way Confederate statues are? Denmark Vescey's Garden by Ethan J. Kytle and, Blain RobertsZore Neale Hurston Their Eyes were Watching God Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies
David Cunningham joins John to speak about his pathbreaking article about visiting each of the 113 communities that removed or relocated Confederate symbols between 2015 and 2023. After discussing his co-authored Social Problems article, “Contesting Commemorative Landscapes” which first got him thinking about monument removal, he posits that “expungement, amplification, and repositioning” are three ways contemporary communities contest the monuments of the past.. The conversation from there ranges onward through various kinds of contested removal, ending with Cesar Chavez and his ongoing de-monumentalization. David is author of There's Something Happening Here: The New Left, the Klan, and FBI Counterintelligence and the award-winning Klansville, U.S.A.: The Rise and Fall of the Civil Rights-Era KKK,, a member of the City of St. Louis Reparations Commission and recently has been engaged in exploring political signalling in public art and monuments, including a forthcoming article on the political and cultural work of murals in Protestant and Catholic communities and in the interface areas that connect them in Belfast. His earlier Recall This Book episodes include on racialized policing in the US, on January 6th , and also on the 2024 presidential election–and a conversation with Glenn Patterson, author of Lapsed Protestant about the mural culture and politicized spaces of Belfast and Northern Ireland. Read the episode here. Mentioned in the episode By David Cunmningham himself: “What Richmond got Right about taking down Confederate Monuments” and a 2023 article coauthored with Christina Simko, “Montgomery's Monumental Truths” On place vs space there is wonderful work by Pierre Nora and Henri Lefebvre. Interface zones and the strategic cul de sacs that continue to divide Belfast neighborhoods have been brilliantly detailed and studied by various historians; eg this tour by Neil Jarman. The lucid John Guillory article (mentioned but not discussed) is “Monuments and Documents: On the Object of Study in the Humanities.” Confederate generals whose statues were erected essentially to glorify the KKK famously include Nathaniel Bedford Forrest. Private parks built up to collect Confederate monuments (with an underlying anti-government bias) include North Carolina's Valor Memorial Park, and in Texas the SS American Memorial Foundation's military retreat space now adorned with removed Confederate statues. In Bentonville, this park glorifies a Confederate statue that has now been (dubiously) linked to Governor James H. Berry. The MOCA/Brick reimagined MONUMENTS Exhibition includes work by Kara Walker and Bethany Collins. https://www.nps.gov/boaf/learn/historyculture/shaw.htm Sylva North Carolina Confederate plaque debate. Kazuo Ishiguro, The Buried Giant and the Nietzschean problem of “creative forgetting.” The idea of Productive creative cognitive dissonance is drawn from MLK's idea of “creative tension.” Hajar Yazdiha, Struggle for the People's King How long will the Chavez National Monument last? The statue at UC Fresno is already gone…” Is The Trail of Tears a historical site the same way Confederate statues are? Denmark Vescey's Garden by Ethan J. Kytle and, Blain RobertsZore Neale Hurston Their Eyes were Watching God Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
David Cunningham joins John to speak about his pathbreaking article about visiting each of the 113 communities that removed or relocated Confederate symbols between 2015 and 2023. After discussing his co-authored Social Problems article, “Contesting Commemorative Landscapes” which first got him thinking about monument removal, he posits that “expungement, amplification, and repositioning” are three ways contemporary communities contest the monuments of the past.. The conversation from there ranges onward through various kinds of contested removal, ending with Cesar Chavez and his ongoing de-monumentalization. David is author of There's Something Happening Here: The New Left, the Klan, and FBI Counterintelligence and the award-winning Klansville, U.S.A.: The Rise and Fall of the Civil Rights-Era KKK,, a member of the City of St. Louis Reparations Commission and recently has been engaged in exploring political signalling in public art and monuments, including a forthcoming article on the political and cultural work of murals in Protestant and Catholic communities and in the interface areas that connect them in Belfast. His earlier Recall This Book episodes include on racialized policing in the US, on January 6th , and also on the 2024 presidential election–and a conversation with Glenn Patterson, author of Lapsed Protestant about the mural culture and politicized spaces of Belfast and Northern Ireland. Read the episode here. Mentioned in the episode By David Cunmningham himself: “What Richmond got Right about taking down Confederate Monuments” and a 2023 article coauthored with Christina Simko, “Montgomery's Monumental Truths” On place vs space there is wonderful work by Pierre Nora and Henri Lefebvre. Interface zones and the strategic cul de sacs that continue to divide Belfast neighborhoods have been brilliantly detailed and studied by various historians; eg this tour by Neil Jarman. The lucid John Guillory article (mentioned but not discussed) is “Monuments and Documents: On the Object of Study in the Humanities.” Confederate generals whose statues were erected essentially to glorify the KKK famously include Nathaniel Bedford Forrest. Private parks built up to collect Confederate monuments (with an underlying anti-government bias) include North Carolina's Valor Memorial Park, and in Texas the SS American Memorial Foundation's military retreat space now adorned with removed Confederate statues. In Bentonville, this park glorifies a Confederate statue that has now been (dubiously) linked to Governor James H. Berry. The MOCA/Brick reimagined MONUMENTS Exhibition includes work by Kara Walker and Bethany Collins. https://www.nps.gov/boaf/learn/historyculture/shaw.htm Sylva North Carolina Confederate plaque debate. Kazuo Ishiguro, The Buried Giant and the Nietzschean problem of “creative forgetting.” The idea of Productive creative cognitive dissonance is drawn from MLK's idea of “creative tension.” Hajar Yazdiha, Struggle for the People's King How long will the Chavez National Monument last? The statue at UC Fresno is already gone…” Is The Trail of Tears a historical site the same way Confederate statues are? Denmark Vescey's Garden by Ethan J. Kytle and, Blain RobertsZore Neale Hurston Their Eyes were Watching God Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-south
In this episode we're going to explore three very different thinkers who nonetheless converge on their theories of language. We're going to see if we can't extract an intelligible whole out of the ideas generated by this trio: the Nietzschean theory of language as command, the view of Cassirer that man is a symbolic animal, and Wittgenstein's concept of the language-game.
Memorial Day Service
My colleague Oliver Traldi recently published an essay called ‘Jane Austen's Virtuous Liberalism'. It's a very nice discussion of the ways in which Austen understand the challenges of character formation.Virtue, as Austen sees it, faces two tough challenges. First, people whose characters are not yet formed must see how to be virtuous rather than vicious. Then, the virtuous must somehow find a way to succeed in their struggles against the vicious without adopting vicious means.In this episode, Oliver and I discussed Austen's ideas of virtue, what that has to do with liberalism, the relationship between philosophy and literature more broadly, as well as poetry and ideas about the Great Books. We also talked about the Keira Knightly Pride and Prejudice. Yes, we both liked it. Here is why Oliver thinks Jane Austen is so popular among philosophers.TRALDI: And so I do think that even though she's not making arguments, she's not laying out philosophical theories, there is a level of precision in her thinking about virtue, which I do think is something that it took me a little aback.And I think it's part of why—one person who quote-tweeted my article was Daniel Kodsi, who's a friend of our colleague John Maier and his coauthor often. And he runs this magazine called The Philosophers' Magazine, which I had written before. And Daniel quote-tweeted my article with something like, “Add Oliver to the list of all the philosophers who love Austen.”OLIVER: And it's a long list.TRALDI: And I think it's a long list. And I do think this precision is part of it that she does, that it is—again, it's not like a philosophy journal article, but it is an intellectual sophistication that is often not present in novelists that we really appreciate.And here is an extract about Austen, Smith, and the wonderfully fertile period at the end of the eighteen century.TRALDI: But yes, I think it's obvious—without knowing the background, I'm sure there are scholarly questions about, how much Smith did Austen read? And they're both 250th—a lot was happening in 1775 and 1776.OLIVER: Those were great years. Those were the good old days.TRALDI: They were great years. In the great books syllabus, you get to the end of the 1700s and suddenly there's this—you have Smith, you have Kant, you have the American Revolution, you have the French Revolution, you have Burke. Rousseau is right before, Montesquieu is right before. I mean, it was a real—OLIVER: It's a great time.TRALDI: It was a great time. A lot was being done. And obviously, you know, I love the 1800s. I love the Romantics. But you could teach a whole great books course from 1750 to 1800, probably.OLIVER: You've also got all the dictionaries and all that kind of work going on as well. It's a very, very fertile—explorations.TRALDI: Yes, yes. There's all sorts of—yes, it was an amazing time.OLIVER: So did you, having read these two, Austen and Smith, close together—TRALDI: Yes, and I should say that my reading of Austen was much more careful than my reading of Smith.OLIVER: Sure, but you wrote this before you read Smith.TRALDI: Yes, absolutely.OLIVER: Or at least you fully conceived it. Do you see a lot of Smith in Austen?TRALDI: “A lot” might be—This was my favourite bit.TRALDI: Yes. But this is one of the great—I know we talked about this, but it's one of the great—you see this in Smith, you see this in Austen—commerce has its own virtues, and they are very traditional virtues. You have to be trustworthy. You have to be pleasant. You can't really be wholly self-interested in every moment because people have to be willing to deal with you given your—I mean, think about Yelp reviews or even just word of mouth. “Oh, that person screwed me over.”OLIVER: There's a discussion in one of Hayek's papers, which is—it's a very Smithian point he makes about, the nature of the knowledge problem means that it's not so much that I'm trying to get information about the thing you're trying to sell me, but I'm really trying to get information about you and whether you are someone I should be buying from. Which is exactly the project that the novelists and Smith—there's a sort of period between Smith and the early novelists, running through Austen to George Eliot, when they're all working on that problem together.TRALDI: Yes. I do think in Austen, it's often—the real puzzle is, how do you make out somebody else's character?OLIVER: Exactly.TRALDI: This is a phrase that Lizzy Bennet does use with regard to Darcy. And how do we actually figure out who the trustworthy and untrustworthy people are?OLIVER: And if you're too philosophical about that, in the sort of analytic sense, I think you can end up not paying enough attention to the particulars of that question.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: Because when you actually try and do it, it's really, really hard.TRALDI: Yes. And I think this is the sort of—reading Austen, you get a sense of—and there are very few philosophy papers on things like this. Reading Austen, you get a sense of, what sorts of details in a normal life are the ones that I can extract information from to make out somebody else's character?Oliver is an analytical, political philosopher. You can find out more about his work here. Here he is on Twitter. His Substack is orting. You can watch the episode on YouTube here.TranscriptHENRY OLIVER: Today I am talking to Oliver Traldi. Oliver is an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Toledo in Ohio. He is my colleague on the Emerging Scholars Program at the Mercatus Center, and he's written a book about political beliefs as well as many other articles for magazines, online.He's got a Substack. He's maybe the most prominent political and epistemological young philosopher of his generation. [laughter] But most importantly for us, he is interested in Jane Austen and the idea of virtue. Oliver, welcome.OLIVER TRALDI: Thank you so much for having me.Reading Austen as a PhilosopherOLIVER: Let's just start—before we get to this article you've written, tell me about being a philosopher but reading Jane Austen, because she's often read and commented on by people who are not philosophers or who are only philosophers by acquaintance or whatever.TRALDI: Right.OLIVER: Is it different reading as a philosopher, do you think?TRALDI: I think yes and no. One thing as a philosopher, there are—contemporary philosophy, we have very exacting standards of rigor and clarity. And when we look for a theory, we want something that's been improved by hundreds of people and thousands of journal articles.And so, if you were to simply extract a theory of virtue from a novel and say, “Does this—is this the end-all, be-all of moral thinking?” obviously you're going to be disappointed. So I think as a philosopher, you have to look for other types of things, other types of sensitivities rather than logical sensitivity.You have to say, how sensitive is the author to the different types of situations where people's virtue can be exhibited or challenged? Or how sensitive is the author to the different types of pressures that a character's convictions can be put under, or the different sorts of compromises that they might have to make, or the different sorts of people who might not be virtuous who they might have to interact with and sort of, you know, contract with or avoid? And what are going to be the impacts of different kinds of choices in those situations?So the novelists, I think, tend—if they do it well, a novelist who's interested in morality will understand living morally probably better than a philosopher, while maybe not understanding, say, arguments about whether morality supervenes on reality or vice versa, or what grounds morality, or different theories of meta-ethics or whatever.OLIVER: I mean, there are obviously some novelists who do have a better appreciation of those things than others, we should say.TRALDI: Yes, I think that's absolutely true. And as I wrote in my article, I do think Austen in particular had an appreciation for this issue that you might call moral disarming or unilateral disarming. You know, does the moral person put themselves at a disadvantage relative to the immoral person? And then how do we actually help—how does morality survive?So that's a kind of philosophical question, but I tend to think—I taught last year—I think we've talked about this a bit. I taught in a great books program at Tulsa.OLIVER: This is the Jennifer Frey program.TRALDI: This is the ill-fated Jennifer Frey program. Jennifer—I don't know if you've met her, but she's an incredibly charismatic person. But somehow the program, despite being enormously successful, did not survive. You know, I was there for a year, and they decided that was long enough.OLIVER: [laughs] You don't think your arrival was the—TRALDI: No, no. I hope not. I most certainly hope not.OLIVER: No. General problems of higher education prevailed. Yes.TRALDI: Yes, many, many problems of higher education these days. But yes, so I think—what was I saying?OLIVER: Well, I think we're getting to this question of, you are not just a philosopher; you teach the great books.TRALDI: Right, exactly. The great books. That's where I was. Yes.Philosophy and the Great BooksOLIVER: So, one thing I'm interested in is that, you know, reading as a philosopher, you get a slightly different perspective on Austen. When you read other fiction, poetry, whatever, is there a benefit to you as a philosopher? Does it broaden you in some way?TRALDI: Yes. I think absolutely, it's broadening, but it's also focusing in a different way. You know, contemporary philosophy is often described or captured with the word epicycles. So what we mean when we say epicycles is, you have some major theory, which is supposed to answer some big question. And then your career as a philosopher—you're like three layers deep in the theory, in some sub-debate, and you're making some really fine-grained distinctions.And if you can make those distinctions successfully, you've had a really great career. But I think it's easy to forget, why are we doing—you know, what attracted us to philosophy? Why are we doing this to begin with?And the great novels, great books in general—one example I always use is the Book of Job. It doesn't really—it's not doing clear philosophy on the question of why do bad things happen to good people. But when you read it, you feel the question, why do bad things happen to good people? You get it, you know? You get why this is a question that people have worried about for thousands of years. You get why it calls out for an answer.You know, there's a lot of truth out there. I'm looking at a set of coat hangers, and I could count the coat hangers. But if you were given the decision, would I rather have an answer to how many coat hangers are across the room from me, or why do bad things happen to good people? You'd probably go with the latter one. There's somehow some kind of depth or importance to that question, right?And I think there's—a great novelist can often generate some vividity to these questions. They can show how these questions are part of a good life, asking these questions, trying to have these questions answered—or a not-so-good life.Certainly in Austen there are a lot of characters who learn to be more virtuous. Probably Emma is the clearest example. But you might also think of Marianne Dashwood. Really—OLIVER: Lizzy Bennet.TRALDI: Lizzy Bennet really learns to be a better person. I actually think her character is rather close to Emma in a lot of ways.OLIVER: Yes, I think Emma's sort of a clear rewrite of Lizzy in some—yes, yes.TRALDI: Yes, and in some ways more evocative, actually. Yes. I mean, we can talk about all these books. But yes, I think there's these things, even—obviously qua literature, they have other virtues, right? Which much philosophy doesn't have; very little philosophy has the literary virtues.But the philosophical virtue that a lot of literature does have is you see, okay, these are the—this is what a life is like. This is what making choices is like. These are the big questions when you decide how to live your life and what kinds of choices to make.And I think Austen—these questions are all through Austen, even though nobody has to murder anybody in Austen. Nobody has to make decisions about war and peace or about, you know, civilizational decline or civilizational progress or anything like that. These people making these small choices in a lot of ways. But those are the lives that most of us lead. And when you read Austen, you think, “Oh, okay, there's a virtuous and a vicious way to lead this kind of rather normal life.”The Good LifeOLIVER: The question of what is a good life, or what is a good life in a commercial society, maybe, is the sort of bedrock of what she's doing.TRALDI: Yes, I think so. And that's why I think Austen—you know, Austen wasn't on our syllabus at Tulsa, but she was certainly discussed. And the “what is a good life” question—to me, it's the big question that a great books program for college students should always come back to.If I didn't know what else to talk about, I would just say, “Well, we just read this book.” You know, we read these old biographies of Charlemagne from, like, Einhard—Notker the Stammerer and Einhard, his adopted son or whatever. I don't remember. But this is like 800s. I'm sure you know more about this stuff than I do.And I wasn't quite sure what to do with them because what do I know about Charlemagne? So I just said, “Does it seem like Charlemagne lived a good life?” And you know, you're off to the races. And I think that's important at that age, because that's the age at which—OLIVER: For the undergraduates?TRALDI: Yes. I think that's the age at which you're starting to make your own big decisions about what sort of life to lead. And I think for me, looking back to myself at that age, I think one thing I did wrong—at Tulsa I was in some ways as much a student as a teacher. I was rereading a lot of this stuff for the first time in decades. And some of it I was reading for the first time. As I told you, I was reading a lot of Austen for the first time for this essay.OLIVER: Right, right.TRALDI: And yes, it was stuff that I had thought about at a theoretical level, you know, like what are the ins and outs of this theory or this philosophical move or something like that. But you feel the question a bit differently when you're like, “Okay, I'm an adult. I have to decide whether to live in this way or that way.”The world is open to you. You could convert to Thomism [laughter] like so many have tried to have me do, or you could become a merchant after reading The Wealth of Nations. Or you could become a revolutionary after reading Marx, or you could become a Nietzschean. You know, there are all these choices open to you.OLIVER: Please don't become a Nietzchean.TRALDI: No, no. That is, I'm a—OLIVER: Keep your children out of school if that's going to be the result. [laughs]TRALDI: Yes. I'm a committed moralist, so I cannot, but he is—he made a comeback, that's for sure.Philosophy and PoetryOLIVER: Now, there's this obviously sort of long-running question in philosophy about, what is the relationship between philosophy and poetry? Are they antagonists, or are they in some way, you know, twins, and each provides one half of what is needed for a complete way of understanding the world? Do you have a position on this?TRALDI: Yes, I mean, I think they're what the kids call twinning.OLIVER: Twinning? [laughs]TRALDI: I think they're twinning. No, no, I think that means something different. I think that means when you're wearing the same outfit or something like that.OLIVER: So we're almost twinning with our stripes—yes, I see.TRALDI: We're almost. We actually—we are stripes and blue. Yes, we're closer than I would've expected.I would say closer to twins. There are a lot of claims that philosophy is at odds somehow with this or that. There's also this—certain people will say, “Well, ever since Socrates, philosophy has been at odds with politics.” And a big part of philosophy is, how do you survive? Well, I don't know. Nobody's trying to kill me. I think of myself as a decently committed philosopher.OLIVER: It seems to me this changed fundamentally in the Enlightenment and with the Romantics, and they see it all much more joined up. It's a sort of ancient-and-modern dynamic.TRALDI: Yes, there may be an ancient-and-modern distinction there. But yes, for me I don't see any kind of contradiction. Now, there are—and I think this comes out of what I said before—philosophical attempts to understand poetry. And certain kinds of literary and aesthetic devices do sometimes fall a little flat.The philosophical literature on metaphor, for instance—I think some theories of metaphor really don't get why people use metaphors. [laughter] So one of the most important theories of metaphor is that they're all just false, that it's like everybody who uses a metaphor is lying. This isn't the full theory. There are bells and whistles added.OLIVER: Sure, sure.TRALDI: But yes, so I think there's no contradiction. But at the same time, they are different modes in some ways, and people who do the one are often trying to do something different than the other.I do think that the desire for rigor and precision and clarity that philosophers have can be a little maddening to nonphilosophers, who see the pull of philosophical questions like, “What sort of life I should lead?” and then see, what do philosophers actually do?And we're doing all this modal logic and all these truth tables and all this very technical stuff that looks like math. And they say, “That can't possibly be the right way to think about how to live.” And it's true that there are these studies of—that suggest ethicists aren't actually very good people and things like that, although you have to wonder what is the background ethical theory that went into evaluating them.So yes, I don't think there's really a contradiction between philosophy and anything else. But certainly, there was a point in my life where I always come back to trying to write poetry and do poorly and then stop. But it was always something where I would say, “Okay, if I'm doing philosophy in the afternoon, I better wait till the evening to write poetry.” You have to sort of reboot and get into a different mode.OLIVER: Iris Murdoch used to write philosophy in the morning and novels in the afternoon. That kind of thing.TRALDI: Yes, I think that's very sensible.OLIVER: And she was upstairs for the one and downstairs for the other.TRALDI: Yes. That's even better, you know?Favorite PoetsOLIVER: Which poets do you like?TRALDI: Geez, I guess for an American, I like Wallace Stevens. I wasn't expecting this question. For a Brit, you know, I actually like Philip Larkin a lot.OLIVER: Oh, yes?TRALDI: I know—what is the opinion of Larkin? Is he considered—OLIVER: Very high.TRALDI: Very high? Okay.OLIVER: Some—there are some dissenters, but basically he's the guy.TRALDI: He's the guy, okay. Yes.OLIVER: Twentieth-century English poetry is like Auden, Larkin, Betjeman.TRALDI: Yes, Auden is—actually, my friend Jane Cooper just wrote something about Auden.OLIVER: Yes, Jane is excellent.TRALDI: Yes, Jane is really great.OLIVER: That was in the New Statesman if you want to look it up.TRALDI: That was in the New Statesman. Yes, yes, yes. But Auden, I don't know quite as well.I mean, poetry is—I think it's interesting the way that we receive poetry now. I think you were talking about this a few days ago, about things like poems appearing as inspirational quotes on social media or something like that, and whoever is the most quotable. And you felt like maybe Dostoevsky is very quotable.OLIVER: Dostoevsky has a sort of screenshot quality.TRALDI: Yes, yes.OLIVER: As does Martin Amis.TRALDI: Yes. So I—OLIVER: Whereas Philip Larkin in a funny way—you know, he has very short poems. You can get the whole poem on Twitter. Like, Robert Frost has that. But something like “The Whitsun Weddings,” it's quite hard to just take three lines out. The whole thing works as a—and that, so that poem gets less—TRALDI: Yes. Which is what you would expect from a good poem, really, that it would form a kind of whole.OLIVER: Exactly. If it's a three-page ode, it should have a continuous quality.TRALDI: Yes, it should have a kind of internal structure. Yes.OLIVER: There are some one-line things and—but I think it's notable that a poet like Wordsworth doesn't seem to get a lot of social media play. And I think probably that's one reason.TRALDI: So yes, I think Larkin is somebody who, I did see some shorter references to him, and I thought I'd better just go and look up a ton of poems by this guy. And Stevens was the same way.Death and Philip LarkinOLIVER: So, which Larkin do you like?TRALDI: You're really putting me on the spot here. [laughter] It has been a little while.OLIVER: I lied to you and said it would be about Jane Austen.TRALDI: Yes, now I'm completely screwed. Well, he has a bunch about death. He has one where death is a ship following you. And he has one where death is, like, a fruit that gets picked or something.OLIVER: Apple?TRALDI: Might be an apple.OLIVER: He decides not to throw the apple.TRALDI: There's one with sweetbreads in it. And now I'm really—OLIVER: The ship one, “Next, Please”—that's excellent.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: He sees the—it's like hearing the music coming, and then the ship.TRALDI: I forgot that that was the title. I forgot that that was the title.OLIVER: And then as the ship goes past, it leaves nothing in its wake. It's very sort of—very gloomy.TRALDI: It's very gloomy, yes. I think I read Larkin in a gloomy phase; it was like Larkin and Radiohead or something.OLIVER: But he's a good example of what you were saying before, that he won't think propositionally. He's logical in the sense that he's sort of orderly, and he goes from one thing to the next. But he's not being a philosopher.TRALDI: No, of course. Yes.OLIVER: But he's very preoccupied with the sorts of questions that philosophers are probing, but has a sort of very meaningful treatment of them.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: And I think in a way, the sharp response that you want from the reader in those questions, Larkin is better at provoking than someone like Bertrand Russell or some other contemporary of his.TRALDI: Yes, yes.OLIVER: Bertrand Russell's a bit earlier, but you know what I mean.TRALDI: No, I think that's exactly right. And I think that is why I'm a fan of the great books pedagogically and not—I don't know if Larkin will be called a great, you know, like, who knows? I don't really understand that designation, but tings like poetry and novels.OLIVER: The biggest dissenter was Harold Bloom, who said Philip Larkin's just a period piece. And he doesn't understand why everyone likes him.TRALDI: Oh, yes, well, I'm not on board with everything. Oh, I've also been—OLIVER: No, you're not very Bloomian.TRALDI: I'm not very Bloomian, I don't think.OLIVER: Either Allan or Harold.TRALDI: Yes. Well, I actually—this is very embarrassing, but I've actually never read The Closing of the American Mind, which I know is—OLIVER: But why should you? I'm not sure it's retained its—TRALDI: Well, it's certainly been received into my circle. But it is like a classic of anti-ideological—OLIVER: Sure. Have you read Adler, How to Read a Book, that kind of great books stuff?TRALDI: No. There's so many things that I haven't read. I mean, I'm just learning how to read. I learned how to read in Tulsa last year, [laughter] in Oklahoma, which is not where most people would go to learn how to read.Jane Austen and the Problem of MoralityOLIVER: So let's move to Jane Austen. Your thesis basically is, many moral theories face this problem that if I believe XYZ theory and you don't believe it, you can get the advantage of me. Because I'll always stick to my principles and you can just be a bad guy.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: So is morality screwed? This is what people say about liberalism. This is what you're arguing. And you think Jane Austen's got an answer to that?TRALDI: Yes, I think she has a kind of answer. And again, one decision I had to make while writing the essay was, am I going to go super—this is a completely philosophically rigorous and respectable answer? Or am I just going to kind of sketch it?OLIVER: Slum it in literary criticism? [laughter]TRALDI: Yes, I wouldn't put it quite that way, but—and I think I went for the latter, where I just wanted to kind of evoke the answer. And I think the answer has something to do with living in a large enough society where—and Austen I think is not the only person to give this answer. But you live in a large enough society where, when people see you acting well and somebody else acting poorly, the disadvantage that you have in that one interaction is outweighed by the advantages you have from the society that you gain from being seen to act well by many others.So one thing I didn't mention here, but a connection I made when I was first coming up with this idea, is that it's actually a lot like what Martin Luther King Jr. says about civil disobedience. So he says, you might think, if you're out there and the police are coming at you with bats, or the white supremacists are coming at you with bats or whatever, weapons or whatever, you might think, “I'm on the losing end of this interaction.”But actually what will happen is that this interaction will be seen by many others. And you, by keeping your calm, will be seen to be the virtuous one, and they, by being violent, will be seen to be the vicious ones. And this can only help your political cause. I'm probably abstracting some of the details of King's presentation.OLIVER: In a vulgar sense, this is the sort of “be the change you want to see” approach.TRALDI: Yes, but also, be the change you want other people to see. You know? Because that's how it gets saved from—and again, one of the ways in which this is not quite philosophically rigorous is because the philosopher can say, “Well, what about an example where nobody's going to see it? Or what about an example where the situation is set up that in doing the right thing, you're perceived to have done the wrong thing?” And you get back into tough problems. And that's why we have philosophy. You know, there's always going to be these puzzles.OLIVER: But we don't get the—I think this is what the novelists are helpful for. We don't get to set the conditions in our lives. You know, when you're doing a philosophical problem, you can just say, “Well, these are the conditions. What happens then?” And what Jane Austen is so good at is saying, “I'm going to take her and drop her in this house, and that's life. And she's just going to—she won't even know what the conditions are for a long time.” That's the novelist's preoccupation.TRALDI: Yes. Yes. It's interesting what you said about not even knowing what the conditions are. It's one thing I love, which is there in, I think, a lot of Austen—and it's done by a lot of my favorite novelists. I think Kazuo Ishiguro is really good at this. It's just novels where you see the characters' growing awareness of their circumstances and—OLIVER: Like in Klara and the Sun or something.TRALDI: Yes, or I think certainly in Never Let Me Go and in Remains of the Day, a lot of the action is in a situation where you understand what's going on better than the characters do.Clues and GamesTRALDI: And I think we talked about this the other day. In Austen, Emma, for example, is this sort of, like, halfway detective where she sees a lot of clues that could help her understand the nature of the life she's leading and the circumstances she's in, but she always misinterprets the clues. But on the other hand, it's not like she misses them entirely. She's kind of on the right track, and at least she's trying.OLIVER: And what I think Austen does so well in that book—I think it's her most important book—is that by putting us, without quite realizing it, with Emma's blinkers on, as it were, and only allowing our perspective to be her perspective, she makes us the detective.But whereas in a detective novel, you know, there's a funny little man and he is a detective, and he says, “Oh, there's a clue in this novel,” the read of—on the first read very often goes straight past what they must later realize to be a clue. And that is such a normal condition of life, that, “Oh, actually, that was one of the conditions, but you couldn't have known it. Sorry.” And you can only work it out in retrospect.TRALDI: Yes. In modern love, these are sometimes called red flags. [laughter] I think it's not quite a precise analogy, but yes, I think it's right. And I certainly—I had read Emma years ago and didn't really notice. As you say, on my first read, I didn't really notice, even having watched—I think it was the, what is it, the Kate Beckinsale version maybe, from ITV in like 1996 or something.It was really in reading it for this essay that I noticed that this feature that, starting on page 30 or 40 or so, there's a—and they're often in games. The clues are often in games. So very early on, Elton is playing some sort of poem game with Emma.OLIVER: The riddles, yes.TRALDI: The riddle game. And you know, Emma already misinterprets his riddles as being about Harriet rather than about her. But then there's also—the riddles also have some relation to things that happen much later.OLIVER: Then there's the anagram game at the end.TRALDI: There's the anagram game at the end. Yes, it's the—and I don't think there are many games like that in any of the other Austen.OLIVER: People play games, but we're not taken into them and have them narrated in that way.TRALDI: And they're not word games in general. There's card games and things like that. And you know, in Pride and Prejudice, Wickham has all these gambling debts and things like that.OLIVER: Yes.TRALDI: You know, in—I don't know if you know Whit Stillman, but for the same magazine a couple years ago I wrote about Whit Stillman, who's a sort of conservative filmmaker who's a huge Austen fan and brings in Austenian themes to a lot of his movies, but writes them about characters in the 1960s and '70s. And one of them was called The Last Days of Disco, for example, about—and some of the broader social themes he talks about are also there in Austen.So one thing that was just on the edges of my consciousness as I read through the novels for this essay was the question of the noble man versus the working man, which I think is very present in Austen and has something to do with her conception of virtue: that the virtuous person will be engaging in commerce in some way.OLIVER: Those moments of the noble and the virtuous man or whatever often take place in a shop, like the drapier in Emma or the jewelry shop in Sense and Sensibility.TRALDI: That's interesting. That's interesting.OLIVER: She's very careful to take us into a commercial situation and contrast.TRALDI: See, that is the sort of detail that I think a philosopher—I think we—the mere—the vibe of, “You're in a shop, and this means something.” I think this is something philosophers are—we can watch for the action; we can judge the characters' actions. But then there are these questions of atmosphere and milieu. And certain things happen in a shop; certain things happen at the seaside. In Persuasion there's an injury by the seaside.OLIVER: Yes. That's one of the most exciting scenes in Austen. Very dramatic.TRALDI: Yes, yes. I think actually Persuasion in some ways is quite different than her other books. It has a sort of—you know, in some ways it feels a little more like Frankenstein or Wuthering Heights at points. There's a little bit of a windblown, dark quality to it at times. It's a little bit bleaker. It's a little hard to explain why, but that's just a feeling that I had reading it that maybe had changed with some of the other literary tastes of the time.Artlessness in Austen's HeroinesOLIVER: Now, the quality that you focus on in the heroines, in this question of virtue defending itself against bad actors who break the rules, is artlessness.TRALDI: Yes. So this is a term Austen uses quite a bit, and almost always, she very much picks and chooses the characters who are going to receive this term. And I thought that this is like—it's not only her artless characters who face this question about how can morality survive, or how can virtue prevail, but I think they're the limit point.Like, if you really are unwilling to use—and I mentioned in the essay, when Darcy describes—I forget what; maybe it's him describing how he found Lydia and Wickham, or it's something to do with Wickham—he said, “I had to resort to arts.” So it must be, the “arts” back then means—one of the meanings of the term is dishonesty or subterfuge or something.OLIVER: Yes, if someone was artful, it could have—TRALDI: Yes, like the Artful Dodger.OLIVER: Exactly. Could have negative connotations for sure.TRALDI: Yes. And so the artless one, you know, they're missing something.So it's the question of, if you view—morality in a way means you're missing something, right? You've taken arts out of your arsenal. You've taken tools that could deal with certain situations, and you've just decided not to use them. So the question is, how can it be an advantage to have less tools?You know, we're here at Mercatus; the economists would tell you it's never advantageous to have fewer choices, right? There's no paradox of choice. It's never advantageous to have fewer choices. And so I think this is the—if morality is a kind of unilateral disarmament, artlessness is the clearest case of that.OLIVER: And you're seeing that in Fanny Price, Elinor—TRALDI: You see that in Fanny Price. You see that in Elinor. Harriet Smith is described as artless over and over again. And then there are these other characters who are described as artful, or other things that are mentioned as arts.I think Harriet, in a lot of ways, is the one who's most often described this way. And it's interesting because you think of Emma changing a lot in Emma, but Knightley actually shifts in his evaluation of Harriet, who he thought of as sort of an unserious person. And Knightley himself comes to recognize her artlessness as a kind of seriousness which makes her a good match, not ultimately for him, but for his dude, Robert.OLIVER: The farmer.TRALDI: The farmer, yes.OLIVER: He doesn't change his view of her social position, though.TRALDI: No, certainly not. But he does change his view of her character, basically. You know, her artlessness is not silliness. It has a sort of depth to it.And yes, certainly Fanny. In the Whit Stillman movie Metropolitan that's part of what set me on this, there's this whole discussion of the book Mansfield Park and this old Lionel Trilling essay about it where he says, how is it—there's this question about how modern people can even like Mansfield Park because we've sort of lost the notion of virtue being exciting or something.One of the most provocative lines to me in Austen was in Sense and Sensibility where it says that Elinor glories in Edward's integrity, which is an odd thing to glory in. You don't glory—nobody is on Instagram showing off their integrity, you know?OLIVER: It's like that René Gerard quote people like to pass around: “Everyone is on diet pills and nobody wants to be a saint.”TRALDI: I like that. That is very Instagrammable.OLIVER: Exactly. Exactly.TRALDI: That's very good, actually. I like that. Yes, so there's something provocative about the notion that virtue can be exciting, and in particular can be romantically exciting.The Importance of IntegrityOLIVER: Or even less than that. One thing I think is difficult for people interpreting Austen today is that virtue, whether it's exciting or romantically exciting, or the notion of integrity is of interest for its own sake.There's a lot of—you know, we have integrity as an organization. It's very important for me to have integrity as a professional. But there's not as much a sense of, just having integrity is the good life. We don't need to be complicated about this. That's just—you should just do that. And Austen's very firm on that all the way through.And criticism wants to pull her towards sometimes feminism, sometimes discussions of slavery, sometimes various other things. And she's just constantly sort of resisting that by saying, “I like integrity. I like good people. I don't think it's that hard.” It's a good line you've picked up on, I think.TRALDI: There's a character in The Wire who says, “A man's gotta have a code.” I think he's Omar, who murders the drug dealers and steals from them.OLIVER: I haven't seen it.TRALDI: So he says, “A man's gotta have a code.” And I think there is a—even in a character who in some ways is bad, we admire the integrity of having a code and sticking to it.There is this debate, I guess in moral philosophy, or at least on the outskirts of moral philosophy, about, “Well, if your code is wrong, maybe it's better not to stick to it.” I don't share that perspective. I think part of the good life is holding yourself to certain standards. And if those standards turn out to be wrong, the holding yourself is still of moral value, right? Not allowing yourself—OLIVER: It doesn't mean they're not adjustable.TRALDI: Yes, no, of course. If you decide the standards are wrong, and in Austen—OLIVER: It's sort of implicit in the idea of having standards that you will be honest and therefore accept when your standards need to be improved or whatever. Right?TRALDI: Yes, I think that's absolutely right. And in Austen we certainly see people shifting their standards. And I think one thing that I—of course, modern readers and watchers of Austen do not quite understand some of these things. But I think in Pride and Prejudice in particular, we're supposed to feel that Lizzy Bennet is quite hard on people and has to learn to improve herself in that way.OLIVER: We're delighted with her when she does that because we think it's sassy.TRALDI: Yes, exactly. If you go on YouTube, you can see all these, like, “Lizzy Bennet owning people's lives for 50 minutes,” these compilations of clips from the various movies or whatever. And she's obviously very, very clever.But she realizes—after coming to understand who Wickham is and feeling that she might not have another chance with Darcy, she comes to realize that she has had certain prejudices, which have made her blind to the realities of the world and blind to what might be her best options.So yes, I was saying I believe in integrity; that's all I was saying. And integrity obviously is adjustable, but I tend to think that it's better—even if the rule is wrong, it's better for the person who has it to hold themselves to it, rather than to adjust to try to get an advantage.And in philosophy, we have all sorts of terminology for these sorts of questions: “Are you an internalist or an externalist about reasons or about rules or whatever?” I think the more literary way to say it would just be that integrity is a virtue. And people should stick to their codes unless they see a good reason to change them.Austen and Adam SmithOLIVER: Now, you have recently been reading Adam Smith.TRALDI: Yes, I did read a lot of Adam Smith for this debate we had last week. Although I did a poor job because I had forgotten that the debate was about whether Smith was a philosopher or an economist. [laughter] I thought it was simply, is he a philosopher or not? So I put myself in the odd position of arguing that Adam Smith is not an economist.But yes, I think it's obvious—without knowing the background, I'm sure there are scholarly questions about, how much Smith did Austen read? And they're both 250th—a lot was happening in 1775 and 1776.OLIVER: Those were great years. Those were the good old days.TRALDI: They were great years. In the great books syllabus, you get to the end of the 1700s and suddenly there's this—you have Smith, you have Kant, you have the American Revolution, you have the French Revolution, you have Burke. Rousseau is right before, Montesquieu is right before. I mean, it was a real—OLIVER: It's a great time.TRALDI: It was a great time. A lot was being done. And obviously, you know, I love the 1800s. I love the Romantics. But you could teach a whole great books course from 1750 to 1800, probably.OLIVER: You've also got all the dictionaries and all that kind of work going on as well. It's a very, very fertile—explorations.TRALDI: Yes, yes. There's all sorts of—yes, it was an amazing time.OLIVER: So did you, having read these two, Austen and Smith, close together—TRALDI: Yes, and I should say that my reading of Austen was much more careful than my reading of Smith.OLIVER: Sure, but you wrote this before you read Smith.TRALDI: Yes, absolutely.OLIVER: Or at least you fully conceived it. Do you see a lot of Smith in Austen?TRALDI: “A lot” might be—OLIVER: Primarily from Theory of Moral Sentiments.TRALDI: So I would say that the notion of sympathy as being fundamentally part of how you recognize a good person seems to me to be there in Austen. The characters are—OLIVER: And this is the thing about awareness of other people and learning from that awareness.TRALDI: Awareness of other people and learning from other people and feeling other people's emotions. One thing that is related to sympathy in an odd way—and I think actually Austen and Smith conceive of it a bit differently, but that is there for both of them, in particular in Sense and Sensibility—is this notion of self-control or self-command.OLIVER: Self command. Yes. Yes.The Importance of Self-CommandTRALDI: Now, Smith gives a really odd argument about self command, which is that if you don't have control over your emotions, you will end up feeling or expressing something that other people can't sympathize with. And this is bad because sympathy is good, or something like that. I actually think it's a rather confused argument.OLIVER: I think what he's saying is that if you display a lack of self-command, then no matter what you are feeling, people find it difficult to deal with that sort of uncontrolled behavior. It's not the particular expression of feeling; it's the fact that you are a little unstable or—TRALDI: Yes, I think that's right.OLIVER: —a bit extra.TRALDI: I think what Smith doesn't do is explain quite how that's bad. But what I think is that actually, in Sense and Sensibility, it's a little bit the reverse, where actually Elinor and their mother, they do sympathize with Marianne. They do feel what she's feeling after—who's the other, the w guy in Sense and Sensibility? They're all w's.OLIVER: Oh, Willoughby.TRALDI: Willoughby, right, right. Not Wickham, Willoughby. When Willoughby—OLIVER: You can just say “the cad.”TRALDI: The cad. There's always a cad. So when the cad leaves, Marianne has all these emotions, and you really feel them. And Marianne also has a lack of self-command when Willoughby is there. There's this whole episode, which I didn't quite make the most of but felt very important, where they go to the house of this woman. They just sort of barge into this house, Willoughby and Marianne.And this is really supposed to show something about the relationship. If you and your partner barge into somebody's house, it can't be a good relationship somehow because it's leading you into bad actions. That's my sense of what that episode is supposed to show from the highest possible remove.OLIVER: I think, yes, and I think there are several other instances of that: when they ride in the carriage together, unaccompanied.TRALDI: Right, right.OLIVER: And there's a sort of general consternation about this. And Marianne sort of says, “Oh, well, how can it be a problem?” And they—part of the consternation is, you're breaking the rules in a very flagrant way, but also that you are assuming that it's okay because you'll get married. And this assumption is a very big one.TRALDI: Yes. And obviously there is this assumption that—she doesn't recognize quite how—she thinks her position is much more secure than it actually is, which is how it turns out in the book. But I think we're supposed to think that even if she were right about Willoughby's affection, which in a sense, she—Willoughby—OLIVER: No. Even if they do get married, she's broken the rules in a way that—TRALDI: She's broken certain rules in a way that is—but I think what's different from Smith is, there is sympathy from her family even though she lacks self-command. But that is precisely—so it's sort of a different theory of why self-command is good. It's precisely because her emotional state is actually draining for her family.And then Elinor says—when she learns that Elinor has actually been going through something—OLIVER: The same.TRALDI: —very similar, and maybe even rougher, in this whole thing with Lucy Steele telling her about this, you know, blah, blah, blah.OLIVER: Which is a beautiful name—to steal. I mean, it's great.TRALDI: It's an amazing—honestly, in some ways Sense and Sensibility may have been my favorite. I think it's just lovely.OLIVER: If I just wanted to just read one for fun, that's what I go to. I do, yes.TRALDI: Yes. And there's a lot—none of these things are quite perfectly in there. But I think honestly, everything that's in the other novels has a little part to play in Sense and Sensibility. You know, I think if I were to recommend just one, if somebody was like, “I have time for just one,” I might recommend Sense and Sensibility.But in the end, Marianne says—again, it's one of these amazingly evocative lines. Elinor says, “You didn't act that badly. Do you compare your conduct with Willoughby's?” And she says, “No, I compare it with—Elinor, I compare it with your conduct. You have this self-command.”And it's precisely the fact—it's not—and I think this is why philosophers do like Austen, because it's not—it's still literary, but there is a precision to her moral evaluations. It's precisely the fact that Elinor knew that her family loved her and didn't want to burden—it's all quite conscious. She didn't want to burden her family with her emotions. But you actually see that Elinor has this family trait of having very strong sentiment, which Marianne does, and simply also has this virtue of self-command.And that is—there are film adaptations and TV adaptations that demonstrate self-command, but it's a very hard thing to film. It's something you feel inside. It's a very hard—the actors have to be very good for you to see—you see pieces of it in some of the adaptations of Persuasion and some of the adaptations of Sense and Sensibility, but self-command is very hard to find.Austen AdaptationsOLIVER: Which adaptations do you like the best?TRALDI: I'm forgetting—I often like the long ones that I think were for the British ITV. So I like the—I think Kate Beckinsale was in the Emma one. Although I think there was one of Persuasion, which was also quite good. I like the one of Northanger Abbey. I don't think it's that good, but it's kind of cute, which I think it's probably the cutest of her long novels.Whit Stillman did a very loose adaptation of Lady Susan, which is hilariously funny at times, and also has Kate Beckinsale and some other great actors in it.OLIVER: Did you see the new Persuasion on Netflix a couple of years ago?TRALDI: No. No.OLIVER: It has that—is it Dakota Johnson, the actress, who's famous for other non-Austenian—Fifty Shades of Grey or whatever.TRALDI: Yes, and isn't she one of the Avengers or something like that?OLIVER: Something like that. But everyone was very upset that it was this terrible adaptation.TRALDI: Oh, yes.OLIVER: Didn't—it sort of killed all of Austen's words. She looks at the camera; she drinks from the bottle. I actually thought it was quite fun. On the basis that all adaptations are bad—TRALDI: I think if you allow some looseness, it can be quite fun. So for example, the 2005 Pride and Prejudice, I think if you're just sort of like, “Well, this is just somebody who was inspired by Pride and Prejudice,” you can have a lot of fun with the movie.OLIVER: I think as an interpretation of the book, that film is quite bad.TRALDI: Oh, yes. I think it's absolutely missing the mark.OLIVER: But in terms of like, the countryside and the house and the geese and the food, it's fantastic.TRALDI: Oh, yes. It's lovely to look at.OLIVER: The dresses, right? The clothes are amazing.TRALDI: And a lot of the—and the cast is honestly like—OLIVER: Yes, it's great.TRALDI: The cast is really, really great. And the parts as they are—OLIVER: Rosamund Pike is maybe the best Jane on TV.TRALDI: She's terrific. And who's the one who plays Kitty?OLIVER: Yes.TRALDI: Who is in—and the father is the guy from The Hunger Games. I forget his name, but I think the father is excellent in that. But of course, it's not exactly the father from Austen.OLIVER: No, no, no.TRALDI: But as a movie itself—but yes, I like a lot of these longer TV versions.One odd thing—they make these choices. So there is some scholarly apparatus brought to bear on some of them. So I think maybe it's Persuasion that there were multiple versions of, and some of the adaptations use pieces from the unpublished version, which are interesting. And as I was reading it, I had to Google around a bit and figure out these things.Austen's Moral PrecisionTRALDI: I was going to say about Austen's moral precision, the other place where I think this comes in—and I wrote a bit about this in the essay—is near the end of Mansfield Park, when—the names are what I'm worst at—when Edmund, right, is finally disillusioned with—OLIVER: Mary.TRALDI: With Mary Crawford?OLIVER: Mm-hmm.TRALDI: It's because there was this affair. There's always a sibling or a cousin who makes some horrible mistake, you know? So there was this affair, and Mary Crawford can only criticize it by saying that they weren't very prudent, you know, in prudential terms. They took a big risk. They made a bad decision. You know, they really screwed themselves over.OLIVER: They could have made it work. Yes.TRALDI: Yes. And Edmund realizes that she lacks moral fervor because he thinks the appropriate criticism should be a moral one. And as a psychological matter, it shouldn't even enter your head, I think is the idea. I'm extrapolating a bit, but if you see somebody acting this badly, to then say, “Well, geez, you're doing something that isn't in your interest”—for that to be your first thought indicates that your priorities are highly misplaced in a way that, to him, is quite unattractive.And this also struck me as a moment of—this is something we philosophers talk about. What is the distinction between prudence and morality? They both tell you what you should do, in some sense, but there's different—the shoulds have different forces, right? So Edmund has a certain moral precision and sensitivity which, actually, Fanny is basically the only person he knows—not that everybody in the house is a bad person; his father is a decent guy, and one of the aunts is okay, I think.But yes, there's a real sophistication to this evaluation. And it's funny to me that she actually used this as the—I mean, I suspect that even at the time there were readers who were just like, “Wait, I really don't get what the nature of Edmund's problem is here,” because it's not like Mary—Mary's not like, “Oh, yes, I support infidelity.” You know? She's not like— it's if you blinked, you might miss it, the mistake that Mary has made.And so I do think that even though she's not making arguments, she's not laying out philosophical theories, there is a level of precision in her thinking about virtue, which I do think is something that it took me a little aback.And I think it's part of why—one person who quote-tweeted my article was Daniel Kodsi, who's a friend of our colleague John Maier and his coauthor often. And he runs this magazine called The Philosophers' Magazine, which I had written before. And Daniel quote-tweeted my article with something like, “Add Oliver to the list of all the philosophers who love Austen.”OLIVER: And it's a long list.TRALDI: And I think it's a long list. And I do think this precision is part of it that she does, that it is—again, it's not like a philosophy journal article, but it is an intellectual sophistication that is often not present in novelists that we really appreciate.Every Word MattersOLIVER: I mean, one way people talk about the great books is to say that every word matters. And a lot of novelists will say that about their own. Well, you know, Elizabeth Bowen used to say, “What you're doing is to make everything count.” Austen is one of the examples where it's actually true. Every word is being used carefully.TRALDI: Yes. It's funny, this bears on another Twitter argument I had recently about this phrase logographic necessity. Basically, every word in a great book is there for a reason. I think that's right. Although you have to be careful about—if you were to say, “Well, every word in Plato is there for a reason, so you can't really say he's wrong about every—” you would be kind of abandoning the philosophical mission.OLIVER: I mean it in the sense of what you might call the artistic or structural integrity of the book. Not everything has to tell in the meaning sense. But it all holds as a unit for some—TRALDI: Yes. I think everything is there—there is what we could call an internal reason for everything to be there. Everything is there to hold together—OLIVER: Like the making of a piece of furniture or something.TRALDI: And I think you hear—I think this is one thing that—and not all classical music, but I think it's one thing that distinguishes classical music even from very good contemporary pop music or jazz or rock music, is that you have this sense of, “Yes, every note I hear basically is holding up a larger structure of some sort.”OLIVER: Yes. And Jane Austen is very Mozart in that way.TRALDI: Yes, I think that's right. Yes.Austen's Place in Great Books ProgramsOLIVER: So should Jane Austen have a bigger place on great books programs, based on all these things you've said about her?TRALDI: Yes, this is—so, there was actually a debate—I did not write the piece in response to this debate, but this is—OLIVER: Tanner Greer.TRALDI: Yes, there was—Tanner Greer weighed in on this, and my friend Circe. I think—OLIVER: I think they're just desperately wrong.TRALDI: You think they don't—that she—OLIVER: I think Emma is obviously a book that should be on one of these syllabuses. Maybe Sense and Sensibility.TRALDI: Yes. I think the ones I would consider are Emma, Sense and Sensibility, Mansfield Park. I do think they're actually longer than I realized, which is always—I mean, there are these very practical concerns with putting together a syllabus.OLIVER: Sure, sure. Although I want to ask you about that, because my response to a lot of these debates, which is maybe just because of where I studied, but just make them read more. And if they don't do the reading, that's their, you know—TRALDI: That's true. Well, I don't want to get into this too much. We already make them read a lot compared to—so for example, a year ago, I had my students read two novels in a week, which is more than most courses make college students read.OLIVER: But that's by no means unreasonable.TRALDI: No, no, of course, of course.OLIVER: You know.TRALDI: Well, exigencies of the teenage mind aside—OLIVER: Because I often think this, when people debate how things should be taught and why it's so important to keep these programs, and they'll talk about the importance of writing essays. And then it turns out the students maybe write one essay a semester. And I sort of think, well, who cares? All this rhetoric for one essay.TRALDI: Yes. I don't know if I'm really ever going to assign essays again. It just is—the age of AI is upon us.OLIVER: Sure. But you see what I mean.TRALDI: No, yes, I know exactly what you mean. And I do think reading a lot is the main part of—and certainly, you know, when I read all seven of these in two weeks, that's much more reading than I normally do, as well, to write this essay.OLIVER: But you didn't have to lie on the sofa afterwards with a cold compress. You were fine.TRALDI: In a way it was a really good two weeks. If you get to read—I mean, this is why we have good lives, right? If you get to read Jane Austen and you call that work, it's a nice life.OLIVER: So yes, will you be putting Emma on your program?TRALDI: I would definitely consider Emma. I would definitely consider Sense and Sensibility. I would consider Mansfield Park. I think these are the ones that have—the moral element is very prominent. But it's obviously there in all of her books.OLIVER: You can have a really good moral discussion about Mansfield Park, which is a bigger, broader thing than Pride and Prejudice, for example.TRALDI: Yes, I think so. I would definitely consider—in the 1800s there were—obviously the British novel of the 1800s was a big deal, and there's—OLIVER: [laughs] We did quite well, yes.TRALDI: You all did quite well. So the ones we did at Tulsa—we had Frankenstein and Wuthering Heights and The Picture of Dorian Gray. And then we had one Irish, The Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. And I don't think anybody—if you replaced one of those with Emma or Mansfield Park, I don't think anybody would say, “Oh, you made a horrible call.”OLIVER: I think Tanner's point was that you simply don't have that many slots for an English novel that deals with these sorts of ideas, and that it should obviously be Middlemarch because that is the bigger novel. It's about bigger questions of society. It's about the whole—it's got more greatness in it, whereas Austen is sort of more about the individual.TRALDI: So I do think that this question of greatness—I think there are some people who read Austen and they think, “Well, this is—obviously it has all these sorts of themes, but it's not great. It has this littleness to it. It has this smallness to it.”OLIVER: It's domestic.TRALDI: That is not my reading of it. I think if that's the question, I don't feel that way. I think it pulls out these great themes about the nature of virtue and the nature of moral learning, becoming a better person, the nature of love. We read Sappho. We read the Symposium.To me, you read Wuthering Heights and you say, “Oh, this is a really big book because it's about society and how trauma gets passed down, and it has these horror elements, and it's very dark.” But actually, it's quite hard to figure out, how do we turn Wuthering Heights in a discussion about how to live? With Austen, it's just completely straightforward.OLIVER: [laughs] How not to live, maybe.TRALDI: Yes. In Austen, it's just completely straightforward. This is the discussion. This is what she had in mind as well, this question of how to live. So to me, Austen is completely—in terms of her successes as an artist, she belongs. In terms of her themes, she belongs. So I would not rule her out. I think she is absolutely a great, and who knows what that means, but I think she would be completely appropriate on any of these syllabi.Reading PlansOLIVER: Very good. And what will you read next?TRALDI: What will I read next? I mean, our—from the beginning, I'm thinking I should read some more poetry. It's been a while. Actually, speaking of—this is funny. Well, I want to get into William Empson. He had an odd life, which I think somebody should do like a movie about him or something.OLIVER: Yes, he'd make a great movie.TRALDI: I think Empson would be a good movie. So that might be—OLIVER: Are you going to read the poems or the criticism?TRALDI: Probably a little of both, but that's for a while from now. I think, you know, at the moment I'm back to reading philosophy. So what novel will I read next? That's a good question. What should I read next?OLIVER: If you like Jane Austen?TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: Maybe read one of the people that she admired, like Samuel Richardson or Fanny Burney, someone like that.TRALDI: You know, I do think—you saying Samuel Richardson reminded me, I've read very little Samuel Johnson. I think reading some of the great critics, I think, writing this piece—OLIVER: Oh, Johnson, yes. You would like Johnson.TRALDI: I think I would like Johnson. I think I would like Empson. The history of literary criticism is something I have very, very little idea of.OLIVER: Oh, well, then, Johnson. I mean, he's the best.TRALDI: Yes, I think I should, I should definitely read Johnson.OLIVER: English literary criticism begins and ends with Samuel Johnson.TRALDI: You know what, this is a little different, but—I might have talked about this with you a little bit—I want to read The Fable of the Bees, Mandeville, because reading about Smith—a lot of the ideas that we think of as Smithian are actually Mandevillian, and he kind of moderated them.OLIVER: Well, he hated Mandeville.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: Very hard on him.TRALDI: Yes. So a lot—like the invisible hand, it's only a small part of Smith's thinking, but it was like the entirety of Mandeville's thinking, this sort of dynamic.OLIVER: Well, I think it means different things for them. I think Mandeville, in a funny way, is more philosophical in the sense you were saying, and trying to make these propositions. And Smith was saying, “Well, what about feelings? What about all these funny things that we can't account for? Like, look around. It's too messy.”TRALDI: No, that makes sense to me. Yes, I think between Mandeville and Smith, Mandeville is somebody who thought virtue was sort of like a con.OLIVER: A fool's game.TRALDI: Exactly. You're sort of a sucker if you try to be virtuous.OLIVER: I think he also just assumed that if you were commercial, you were obviously on the get.TRALDI: Yes. But this is one of the great—I know we talked about this, but it's one of the great—you see this in Smith, you see this in Austen—commerce has its own virtues, and they are very traditional virtues. You have to be trustworthy. You have to be pleasant. You can't really be wholly self-interested in every moment because people have to be willing to deal with you given your—I mean, think about Yelp reviews or even just word of mouth. “Oh, that person screwed me over.”OLIVER: There's a discussion in one of Hayek's papers, which is—it's a very Smithian point he makes about, the nature of the knowledge problem means that it's not so much that I'm trying to get information about the thing you're trying to sell me, but I'm really trying to get information about you and whether you are someone I should be buying from. Which is exactly the project that the novelists and Smith—there's a sort of period between Smith and the early novelists, running through Austen to George Eliot, when they're all working on that problem together.TRALDI: Yes. I do think in Austen, it's often—the real puzzle is, how do you make out somebody else's character?OLIVER: Exactly.TRALDI: This is a phrase that Lizzy Bennet does use with regard to Darcy. And how do we actually figure out who the trustworthy and untrustworthy people are?OLIVER: And if you're too philosophical about that, in the sort of analytic sense, I think you can end up not paying enough attention to the particulars of that question.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: Because when you actually try and do it, it's really, really hard.TRALDI: Yes. And I think this is the sort of—reading Austen, you get a sense of—and there are very few philosophy papers on things like this. Reading Austen, you get a sense of, what sorts of details in a normal life are the ones that I can extract information from to make out somebody else's character?In philosophy, we do ask, what is a good character and what is the good action in this sort of situation? What is the bad action in this sort of situation? But it's not for the philosopher to say, “Okay, in the sorts of situations you're likely to be in, what do you pay—where do you direct your attention to try to figure out these things about?”And it's not—I don't think Austen—it's not super subtle either. In Persuasion—I mentioned in the essay—in Persuasion, it starts out by saying Anne really cared about paying off the family's debts, and the rest of her family didn't give a s**t, you know? And it's sort of like, okay, so we just immediately are like, Anne's the sort of person who you might want to have a business transaction with because if she has a debt to you, she might actually pay it. And I forget if that's the exact detail, but it's something like that, you know?OLIVER: And there's also the novelist—Jane Austen is very good at what you don't see, which aga
Keegan Kjeldsen hosts The Nietzsche Podcast and the Untimely Reflections (essentialsalts) YouTube channel — a deep four-year project working through Nietzsche, his forerunners back to the ancient world, and his afterlives in 20th- and 21st-century thought. He's also a doom metal guitarist with Destroyer of Light and Slumbering Sun, and the author of The Ritual Madness of Rock & Roll, a memoir-meets-aesthetics inquiry written on the road through Europe.________________I sat down with Keegan to work through his concept of übermodernism — what's “over and above” modernism, in the same Nietzschean spirit as the Übermensch is over and above man. We trace the history of “the modern” all the way back to Petrarch in the 14th century, work through Nietzsche's perspectivism and his critique of the genealogical fallacy, and ask where the next modernism is meant to come from. A conversation for anyone tired of fighting over whether Nietzsche belongs to the right, the left, or the postmodernists.
On today's episode, we discuss a wild mix of legal, political, and cultural battles ranging from Teslas that won't self‑drive to popes, presidents, and pronouns. James opens with a Haiti stampede at a UNESCO event as a cautionary tale about crowd control, then detours into a Tesla update where his Full Self‑Driving suddenly refused to work, forcing him to drive “like a mortal” and marvel at regenerative braking and buried cruise‑control menus. The panel then turns to Democratic scandals, unpacking why California insiders suddenly leaked damaging details about Eric Swalwell's alleged escort habit and workplace exposure claims—likely to clear the field in a top‑two primary—and speculating that New York mayor Eric Adams' Albanian citizenship may be a hedge if indictments land, even though Albania does have an extradition treaty with the U.S. That flows into a long compare‑and‑contrast between Ronald Reagan as a dignified anti‑communist statesman and Donald Trump as a Nietzschean “strongman” who punches below the belt, trolls opponents, spars unnecessarily with the Pope over Iran, but commands respect for actually getting things done, especially on foreign policy and de‑risking the Strait of Hormuz. In the back half, they dig into culture‑war lawfare: New York Catholic nuns suing Governor Kathy Hochul over gender‑identity room assignments, a Louisiana bill that would bar employers from disciplining workers who “misgender,” and how at‑will employment, vague performance reviews, and “we're going in another direction” terminations intersect with wrongful‑termination risk. James closes by reminding listeners that although he's a lawyer, he's not a labor lawyer, so anyone firing staff over speech or gender disputes should call a specialist rather than rely on Legal Monday banter that, as Mark jokes, “plus five dollars won't even buy you a cup of coffee.” Don't miss it!
In this week's episode, I answer questions I receive whenever I mention that STARFIELD is my favorite game of the 2020s. This coupon code will get you 50% off the audiobook of Half-Orc Paladin, Book #3 in the Half-Elven Thief series, (as excellently narrated by Leanne Woodward) at my Payhip store: HECTOR50 The coupon code is valid through April 20th, 2026. TRANSCRIPT 00:00:00 Introduction and Writing Updates Hello, everyone. Welcome to Episode 298 of The Pulp Writer Show. My name is Jonathan Moeller. Today is April 10th, 2026. Today I'm doing an FAQ about my experiences with Starfield, which is my favorite game of the 2020s. Before that, we will have Coupon of the Week and a progress update on my current writing, publishing, and audiobook projects. So let's start off with Coupon of the Week. This week's Coupon Code will get you 50% off the audiobook of Half-Orc Paladin, Book #3 in the Half-Elven Thief series (as excellently narrated by Leanne Woodward), at my Payhip store. That coupon code will be HECTOR50. And as always, the coupon code and the link to my Payhip store will be available in the show notes for this episode. And this coupon code will be valid through April 20th, 2026. So if you need a new audiobook for this spring, we have got you covered. Now for an update on my current writing, publishing, and audiobook projects. As of this recording, I am done with the first pass of editing through Blade of Wraiths and then starting on the second. It's taken a bit longer than I've wanted because I've had a lot of Real Life Stuff to do, but if all goes well, I'm hoping to have the book out in the second half of April, so hopefully not too much longer now. I'm also 19,000 words into Dragon-Mage, which will be the sixth book in the Rivah Half-Elven Thief series. Hopefully that will be out in May, if all goes well. No, that might slip to June, but I'm really hoping to get that one out in May. In audiobook news, Hollis McCarthy has started work on Cloak of Illusion, so hopefully if all goes well, we'll have that out to you in May sometime. In fact, I'm hoping that will come out concurrently with Dragon-Mage, because it's always nice when I can stack an ebook and an older audiobook in the series like that together. So that is where we're at with my current writing, publishing, and audiobook projects. 00:01:46 Main Topic: Starfield Now onto our main topic. This is ostensibly a podcast about writing and the business of writing, but I like video games, so we're going to talk about a video game this week. The reason for that is whenever I post about Starfield or share a screenshot from it, I frequently get a number of questions. I think it's because Starfield was an oddly divisive game when it came out. People have strong opinions about it and then have strong opinions about other people's strong opinions and I do not have these strong opinions myself. While I enjoy the game a great deal, if you don't like it, that's fine. There are lots and lots and lots of legitimate reasons to criticize Microsoft, which is the ultimate owner of Starfield. It's possible for two things to be simultaneously true that Microsoft has done a lot of sketchy things, and that Starfield is a good game that I enjoyed. I suspect it's a bit like enjoying a football game while at the same time knowing that the NFL is an unscrupulous cartel that could benefit from some thorough reforms. Despite that, I have to admit that I don't think it's super healthy to make gaming opinions, whether video games or sports games, a core part of your identity. A game in the end is just a fancy toy for amusement and idle moments. If God descended tomorrow and told me that Starfield would vanish from the face of the earth, I'd be rather disappointed, but my dinner would still taste just as good and my house would be just as warm. That said, I did enjoy the game quite a bit. Everybody needs a hobby and even I can't work every hour of every day. I wrote like a hundred novels in the last 10 years. Everyone has their own stresses in life, of course, but we seem to live in particularly stressful time these days, so a harmless hobby is a nice break from real life. The game's newest expansion came out a couple days ago on April 7th. And so with that in mind, I thought I would answer the most common questions I get whenever I post or talk about Starfield. Question: Did Starfield influence your Silent Order Science fiction series at all? No. But I'm always pleased when I get this question because it's easily answered. The final book of Silent Order came out on September the 4th, 2023, and Starfield came out on September 6th, 2023. I tried Starfield like the day after it came out, but I didn't actually start playing it in earnest until April of 2024, like I didn't actually finish the starter dungeon until April of 2024. So no, Starfield was not an influence on Silent Order. It would be fair to say that Silent Order was more influenced by James Bond, some H.P. Lovecraft, and Wing Commander: Privateer, which is actually our next question. Question: What initially drew your interest to Starfield? Part of the game reminded me a lot of Wing Commander: Privateer from the '90s, which was one of my favorite games back in the day. If you're not familiar with it, Wing Commander: Privateer was what's now called a "space trading sim" set in the Wing Commander universe. In all the previous Wing Commander games, you played as a Starfighter pilot fighting in the humans' war against the cat-like Kilrathi invaders. Your missions were assigned to you along with the specific ship you would fly for that mission. But in Privateer, you played a freelance captain with a rundown freighter. You can carry cargo, go bounty hunting, do mercenary work, trading, and just wander around the map following infinite procedurally generated missions from the Mission Board, the Merchants' Guild, and the Mercenaries' Guild. Eventually, you would have enough cash to upgrade your rundown ship to something better and configure it however you liked. There's a main plot, but you can totally ignore it and do whatever you want. I loved Privateer and I finished both it and the expansion. And of course, spent a lot of time doing the infinite procedurally generated quests. Starfield does the same thing, but with 30 years' worth of advancement of game design and technology improvements. In grand Bethesda game tradition, you don't even have to do any of the main plot lines. You can just wander around doing procedurally generated quests. It's like Privateer, but better and with ground-based quests as well. You can get out of your ship and walk around in a way you couldn't in Privateer. In Starfield, you can land at some random science outpost or industrial outpost and the inhabitants will have a quest for you. I've heard Starfield described as a "cozy game", since quite a few people enjoy just building their outposts and their ships and then decorating them like the science fiction version of Animal Crossing or Stardew Valley. In another sense, I suppose Starfield could be described as "cozy adventure". Granted, that might be a strange thing to say about missions where you machine gun space pirates, blow up their base, and then loot all their stuff, but Starfield is an excellent game for just puttering around. It's fun after a long day to play for an hour, take out some space pirates, upgrade your ship a little, maybe tinker with your outpost. And I do like, I have to admit, the main plot line and the various faction quests. Question: So the procedural generation stuff doesn't bother you? No. Procedural generation has been part of gaming forever and long before the civilizational blight that is modern LLM systems. Certainly there are points where the procedural generation of Starfield could be improved and it has been improved with patches, but I enjoy the randomness of it. Question: If you think Starfield is good, why did it have such mixed reviews? It did have some rough points at launch, like the lack of surface vehicles, the lack of city maps, and some weird choices for inventory management (among some other issues, though those were later patched or upgraded). I honestly think the game is better than the mixed reviews would indicate, and I also think the mixed reviews were a combination of different converging social factors, specifically, people's expectations of what they imagined the game would be versus what it actually was, its Xbox and PC exclusivity, and the unfortunate addiction to outrage culture in social media. As I mentioned before, I think it's obvious that we live in stressful times and for a variety of reasons that are beyond the scope of this episode, I think people are overall angrier and eager to lash out when a target presents itself, especially online. Additionally, I suspect a big part of the mixed reviews is that Microsoft has built up a lot of ill will since the launch of Windows 11 and Copilot, and Starfield is a convenient outlet for that. Like Outlook and Teams are widely hated software tools, probably some of the most hated software tools in the world, but your job forces you to use them and you can't do anything about it. It's more effective to criticize a consumer-facing business like video games than it is Outlook and Teams, since those tend to be sold in blocks of thousands of licenses to large institutional customers that don't particularly care what their employees think about Outlook or Teams. In fact, fun fact, while I was writing this episode, Outlook was causing problems on Artemis II, NASA's first manned mission to the moon in over 50 years. So there is yet another historical milestone for Outlook. Question: You've said repeatedly that you don't like multiverse stuff, yet Starfield's main plot revolves heavily around the multiverse. That's true. I don't really like multiverse stuff in fiction because it's hard to execute well without making the story pointless. If there are a billion parallel universes and somebody dies in one of them, so what? Just hop over one universe and find a new version of the dead guy. Multiverse and parallel universe plot lines are a bit like homemade lasagna or homemade spaghetti carbonara. It needs to be done by someone who really, really knows what they're doing, otherwise the end result is sad and unpleasant, indigestible, or outright disgusting. That said, multiverse as a game mechanic is actually the clever idea. Like we all know that if you really like a game, you're going to play it more than once. How many times have you replayed Skyrim? How many uncounted quintillions of times has the original Super Mario Brothers been replayed? Starfield rather cleverly builds that replaying into the game. You can start over in a new universe and play the game again, but this time your character has in- game foreknowledge of everything that's going to happen and that can affect the gameplay in fun ways. Question: Did you really lose 40 pounds while playing Starfield? Yes. Of course, the main factor was some lifestyle changes in terms of exercise and diet, but I did lose 40 pounds since starting to seriously play Starfield in April of 2024. The game was an excellent distraction instead of late night snacking, so I suppose I sublimated the snacking urge into blowing up space pirates. Question: Aren't you worried Starfield will influence or slow down your writing? Well, writers and other creatives draw inspiration from all sorts of places, but no, I'm not worried about that because Starfield draws so heavily on multiverse tropes and as I've mentioned a few times before, I don't really like multiverse stuff in fiction. In terms of productivity, I published a million new words in 2024 and again in 2025. Though in full disclosure, I will be surprised if I hit a million words in 2026 due to the amount of Real Life Stuff I will have to do this year, but admittedly that is Real Life Stuff unconnected to gaming or recreation and it's only April, so who can say how the rest of the year will play out? Question: Did playing Starfield so much take time away from reading? Probably not. In 2025, I read 69 books and by the end of March in 2026, I have read 15. Lots of people read more than I do, but 69 books in a year is still significantly higher than the American national average. In all honesty, I both read less and play fewer video games now than I did like 20, 25 years ago when I had way fewer responsibilities. Question: The expansion pack Shattered Space got mixed reviews, but you really enjoyed it. Why? I thought the concept was intriguing. "Religious leader builds machine to contact his conception of God and accidentally blows up half his capital city and creates a space time rift" is an interesting concept for both a game and for fiction. I also liked how the expansion pack went in depth into the crazy space cultists' home planet, which was a fun environment to play. Shattered Space is definitely Starfield on hard mode though. The game recommends it for Level 35 characters, but I think 50 might be better, if I'm honest. Question: If Starfield was a commercial failure, why do you play it? Well, "commercial success" and "I enjoyed this" don't necessarily overlap on the Venn Diagram, do they? Just because something is popular doesn't mean it is good and just because something is unpopular doesn't mean it is bad. That said, I don't think it's objectively correct to say Starfield is a commercial failure, regardless of one's opinion of the game. Microsoft is a ruthless corporate empire that has absolutely no qualms about cutting things that are liabilities, especially as more and more of its resources go into Copilot and LLM slop (though there are some indications that its AI focus is starting to loosen as reality begins to impose itself on the grand delusion of the AI powered future). Considering that in the two and a half years since Starfield came out, it's received a lot of patches, a lot of new free content, and two paid expansions, it's clear that the Lidless Eye of Microsoft has not turned towards Starfield in fiery wrath, especially since Microsoft laid off lots of people and shut down a bunch of its game studios during that time. People tend to focus on Steam rankings, but that's only a segment (if a very large segment) of the market. Various Starfield devs in interviews have said that the game is in the top 10 for played hours on Xbox Game Pass. Xbox Game Pass is really important to Microsoft, probably more important than the physical Xbox itself. So I don't think it's objectively true that Starfield is a commercial failure, though it definitely wasn't as successful as Skyrim or Fallout 4. Question: Baldur's Gate 3 (BG3) came out at about the same time as Starfield. Did you like Starfield better than Baldur's Gate 3? Yes. Question: What? Why? Everyone knows Baldur's Gate 3 is the better game. Baldur's Gate 3 is an excellent game. Well written, well designed, excellent voice acting, the works. That said, I also think Starfield is an excellent game and I just enjoyed it more. It's a matter of taste, I think, which is not quantifiable. BG3 is a big Larian/BioWare-style narrative RPG, which is kind of its own genre in the same way that a Bethesda RPG is also its own genre. I mentioned above that I enjoy the puttering around aspect of Starfield a great deal and BG3 doesn't offer as much space for that kind of puttering, some but not nearly as much. I have enjoyed that style of narrative RPG in the past. Dragon Age: Origins and Knights of the Old Republic were both excellent games I played back to back in 2009 or maybe 2008, back when I had more time for that kind of thing and I think they qualify as direct predecessors to Baldur's Gate 3. But these days, I like the freedom of puttering more, even if a game like BG3 offers an excellent interactive narrative. Additionally, I admit I got frustrated a lot with BG3 in a way I didn't with Starfield. In BG3, I kept frequently running into Total Party Kill situations, which is exasperating after you've sunk 20 or 30 minutes into a complicated combat encounter. So I think it's objectively and quantifiably true to say that Baldur's Gate 3 is significantly more popular than Starfield, but on the subjective level, I just enjoy Starfield more. Question: Do you like the soundtrack of Starfield? Oh yeah. It's some of my favorite writing music. For fun, go search on YouTube and watch the London Symphony Orchestra's concert of the Starfield soundtrack. The composer Inon Zur gets to conduct some of it. I'd say my favorite tracks are Into the Starfield, New Atlantis, The Safety of the Citizens, Freestar, The New Old Frontier (I think that plays in the Trackers' Alliance headquarters), Cydonia, Sublevels, Neon, and In Silent Orbit. The battle of music when you fight the Star Born is pretty great as well. I think it's called "Stars and Sacrifice", but I'm not 100% sure. I also quite liked the soundtrack for Baldur's Gate 3 as well, to return to an earlier question. Andrew Wincott totally deserved the BAFTA for "Raphael's Final Act." Question: If a Switch 2 port comes along of Starfield, will you buy it? I would wait for reviews, but honestly, I would be amazed if there was a Switch 2 port of Starfield. The Switch 2 is more powerful than its predecessor, but there's no denying that Starfield is a chunky, chunky game. Then again, I wouldn't have thought it was possible to get Cyberpunk 2077, Witcher 3, or Fallout 4 on the Switch, and apparently those are good ports, so I guess we'll see. Question: Favorite Quest in Starfield? The Mantis, Groundpounder, and the entire thing with the Terrormorphs. Also the whole freaky quest with the Crucible and the clones, that was some great '70s-style science fiction stuff. I enjoy any of the quests with Walter Stroud because he's a fun character, and also voiced by the actor who played Quark in Deep Space Nine in the '90s, back when I was playing Privateer. (Full circle moment!) Also fighting The Hunter for the last time is pretty great since he's such a smug Nietzschean jerk. One of the greatest moments in the game is how The Hunter is just chilling in a Spaceport bar and willing to have amiable conversations with you at the start of the game since he's killed alternate versions of you thousands of times before and isn't expecting trouble, so no reason not to have a civil chat over a drink. I also played through the new Trackers' Alliance plotline. If you get the premium edition of Starfield and its bonus 1,000 Creation Credits, I highly recommend you use them on the Trackers' Alliance expansion. It is a lot of fun. Question: Favorite ship in the game? The Razor Leaf and the Ecliptic Claymore. Also, this is a new addition, but I really like the Orchid you pick up from the fake Mantis Quest in the Trackers' Alliance Quest line. I think my favorite overall ship is the Shieldbreaker that you can buy on New Atlantis, but if you're going to buy a ship instead of stealing it, I think Walter's company Stroud-Ecklund (see above) has the best ships. Honestly, one of my favorite activities in Starfield is stealing ships from space pirates. It's always so much fun. Question: Favorite gun? The Magstorm hands down. Peace through superior firepower. The Magstorm is what I used for the final battle with The Hunter and then again for the final mission of Shattered Space. For stealth, the Hard Target with a suppressor and a scope. I've taken out entire pirate bases with the Hard Target and stealth mode. The one Starborn lady who sells stuff to you in New Universes has a really excellent stealth optimized version of the Hard Target in her inventory. I also really like the Urban Eagle pistol you get early in the Vanguard plotline, since it's usually the best gun in the game I found at that point. Conclusion I hope that explains why I enjoy Starfield and answers some of the questions people always seem to have whenever I mention it. I doubt anyone involved with Starfield will ever listen to this, but I would like to thank everyone who has worked on the game in any capacity: devs, artists, writers, composers, Q&A people, everyone. Thank you for all your hard work, which has given me a lot of enjoyment and mental escape during some very stressful times. So that's it for this week. I promise we will go back to writing related topics next week. Thank you for listening to The Pulp Writer Show. I hope you found the show useful. A reminder that you can listen to all the back episodes at https://thepulpwritershow.com. If you enjoyed the podcast, please leave your view on your podcasting platform of choice. Stay safe and stay healthy, and we'll see you all next week.
Unless you've been living under a rock, you're likely to have noticed the discourse has been set abuzz with talk of a crisis of masculinity. While the debate is out on whether the real culprit is feminism, toxic masculinity, the Nanny State, or automation, men are indeed struggling to find themselves. The rates of loneliness, drug abuse, and suicide among men have reached record highs.In response, a proliferation of “manosphere” influencers has cropped up, selling a variety of remedies: Nietzschean vitalism, a return to the Bronze Age with a stoic regimen of powerlifting and renouncing seed oils, going to Latin Mass and finding yourself a tradwife. Gender norms, they tell us, have been muddied by the waters of relativism and so-called theories of performativity. Yet their vision of recovering real gender norms feels painfully superficial, even LARP-y.What is masculinity, at its core? And how can we—men and women—begin to recover what it means to embrace our embodiment, in all of its glory and fragility? Few would think to look to the example of Pier Paolo Pasolini—a queer, Marxist, lapsed-Catholic writer and filmmaker—for answers. But cracking through conventional thinking is kinda what we do best at cracks in pomo.Eve Tushnet joins Cracks in Pomo for a live discussion at KGB.
Unless you've been living under a rock, you're likely to have noticed the discourse has been set abuzz with talk of a crisis of masculinity. While the debate is out on whether the real culprit is feminism, toxic masculinity, the Nanny State, or automation, men are indeed struggling to find themselves. The rates of loneliness, drug abuse, and suicide among men have reached record highs.In response, a proliferation of “manosphere” influencers has cropped up, selling a variety of remedies: Nietzschean vitalism, a return to the Bronze Age with a stoic regimen of powerlifting and renouncing seed oils, going to Latin Mass and finding yourself a tradwife. Gender norms, they tell us, have been muddied by the waters of relativism and so-called theories of performativity. Yet their vision of recovering real gender norms feels painfully superficial, even LARP-y.What is masculinity, at its core? And how can we—men and women—begin to recover what it means to embrace our embodiment, in all of its glory and fragility? Few would think to look to the example of Pier Paolo Pasolini—a queer, Marxist, lapsed-Catholic writer and filmmaker—for answers. But cracking through conventional thinking is kinda what we do best at cracks in pomo.Eve Tushnet joins Cracks in Pomo for a live discussion at KGB.
Tell me if this makes sense… We live in a world today characterized by a fetishized pornographic addiction to rape. If it were not so, Law & Order: SVU wouldn’t have made it past a single season – let alone, into SYNdication for nearly 30 years…! I loathe Adorno and the CULTural Marxists who SYNthesized (read: weaponized) Marx and Freud to the general detriment of mankind, beginning with the ‘West’. But, he raised some legit points, as often the baddies do. It’s their SOLUTIONS we all need be wary of. For nigh on 100 years, we’ve basked in the jaundiced glow of the Frankfurt School, as legions of university students continue having their minds and spirits poisoned in the name of ‘Progress’. See also the ancient Roman Collegium, a concept dating back to (at least) the days of Plato – who, incidentally, literally wrote the book on The Republic. I digress… In Adorno’s “Fetish-character” essay, he states, a fetish is a substitute object of desire.[1] I would submit that in the latent undercurrent of this Nietzschean ‘power-evolving universe’ of today’s America; men and women, by and large, secretly harbor a craven desire for rape. It sounds crazy! Until one considers the popularity of Law & Order: SVU for the last 27 years. America is Kung-Fu LARPing, with each new iteration of the ‘fetish substitute object of desire’ further blurring the lines between fantasy and reality (schizoaffective disorder) as we creep ever closer to the Chaos Magick of bringing these secret desires to life. But, beware; LARPing has consequences.[2] The Epstein Saga has been publicly ongoing for 2+ decades. More than a thousand witnesses have come forward – including dozens who’ve accused Trump (E. Jean Carroll) – and yet, only Epstein and Maxwell have been ‘brought to justice’. Speaking of ‘justice’, Thomas Massie probably said it best:[3] Congress created the Department of Justice, Congress funds the Department of Justice, and Congress is responsible for the oversight of the Department of Justice. When will we see justice? I’ll tell you what I’ve not seen. I’ve not seen any arrests from the revelations in the Epstein Files – over 3 million documents describing horrible things, describing unspeakable things, much of it redacted. Over two dozen people have resigned; CEOS, members of government, worldwide. But, I haven’t seen any arrests or investigations here in the United States, from this Department of Justice. Prince Andrew, Duke of York, who has since been stripped of his royalty, his royal titles, due to his affiliation with Jeffrey Epstein, has been arrested. Peter Mandelson, who previously served as UK’s Ambassador to the United States, resigned in disgrace from United Kingdom’s House of Lords and the Labor Party, and he’s been arrested. Former Prime Minister of Norway Thorbjorn Jagland has been charged. But, we don’t see any charges, arrests, or investigations in the United States. What do we see? We see our FBI Director celebrating in the locker room at the Olympics overseas. It’s fine to be proud of this country. But, we should be proud of this country because we have a system of justice that works. And yet we do not. … We need justice. We want the Department of Justice to get to work, and that’s what they need to do – now. The Trump (45/47) DOJ is unwilling to rat itself out – and so are the other 77+ million co-conspirators… And then there’s the 77 million co-conspirators who voted for Epstein’s best friend Trump as many as three times, knowing he’d been accused of sexual assault by dozens of women, and even after he was found liable for sexually assaulting E. Jean Carroll. For 77 million men and women it was not a dealbreaker! He rapes, but he saves. He saves more than he rapes … but he probably does rape.[4] Considering the aforementioned, what would be crazy is not acknowledging America’s fetishized pornographic addiction to rape – which is precisely what we’re doing. We are gaslighting ourselves at this point, as we turn a blind eye to our own culpability. After all – on the eve of America’s 250th Anniversary of Independence – wasn’t this always to be a government of, by, and for The People…? 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; …21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, …24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: …26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. — Romans 1:18, 21–22, 24, 26–32 KJV 4 Rejoice in the Lord alway: [and] again I say, Rejoice.5 Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord [is] at hand.6 Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God.7 And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus. 8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things [are] honest, whatsoever things [are] just, whatsoever things [are] pure, whatsoever things [are] lovely, whatsoever things [are] of good report; if [there be] any virtue, and if [there be] any praise, think on these things. — Philippians 4:4–8 KJV #Links Clips [1:58] Etymology (the origins of words) was taken out of schools in the early 1900’s for a reason. (See also entry below) [5:39] Demons in the Headlines EXPOSED: The War for Power and Souls in D.C. | Strange Encounters | Ep 29 – YouTube (See also Blaze Media article below) [3:15] Rep. Massie Asks, “When Will We See Justice” Following Latest Epstein Files Revelations (See also C-SPAN Congressional Chronicle entry below[3:1]) Previous RWR broadcasts referenced 2026-02-25 2026-02-26 Proof of America’s fetishized pornographic addiction to rape Amanda Seyfried Wore A “Prosthetic [redacted]” For ‘Testament Of Ann Lee’ Amanda Seyfried will go to extreme lengths for a film role — especially when it comes to feeling comfortable during a nude scene. The actor wore what she described as a “prosthetic [redacted]” in her recent movie The Testament of Ann Lee, as she revealed in a Feb. 25 interview with BBC’s The Scott Mills Breakfast Show. “This movie, it needed to be graphic, so, like, I had a prosthetic [redacted],” she said in a clip posted to Instagram, which understandably perplexed Mills himself. When pressed for more details, she surprisingly had a rave review about the experience. “It was cool. It was exciting.” Seyfried plays the real-life Ann Lee, a Christian woman in 18th-century Great Britain who viewed herself as a representative of God and eventually founded a religious sect called Shakers, with the film capturing her group’s move across the pond to New York during the Colonial era. Son of megachurch pastor sentenced after horrific materials found at home ‘among worst investigators have seen’ An Indiana megachurch once known for preaching purity and sexual morality has found itself at the center of a scandal that has shaken a congregation, rattled political allies, and ended with a six-year prison sentence. Jonathan Peternel, 24, of Pendleton, was sentenced Friday after pleading guilty in January to one Level 4 felony count of child exploitation and three felony counts of possession of child sexual abuse material. The case drew intense public scrutiny not only because of the disturbing evidence uncovered by investigators, but because his father, Nathan Peternel, remains listed as lead pastor at Life Church and is a longtime mentor and close associate of Indiana Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith. Why Viewers Say You Should Watch ‘Nymphomaniac’ Alone Due to Its Graphic Scenes Both volumes of Lars von Trier’s Nymphomaniac are streaming on Netflix in the U.S., and its return to an easy, familiar platform has revived a warning that has followed the film since 2013: ‘Watch this one by yourself.‘ … So why does this movie come with a warning like that? The movie’s name actually answers that on its own. The term nymphomania is used to classify someone who has an uncontrollable compulsion toward sex, and that is exactly what the film follows across 2 volumes and 8 chapters. It opens with a woman named Joe, found beaten in an alley. A man named Seligman brings her home, and she begins telling him the story of her life from her earliest sexual memories through decades of escalating need. Von Trier was telling the story of a woman whose entire life is shaped by a compulsion she cannot control. … The discomfort the audience feels isn’t incidental. It’s the mechanism. Von Trier built the film so that watching it puts you closer to Joe’s experience than any non-explicit version ever could. The surface reading is addiction… What Joe is actually chasing is not sex but connection. Every encounter she describes to Seligman moves her further from other people rather than closer to them. Sex becomes the thing she reaches for because the thing she actually needs keeps slipping out of range. That distance between the act and the need behind it is where von Trier plants the real story. The compulsion is real, but the loneliness underneath it is what he keeps circling back to. He called this technique “Digressionism,” a term he coined to describe a storytelling style that deliberately wanders away from its own plot. He cited Marcel Proust as an influence. Nymphomaniac is the final film in what von Trier and critics call the Depression Trilogy. Following Antichrist in 2009 and Melancholia in 2011. After years infiltrating child exploitation rings, expert reveals an even DARKER American underworld | Blaze Media Demons in the Headlines EXPOSED: The War for Power and Souls in D.C. | Strange Encounters | Ep 29 – YouTube [31:30–33:26] Back to the politics piece; everybody within politics – even if they disagree with exploitation or whatever – they show partiality. And, I believe it’s, is it second Peter? … It says, ‘where partiality exists, exists every form of deceit and evil’. We can look it up … but I think that’s it. But, where partiality exists, exists all forms of evil. ***[Did he mean this passage?]For where envying and strife [is], there [is] confusion and every evil work. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, [and] easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. – James 3:16–17 KJV*** And, what is happening in our political world that I’ve that I’ve seen now is; you have career politicians – even if they claim to be Christians – they sell access. And, it might be access to conservative organizations. But, they sell access – and they’re partial to donors. … they’re unbelievably partial. And, they’re partial to their ‘club’, as opposed to the people they’re elected to represent. And, you have a bureaucracy that’s in place, and you have these elitists that are in place, that think that they can buy – because they have been able to buy your position – buy you, buy access to you, or buy access to somebody else, and ‘own’ – in this case, a US Senator, what I’m running for. But, it’s across the board for everything; Congressmen, even the President … Everything’s for sale. And, it’s ‘access’ that they’re selling, right? And, that’s the thing that stood out to me the most; partiality. More proof / Trump-Epstein Saga DOJ’s Epstein Files Screwups Get Worse With Unredacted Nudes and Images of Kids The Justice Department is under fire after newly released Jeffrey Epstein case materials reportedly included unredacted nude images and photos involving minors. Analysis by CNN uncovered nearly 100 explicit pictures of two naked young women on a beach, the news outlet reported. The materials also included photos showing a young girl kissing Epstein on the cheek. At least one unredacted image depicted Epstein alongside a nude female, and additional selfie-style nude photos of at least two other unidentified females were also published, with their ages unclear, according to CNN. Under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which Congress passed and President Trump signed in late November, the DOJ is obligated to omit sexually explicit imagery and anything that might identify victims. The images have now been redacted. DOJ Gives Shameless Reason for Hiding Photo of Howard Lutnick and Jeffrey Epstein Donald Trump’s White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles is ‘Shocked’ the FBI Dared to Come for Her ‘Uncle Jeff’ shifts focus on Erika Kirk grooming allegations post-Epstein file release – We Got This Covered Most Americans in new survey dispute Donald Trump’s economic boom claim CBS’s new hire appeared 1,700 times in Epstein’s files, and John Oliver just exposed his disturbing emails – We Got This Covered Epstein Had Close Ties to Prosecutor Behind Key Provision of Plea Deal | The New Republic Turns out ICE is just a bunch of scared widdle guys Fear as senator discovers staggering true amount Trump spent on arming ICE – Raw Story Congressional Chronicle – Members of Congress, Hearings and More | C-SPAN.org[3:2] [standalone clip] Rep. Massie Asks, "When Will We See Justice" Following Latest Epstein Files Revelations | Video | C-SPAN.org The Purpose Of the System Is What It Does (POSIWID) Millions at Risk as Android Mental Health Apps Expose Sensitive Data US defense secrets sold to Russians for millions in crypto – Newsweek Tucker Carlson pushes DNA tests for Jews, ‘Khazar’ theory | The Jerusalem Post The largely discredited theory states that Ashkenazi Jews are genetically descended from a Turkic minority that converted to Judaism in the Middle Ages rather than from the 12 tribes of Israel. During Tucker Carlson’s interview last week with Mike Huckabee, the US ambassador to Israel, both men made considerable waves with their takes on history and theology. Anthropic says it will not accede to Pentagon demands as deadline looms | AP News Anthropic said it sought narrow assurances from the Pentagon that Claude won’t be used for mass surveillance of Americans or in fully autonomous weapons. But after months of private talks exploded into public debate, it said in a Thursday statement that new contract language “framed as compromise was paired with legalese that would allow those safeguards to be disregarded at will.” From the Wayback. Why – and why now – is Daily Mail breaking these stories out of the dust bin…? Secret mind-control techniques using TVs revealed in disturbing patent | Daily Mail Online Declassified CIA memo reveals plan to turn citizens into unwitting assassins | Daily Mail Online On the lighter / brighter side… Why age is an advantage for starting a business – Fast Company Sardonic levity, as Rome burns… Images That Might Indicate Society is in Decline | eBaum’s World Caller Dialogue David – WI Feminism dating back to early 1800s (CH: Owenism – Wikipedia) Valerie Solanas, SCUM Manifesto – Wikipedia Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil (1886)[5] Insanity in individuals is something rare–but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule. Bitchute: Etymology (the origins of words) was taken out of schools in the early 1900’s for a reason. Also on YouTube: Etymology ~ The Origins Of Words Was Taken Out Of Schools In The Early 1900s For A Reason – YouTube James – Vancouver The Scribner-Bantam English dictionary : Williams, Edwin B. (Edwin Bucher), 1891-1975 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive #Footnotes Clowney, David W. “On the Fetish-Character in Music and the Regression of Listening” Reading Notes for the 1938 Essay by Theodor Adorno. 3 Nov. 2005, p. 6, users.rowan.edu/~clowney/aesthetics/ReadingGuides/Adorno.ppt. Accessed 26 Feb. 2026. More (e.g., “course guides” at Clowney’s aesthetics page: users.rowan.edu/~clowney/aesthetics/. ︎ Berenson, Alex. “On the Dangers of Cosplay.” Substack.com, Unreported Truths, 11 Jan. 2026, alexberenson.substack.com/p/on-the-dangers-of-cosplay. Accessed 26 Feb. 2026. ︎ C-SPAN. “Congressional Chronicle – Members of Congress, Hearings and More.” C-SPAN.org, C-SPAN, 24 Feb. 2026, www.c-span.org/congress/?chamber=house&date=2026-02-24. Accessed 26 Feb. 2026. Click on “Speakers” tab, select Thomas Massie in “Speakers” dropdown menu, and see timestamp (10:45:03 AM) and transcript of Massie’s remarks. ︎ ︎ ︎ [Massie:] Congress created the Department of Justice, Congress funds the Department of Justice, and Congress is responsible for the oversight of the Department of Justice. When will we see justice? I’ll tell you what I’ve not seen. I’ve not seen any arrests from the revelations in the Epstein Files – over 3 million documents describing horrible things, describing unspeakable things – much of it redacted. Over two dozen people have resigned; CEOs, members of government, worldwide. But, I haven’t seen any arrests or investigations here in the United States, from this Department of Justice. Prince Andrew, Duke of York, who has since been stripped of his royalty, his royal titles, due to his affiliation with Jeffrey Epstein, has been arrested. Peter Mandelson, Who previously served as UK’s Ambassador to the United States, resigned in disgrace from United Kingdom’S House of Lords and the Labor Party, and he’s been arrested. Former Prime Minister of Norway, Thorbjorn Jagland has been charged. But, we don’t see any charges, arrests, or investigations in the United States. What do we see? We see our FBI Director celebrating in the locker room at the Olympics overseas. It’s fine to be proud of this country. But, we should be proud of this country because we have a system of justice that works. And yet we do not. Who are the men that should be investigated? I’ll name them right here. Leon Black; you don’t even have to see past the redactions to see that this man needs to be investigated. Jess Staley; accused of terrible things, it’s right there in the files. Why is he not being investigated? And, Leslie Wexner; why did the FBI list him as a co-conspirator in their own documents in a child sex trafficking case, and then tell him, according to him, that they had no questions for him? Why is that? Well, the Epstein Files Transparency Act requires the DOJ and the FBI to disclose to us their internal memos and emails about how they made those decisions, whether to prosecute or not prosecute. Yet, they have not delivered those memos. And, we still don’t have the memos and documents and emails from 2008, to explain why Jeffrey Epstein was given such a light sentence in what would have been an open and shut case of child sex trafficking, which allowed him to go back and recommit these terrible crimes, create hundreds of more victims, and ensnare so many other people in his conspiracy. Where are those documents that describe those decisions? We need justice. We want the Department of Justice to get to work, and that’s what they need to do – now! Jones, Marcie. “Gee, Look at All These Co-Conspirators in the Epstein Files That Pam Bondi and Kash Patel Say Never Existed.” Wonkette.com, Wonkette, 25 Feb. 2026, www.wonkette.com/p/gee-look-at-all-these-co-conspirators. Accessed 26 Feb. 2026. ︎ Nietzsche, Friedrich. Beyond Good and Evil. 1886. Gutenberg.org, Chapter IV. Apophthegms And Interludes, ln. 156, 4 Feb. 2013, gutenberg.org/files/4363/4363-h/4363-h.htm. Accessed 28 Feb. 2026. from The Complete Works of Friedrich Nietzsche (1909-1913). ︎
In this episode, we unpack Star Trek: Starfleet Academy S1.E4, “Vox in Excelso,” a thematically dense hour that uses debate, introspection, and Jay-Den's divided identity to explore existential change, cultural evolution, and survival without teleology. We examine the Klingon Empire's long-declining rigidity, Trek's anti-paternalistic ethics, and how the episode smartly folds Nietzschean becoming, rational discourse,...
Freeform discussion on current events, including a few ICE immigration related shootings, political order and details versus broader motivation, and the significance of the Nietzschean penguin which has taken social media by storm.
The “trad wife” trend shows people are starving for natural order after feminism's damage — but not all patriarchy is the same. Nietzschean vitalism (Bronze Age Pervert, Andrew Tate, etc.) celebrates raw conquest, optional families, and disposable wives. That's not what built the West. The West was built by a different kind of man: monogamous, self-controlled, paternal Christian fathers who protected the weak, adopted the fatherless, and saw dominion as a duty to family, community, and God — not an end in itself. If we replace that paternal strength with either polygamous warlord energy or soft nanny-state nudging, the civilization that conquered the world will fall. We are not just patriarchal. We are paternal — and that's the part worth saving. https://www.patreon.com/jonharrispodcastSubstack: https://substack.com/@jonharris?Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/conversations-that-matter8971/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy
"Time is a flat circle." This famous quote from the series immediately calls to mind Nietzsche's Eternal Return, but it's an unusual connection to say the least, because it isn't clear that we have a "Nietzschean" plot in True Detective, nor are any of the characters of the show Nietzschean. So, what then is the philosophical content of the show? In this video, I analyze Rust, Marty & the beliefs of the cult of the Yellow King.
Humans have always tried to augment and enhance bodily flaws, from eye glasses to prostheses and pacemakers. But something qualitatively different is happening today. The transhumanist movement basically sees humans as biological algorithms.They want to break into the genetic code and the brain and change what a person is into something else. They believe nature has come as far as it can, and now it is we who drive evolution. We are the ones in charge of creating the next version of Homo Sapiens.“It's a new religion”, says psychologist and philosopher Harald Walach, who has written a comprehensive report about transhumanism.It's a staunchly materialist, godless religion.Seeing the body as a machine and the brain as a computer are metaphors that can be useful in some instances, like when we have had an accident. But it is a category mistake to take these metaphors to be the whole reality.“It's like taking the menu for lunch. You can't eat the menu”, says Harald Walach.A crucial and tricky question is whether the interventions transhumanists envision might mess around with consciousness. Harald distinguishes between psyche and soul.“These interventions can definitely change the mental state of people. But the soul is very likely untouchable.”The transhumanists are a heterogeneous collection of people.“They are various groups with different intentions. Some dedicate their efforts to abolishing death and aging. Some are more on the tech side, connecting human and machine. Others have a more philosophical approach reminiscent of the Nietzschean übermensch.”“A common theme is that they all want to create a transhumanist being with enhanced faculties that are greater than in current humans.”Interestingly, transhumanists aren't particularly good at science.“I don't think many scientists are transhumanistic, because scientists generally know about the intricate problems associated with what transhumanists talk about”, says Harald.“Transhumanists are science fanatics who don't really do science. Many are in the tech industry.”At the core of the transhumanist agenda are medical interventions, in particular genetic manipulation.“We've already seen it happening during the pandemic: Genetic prevention technologies masquerading as vaccines”, says Harald.Was there a nefarious agenda?“That's irrelevant. The thinking, the ideology and the technology were there. As I see it, it is like mushrooms. If you walk in a forest you may not see any mushrooms, but the mycelium is there, under the surface. When the conditions are right, they pop up everywhere.”To materialists, death is the ultimate catastrophe. There are transhumanists, like Aubrey de Grey, who want to abolish it.Ethical and logical objections aside, abolishing death would lead to absurd consequences, Harald points out: The population would quickly increase. By default one would have to prohibit procreation. This in turn would lead to fascistoid governing. Without young people, there would be no new ideas.“Philosophically speaking, life's finiteness creates meaning. If we don't die, we don't need to make any important decisions:, says Harald.He thinks it's imperative that we have an open discussion about the transhumanist agenda now. The proponents are a minority, but they are influential.“We need to ask ourselves: Are we willing to accept a transcendent realm that is beyond our human grip, that we cannot control?”Harald's websiteHarald's Transhumanism report
Part two of a provocative conversation with David Storey, associate professor of philosophy at Boston College. **Key takeaways**0:45 The right has coded expertise as feminine2:45 How ironic: the manosphere exists in disembodied cyberspace6:00 What Fight Club was all about11:00 The retro-romantic part of MAGA13:00 The war on terror was a weak halfway house between the Cold War and MAGA17:00 The tech right as Nietzschean supermen19:00 Funneling alpha energy into a mass movement against Big Tech21:00 Can Democrats become more fluent in Christianity as they embrace economic populism?**Resources**David's web site, including his podcast, Wisdom@Work**Subscribe to the podcast**To hear the origin stories of more big ideas, subscribe to How My View Grew on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you listen to podcasts.**Share the love**Leave me a rating or review on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you listen to podcasts.
Here is a fantastic episode by one of the world's leading Camus scholars, Dr. Simon Lea. The entire paper will be available in The Journal of Camus Studies. Below is the abstract of the paper:Albert Camus planned his works in cycles. Each were to contain an essay, a novel and plays. The first cycle wasconcerned with the absurd and the second with rebellion. Camus' life was tragically cut short in a motor accident before he could complete the third cycle. Between the second and third cycles, after the furore resulting from his publication of The Rebel, Camus wrote several texts that are not includedin his cyclical works. This paper is concerned with Camus' first cycle on the absurd and the following texts: The Myth of Sisyphus, The Stranger, Caligula and The Misunderstanding. In particular, I am interested in the role played by revelation in the communication of the absurd in these works. In this paper, I use the term 'revelation' in reference tomaking known something relating to the human condition via a process that is difficult or even impossible to understand. My argument is that Camus, drawing upon Nietzschean influences, is seeking in his first cycle to induce revelatoryexperiences in his readers in order to communicate ideas concerning the absurd.Please check out The Albert Camus Society.
Third Twitter Space! Friday 20 June 2025In this episode, I examine the themes of self-awareness and responsibility, urging listeners to reflect on their willingness to admit faults. Using Shakespeare's "Hamlet" as a backdrop, I discuss the importance of questioning established beliefs and the balance between self-doubt and self-assurance. I also share insights from a discussion on the "Bronze Age Mindset," contrasting Nietzschean vitality with ethical frameworks in relationships. The conversation invites deeper exploration of masculinity, femininity, and societal narratives, advocating for character integrity and resilience in navigating moral complexities and fostering healthy connections.GET MY NEW BOOK 'PEACEFUL PARENTING', THE INTERACTIVE PEACEFUL PARENTING AI, AND THE FULL AUDIOBOOK!https://peacefulparenting.com/Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free!Subscribers get 12 HOURS on the "Truth About the French Revolution," multiple interactive multi-lingual philosophy AIs trained on thousands of hours of my material - as well as AIs for Real-Time Relationships, Bitcoin, Peaceful Parenting, and Call-In Shows!You also receive private livestreams, HUNDREDS of exclusive premium shows, early release podcasts, the 22 Part History of Philosophers series and much more!See you soon!https://freedomain.locals.com/support/promo/UPB2025
I met up with Tony of 1Dime to discuss the neoliberal moment in American culture. We discuss what neoliberalism means, why there is a general discontent with it, the advantages of neoliberalism, and the potential of a vision for a future beyond neoliberalism as it inevitably comes to an end. We also psychologically analyze the left and the right from the Nietzschean standpoint, consider how many of the alternatives are magical thinking, and finally discuss the history of revolutionary movements and how they always have to draw upon the past.
The good, the bad, and the beautifulWhat is beauty? Why are we so drawn to it? And should we be - or is it a distraction?The philosophy of aesthetics and beauty has a long and fascinating history. Over the millennia, while we mostly agree on the essential nature of this ephemeral thing, "beauty", we disagree on the reasons why it is important, on its very definition, and sometimes if we should value it at all. Join our four diverse speakers - Nietzschean philosopher Babette Babich, mathematician Paul Ernest, Professor of English and World Literatures Ankhi Mukherjee, and journalist and best-selling author Sarah Wilson - as they dive into the notion of beauty and, mostly, defend it from their different perspectives. What do you think - how important is beauty? Email us at podcast@iai.tv with your thoughts or questions on the episode!To witness such topics discussed live buy tickets for our upcoming festival: https://howthelightgetsin.org/festivals/And visit our website for many more articles, videos, and podcasts like this one: https://iai.tv/You can find everything we referenced here: https://linktr.ee/philosophyforourtimesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
Did you know that a Christian view of law hinges on a secret that God only makes known to those who fear him? Psalm 25:14 says, “The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him; and he will shew them his covenant.” Today, David explains how a Christian cosmology of law is embedded in that verse. And he explains how coming to know that secret after decades in evangelical churches awakened him from the Nietzschean cosmology that had informed his view of politics and law for decades.Support the show: https://www.factennessee.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Did you know that a Christian view of law hinges on a secret that God only makes known to those who fear him? Psalm 25:14 says, “The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him; and he will shew them his covenant.” Today, David explains how a Christian cosmology of law is embedded in that verse. And he explains how coming to know that secret after even decades in evangelical churches awakened him from the Nietzschean cosmology that had informed his view of politics and law for decades.
Did you know that a Christian view of law hinges on a secret that God only makes known to those who fear him? Psalm 25:14 says, “The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him; and he will shew them his covenant.” Today, David explains how a Christian cosmology of law is embedded in that verse. And he explains how coming to know that secret after even decades in evangelical churches awakened him from the Nietzschean cosmology that had informed his view of politics and law for decades.
The journey in search of the destinationDoes life have a purpose? Is that what gives life meaning? Or is it the journey that matters the most?Join our four speakers - Nietzschean philosopher Babette Babich, clinical psychologist Frank Tallis, existentialist philosopher Jonathan Webber, and linguist philosopher Sandra Laugier - as they explore the different facets of this question. Setting ourselves goals in life seems both inevitable and necessary for the good life, yet achieving them might render living life meaningless. The balance between having a sense of purpose and experiencing things as they come is a hard one to set.Do you think life must have a purpose? Email us at podcast@iai.tv with your thoughts or questions on the episode!To witness such topics discussed live buy tickets for our upcoming festival: https://howthelightgetsin.org/festivals/And visit our website for many more articles, videos, and podcasts like this one: https://iai.tv/You can find everything we referenced here: https://linktr.ee/philosophyforourtimesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
In a world fractured by injustice and misunderstanding, one survivor's journey through dyslexia, trauma, and neurodivergence becomes a rallying cry for wholeness. This metamodern manifesto weaves personal defiance with a proto-transcendentalist vision, offering embodied learning, storytelling, and Nietzschean resilience as tools to heal a fragmented society. Reject the victimhood trap, embrace your atypicality, and join the movement to reintegrate mind, body, and soul in 2025's chaos. #MetamodernManifesto #HealingThroughStory #AtypicalMindsHashtags#Metamodernism #ProtoTranscendentalism #Neurodivergence #HealingJourney #AtypicalLearning #NietzscheanResilience #IntergenerationalHealing #EmbodiedLearning #InjusticeDefied #WholenessMovement #DistributedPhD #MindBodySoul
David Gornoski sits down with James Kourtides to discuss how we can break out of tribal echo chambers, media without the crowd, Generation Alpha's fascination with wholesome things, the market as the resting place of Nietzschean values, the striking thing that connects Bitcoin to Christianity, and more. Follow David Gornoski on X here. Visit aneighborschoice.com for more
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
Send us a textAngela Black is a founding editor and Art Director of Notch, a literary and arts magazine based in Paris and New York. She oversees the curation and editing of critical essays and visual arts. Angela, originally from San Francisco, is dedicated to Nietzschean yes-saying and is currently reveling in her first Dickens novel. Paris is her home.Support the show
Richard Doerflinger on the Dr. J Show, episode 275 https://youtu.be/W1CEN49YgGU “When young women go to college, they are instantly expected to fall into the hook-up culture," Richard Doerflinger says in Part 2 of this interview. "Their initial feeling is ‘I'm free. I'm liberated from all these restrictive norms. Nobody's watching. Sex is consequence-free.'” And yet, among these young women is more depression, anxiety, isolation, suicidal thoughts, and cutting “to know you're alive," he notes. "Then they can't figure out why they feel so miserable.” Watch part 1 here: https://youtu.be/RSUCTbkjOtM More about Richard Doerflinger: https://lozierinstitute.org/team-member/richard-doerflinger/ Chapters 00:00 The Impact of Contraception on Society 02:49 Consequences of the Contraceptive Mindset 05:49 Moral Norms and Their Importance 09:10 The Dangers of Relativism 11:56 The Role of Experience in Moral Decision Making 15:06 The Breakdown of Marriage and Family 18:14 The Need for Moral Absolutes 21:08 Reviving Natural Intuition 23:59 The Long-Term Effects of Individual Choices 26:55 The Importance of Sharing Experiences Transcript (Please note the transcript is auto-generated and contains errors) Richard Doerflinger (00:00) the social science part of it. What happens when people pass new, broader, more sweeping contraceptive programs? Do they reduce abortions? And I ended up doing a fact sheet with a couple of dozen references, concluding that they don't reduce abortions in a number of cases, they have increased abortions. The contraceptives have given people a false sense of security. made them more open to more casual sex and therefore opened them up to the possibility of a pregnancy that they don't know what to do about because they're the act that created that child was so anonymous and and so meaningless to them in a way. So it's a it was a big wake up call for me because even as a even as a social phenomenon. Contraception doesn't work. It certainly at reducing the number of abortions. And that's something that John Paul the second mentioned in his encyclical on the gospel of life as well. People think it's going to prevent it, but it can be very many times a road toward it. You had this technical thing that was supposed to prevent this. But as a backup to contraceptive failure, you have this other technical thing that will solve the problem you didn't think you were supposed to have. Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse (01:39) And you know, repair of a couple of economists, Janet Yellen and her husband, right? You know this article. Yes, yes. Richard Doerflinger (01:48) Let's sources, yeah. Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse (01:51) Basically, they were asking the question, how is it possible that in the age of contraception and abortion, both being readily available, that we have more out of wedlock childbearing than we ever did before? How is this possible? And they concluded pretty much what you just concluded, which is that the social is, contraception is the social cause. It's not a cause like smoking causes cancer, but it's a social cause in the sense that it sets a set of incentives into motion. which then the net result of the whole new system that you've created ends up with people having pregnancies that they feel socially are not sustainable, because you're the father of the child is your boss who's married to someone else. And you would never have done that if you didn't have contraception, you know, that type of thing or some schmuck you picked up at a bar, which you never would have done if you didn't feel protected. And so the woman has a choice of either aborting the baby or carrying it to term and being a single parent because there's no marriage isn't really practical. And then our friends in the crisis pregnancy center world, the pregnancy care center world, they are dealing with this issue all the time. And they would like to be able to tell the young ladies, should be, can you marry this guy? And oftentimes the answer is it would really, they couldn't in good conscience urge the girl to marry the guy. So there have been a whole series of consequences from the widespread promotion of sex that is not intended to be procreative, you know, if you can put it that way. Can you, from your perspective, Richard, spell out, you know, just kind of trace more of those consequences? What are some other things that have followed from the whole contraceptive ideology, the whole contraceptive mindset? What are some other… things that you've documented or observed. Richard Doerflinger (03:50) Well, one thing, and this was the subject of Anne Maloney's chapter in this book about, you the boys from the trenches. She's been teaching for many years at a women's college, Catholic women's college. And, you know, the female students, they come there, they're freed from their past social Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse (04:03) yes. Richard Doerflinger (04:20) environment from their parents and so on. And instantly you are expected to fall in with the hookup culture. their initial experience or their initial feeling is, I'm free, I'm liberated from all these restrictive norms and nobody's watching. And I'm a liberated woman. The sex is consequence free. Well, it's not consequence free because what she found in talking to these young ladies over decades really is more depression, more anxiety, more cutting, cutting yourself in the arm to know you're alive, more isolation, more abandonment, more suicidal thoughts. And they can't figure out why they feel so miserable. It's the saddest thing I've ever read. And as we as well, you know, where's where's the young man? Well, you know, it was one night. never talk to me again. This is a very destructive culture, destructive, especially to women, though I don't think it's it's good for men either. So it's something you can see writ large in social findings. My friend Helen Alvarez calls it the immistration of women. That means women are more miserable than ever before. And that shows up in social surveys. And I think it does make people ready for abortion. The other thing is that the ideology that started with contraception and then was used to create a Supreme Court judgment that there was a constitutional right not only to contraception but to abortion, I found has gotten used by later courts, by later judges, to justify the lethal neglect of handicapped newborn children to as a precedent for euthanasia and assisted suicide for elderly. And so the whole idea that life, innocent life, supposedly burdensome life or imperfect life has no great rights that can Trump, should stop using that word, shouldn't I, can override liberty, personal liberty. that has gotten into any number of other areas where life is at risk. So it's something that has been kind of poisoning society. This idea that you can have actions that are, you don't have any actions that are consequence free. And very often the consequences are bad consequences for the most helpless among us. Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse (07:45) And you know, I like the way you put that because the whole idea that there are some norms, some moral norms that have no exceptions, there's a reason for those things having no exceptions. And the underlying reason is that you're trying to protect the true equality of every human being and their right to life. know, so much of this has been done in the name of equality for women. Well, when they're talking about equality for women, they're talking about in terms of income or occupational stature, that kind of thing. There's no question that women make more money as individuals than they used to, or that women have more education than they used to. That's certainly true. And so men and women are more equal. But only in that dimension. The women are now more miserable than they were before. And the idea that every human person has a baseline of human rights, that gets completely shot. you know, that the woman has the sole right to determine whether this particular person even gets to live, you know. That idea is extremely corrosive. And it's one of these things, it's superficially appealing, but when you really dig down a little bit, you find there's all sorts of dark sides to it. And, you know, it seems like it's been the job of the faithful Catholic remnant to make sure that at least somebody digs down a little bit. to pass that superficial appeal of the thing. Richard Doerflinger (09:14) Yeah, it's a, it reminded me of something that was once written by one of my favorite priests that I ever met, Jesuit priest named John Connery SJ. And he had a steady debate going back and forth between him and Richard McCormick, who was one of the great consequentialist theologians in the United States in journals like Theological Studies. And he ended one of his articles about moral absolutes with a statement that I thought, well, it's so obvious that you're the first person that wrote anything that brought it home to me. And that was, look, it's when it's hard to obey a moral norm, that's when you need the moral absolute. You don't need moral absolutes for when it's easy. You only need it when it is when the temptation is greater to to violate it. And I don't know why they're just stuck in my mind as well. It's enormous common sense. But for some reason, there are people who think that that's not true. The. And the whole history of Catholic moral teaching has been to refine and sometimes to expand the application of its witness to life. You know, more and more of the church has turned against capital punishment as, you know, an unnecessarily violent means for trying to punish or stop crime. Our tradition on war has become more and more skeptical about the idea that you could ever have in practice today with all our technology, a just war, a limited war. And so here, when life is at its most helpless, we seem to be wanting to go in the opposite direction. And I would like to say to some of my liberal Catholic friends, do you really think that once you make this new paradigm where it's only your subjective Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse (11:20) Mm-hmm Richard Doerflinger (11:29) desires and your own experience that are going to make the moral norm for you. You don't think anybody's going to think of applying that to war. I don't see any reason why not. If it's a paradigm, it's a paradigm. It undermines all moral absolutes. So I think it's very, very important to that. Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse (11:45) Right And it undermines all moral absolutes, but it also places the weak in an even weaker position, right, because there's nothing to which they can appeal. The law of the strongest becomes much more potent in a relativistic type of system, and this is something Pope Benedict was, I think, referring to when he talked about the dictatorship of relativism. If you really don't have any standards, then you are going to end up with the law of the strongest, whether you mean to or not, whether you like it or not. that's where you're going to end up because you don't have any standard that everybody can appeal to. Richard Doerflinger (12:30) That's right. That's John Paul II as well in the Gospel of Life. When liberty, when freedom does not serve the truth, it's just a war of the strong against the weak. Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse (12:44) Right, right. And that's pretty much where we are. Richard Doerflinger (12:47) what we seem to be heading for. The other thing that just surprises me is that a lot of the Protestant denominations, and this has been noted by Mary Eberstadt and others, have taken this road toward a more subjectivist, more relativist morality, accepting the zeitgeist, the spirit of the age, in terms of sexuality, among other things. And those are the denominations that are dying. know, the Presbyterians, the Lutherans, the Episcopalians, at least some branches of them have decided we need to get with the spirit of the age so that people will find us credible. And instead, people found them dispensable. Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse (13:43) Yes. Richard Doerflinger (13:44) They were just saying the things that the secular society was already telling them and wrapping it around in some theology, but you don't need the theology if you've already got, you know, the answer to what you're allowed to do, which is pretty broad answer. So it's very frustrating to find that this, you know, sexual revolution, obviously, I mean, you have to just open your eyes had many, many casualties. And I don't know why that can be invisible to bishops, to theologians. The evidence is all there. again, know, Berenstead has been, and her contribution to this as well, and in yours, it's all there. Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse (14:36) That's right. Richard Doerflinger (14:37) Question about it, really. Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse (14:40) Well, I can tell you how this works, Richard. can tell you exactly how this works, because this is the kind of stuff I track, right? People selectively choose the evidence. And so the people who are talking about lived experience, they always have one kind of experience in mind, the experience of the hard case, whatever the hard case might be, the issue is abortion or the issue is end of life issues or homosexuality or whatever the issue is, it's always the hard case where it's hard to meet the norm, like you were saying before, but they never ever present the evidence, the lived experience of the people who violated the norm and then later regret it. And the whole list of reasons why people turn out to regret violating the norm. You know, it's like we're driving down the Pacific Coast Highway in California, which is a beautiful winding road, but we're driving down that highway with no guardrails. in a car that has no brakes. Well, when you go careening off the cliff, you kind of wish you had the brakes. You kind of wish somebody had said, danger, slow down, you know? But that's what the absolute moral norm can do for you, is it keeps you from the worst kind of catastrophe, but still give you lots and lots of freedom about how. So for example, you and your wife, I want to come back to your story, which by the way is the subject of his contribution here. That what you discover is when you say, okay, certain things are off limits. We're not going to use the rubbers anymore. We're not going to take the pills anymore. Okay, that's off limits. But within that, within the constraints we've now accepted for ourselves, we can do all sorts of things. We're very free if we stay in the playground, you know, and the playground is much safer than the free for all that includes cars coming through at 50 miles an hour. You know, can, the kids can't play in that kind of environment. And so, but the contraceptive ideology has broken down marriage precisely as Paul VI said it would do because if you have a strong marriage culture and you know you're supposed to be sexually exclusive, that means this ring says I'm off limits. I'm off limits to everybody, you know, and you're off limits to everybody because you got a ring on your finger. Richard Doerflinger (16:59) Even the guys who are trying to cheat on their wives and go to a bar to pick up a woman they don't know, they realize they need to take that ring off first. Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse (17:12) Yeah, that's right. No, that's very true. That's very true. Because there is still some residual moral norm around that you don't mess around with somebody's spouse. But contraception makes it seem like it will be OK, that we can get away with this. It's not as potentially catastrophic and stuff. And how many marriages are destroyed by infidelity? A lot. A lot are destroyed by infidelity, obviously. So yeah. Anyway, go ahead. Richard Doerflinger (17:44) I was just going say that, you when you're talking about the playground, it reminded me of something that I think GK Chesterton said about there was once a playground. It was on a sort of plateau, but it has this big strong fence all around, all around the playground. And kids would come and they would play. And sometimes they, you know, when running in a ball game, they'd actually bounce off the fence or something, you know, that everybody was having a good time. Everybody decided. Although their parents decided, well, this is very restrictive. We will take away the fence. The next day they came, the fence was down. The children arrived. They were all huddling together in the center and no one was laughing. And it reminded me also of there's a palliative care physician I used to work with on the issue of physician assisted suicide. said something very similar. said, because I know that deliberately ending the life of my patient is the one thing I must never do that freed me to do all of the ways to explore all the ways in which I can relieve his suffering and accompany him or her. Because I know that's where I don't go. Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse (19:09) Mm-hmm. Richard Doerflinger (19:10) So I think that's very true on all kinds of issues. You say this is what I will not do. What is it? Meet Lo, Fustasing. I'll do anything for love, but I won't do that. Those norms are there to free us for the ways in which we can live with each other and, yes, plan our families. and respect each other. I that was one of the other things that just I had to respect my wife's body and its natural cycles and so on. And that helped to undergird my respect for her, which, of course, every husband should have for his wife. And so it is a way of working with reality instead of trying to change reality to your whims. I think this is a much longer term debate or struggle than just, you know, changing laws or, you know, changing official documents. It really is about changing culture. It's about changing attitudes. I've done some writing in the past about this whole worldview of expressive individualism, that every one of us is just sort of a individual. Well, it's really, it's very Nietzschean, you know, it's the will to power. I express myself, I can create myself, making my identity by the way that I work out what I want to do. And that is so destructive on so many levels. And I think that the marriage culture, the idea of actually committing yourself to another person, that that is freeing. It frees you from all the consequences of uncommitted sex that so many women have had to experience. And it is also something that, there is also you were talking about, you know, there's a there's a moral norm built into us, you know, instinctually, a mother has the instinct of protecting her child. at every stage. We have been trying to suppress that over the recent decades of developments on this is what your individual freedom frees you or maybe requires you to do. I was very taken aback once I was reading a Catholic account of abortion. This is a priest who is responding to an essay by Anne Landers in favor of abortion. And he went through all kinds of rebuttals about the arguments in favor. And then he said, but to get back to the one thing, the essential thing, the only thing to abort is to destroy your son or daughter. And I have been working with the, you know, this is the taking of a human life or this is, you know, a form of killing and so on. And suddenly just those words took me aback. Well, of course it is. You're related. This is a member of your family. It already is a member of your family. Even if your family is only the two of you. And I think it has taken a lot of work for society to break down that very natural intuition. And there must be ways to revive it because it hasn't entirely disappeared. mean, many, many abortions are very broken up about it. Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse (23:01) Yes, yes. And many men are broken up by their wives or girlfriends' decisions to have an abortion. And even siblings. Every once in a while somebody will share with me, you know, Dr. Morse, my mom told me when I was a teenager, my mom told me that she had had an abortion, you know, at some point. And that guy said to me, my gosh, I have a sibling who died, you know. So even there, none of these things only affect the individual. This is the other big myth, you know. The person making the decision cannot foresee all the consequences if you, particularly if you expand the consequences beyond yourself. What impact will this have on the people around me, on my husband, on my boyfriend, on my other kids, you know? What are all those consequences? This has always been the argument against consequentialism. You know, no, I mean, it's one argument against consequentialism. You can't possibly know all the possible consequences. Richard Doerflinger (24:12) And there's no way to quantify one against the other because they're different projects. And the first consequence is on you. I you have just made yourself the kind of person who does this. And I mean, there's certainly opportunity for repenting of that, for turning your life around again. But the first consequence is on your own conscience. There are people who, you this was the first time they realized they were capable of doing this thing that they didn't think they would ever do. And that changes your life. it's, yeah, consequentialism is, it's a very one dimensional way of talking about one very small subset of all the consequences that we create when we have a human act, a moral act. Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse (25:10) Yes, yes. And I'm glad you're calling it expressive individualism, because one of the… I almost think of it as a trick. You know, one of the tricks that is done to make you think this act is okay is that you greatly redefine what counts as a consequence. You know, so when you see people expressing themselves by deciding they were really born in the wrong body, and they're going to change the sex of the body, and they're going to leave their wife and their children to go live as a woman… You know, that person's thinking about the consequences to themselves. They're not thinking about the long-term impact on the wife and the children. Somehow that doesn't enter the calculation. It doesn't enter as a harm, you know? And that's how a lot of this stuff is done. That's the trick, I would call it the trick. And one of the things that we try to do here at the Ruth Institute is to make sure those people get a microphone, you know, that the people who've been left behind have an opportunity to say, you know, my dad did this and it was awful. My mom did this and it was awful for us, you know, all of those type of things to broaden that discussion so that people understand your actions do have far reaching consequences, not just to you today, but to generations down the line. You're gonna be having consequences, the consequences of these acts. So we have our work cut out for us in this volume, us little, our intrepid people who are trying to fight against consequentialism in the Roman Catholic Church. where it doesn't belong, okay people, it does not belong in the Roman Catholic Church. The rest of you maybe have an excuse, but no, we're not gonna accept this. So in your opinion, who should read this book? Who should get this book? Who should have it on their shelf? Richard Doerflinger (26:55) You know, I think it would be a very handy guide for pastors who, you know, deal with people coming to them with questions regarding sexuality and so on. know, people will not necessarily always listen to, well, that this is immoral in the teaching of the Catholic Church. They might listen to, well, I mean, what you're doing or what you want to do. has really done a lot of harm to a lot of women and a lot of men. And here's some experience. I mean, if people will listen to experience, this book has got those. I think people who are teaching moral theology or are teaching marriage preparation or RCIA, Pre-Kena programs, can look at this and get some insights that will help them to talk in a very down to earth way about sexual ethics. I mean, I have a vested interest, I would, you know, I hope everybody reads this book, of course, but I think especially in those consequences, you know, in those situations, it could be an extremely helpful guide for where to go when just saying no is not enough. Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse (28:19) Right, right. And do you think people would respond well if they received this book as a gift from someone else? I wonder if some of our viewers might want send it to their pastor, might want to send it to their moral theologian professor or something like that. I don't know. Maybe people don't respond well to that. But maybe they do. Maybe. I don't know. What do you think, Rich? Should people try that? Richard Doerflinger (28:46) It couldn't hurt. The one person I know I should not send it to. I was talking to one of our grown daughters the other day and said, you know, Maria, I just finished, you know, I got a chapter in a recently published book. We were talking about, you know, moms and my married life in our checkered history with family planning. You want to read it? She said, God, no. Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse (29:15) That's it. Richard Doerflinger (29:18) So, you know, your kids don't want to. Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse (29:20) Send it to her. Duly noted, Richard. We will not send it to your daughter. Richard Doerflinger (29:26) But I hope other people will be sort of interested in what we learned from our experience. Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse (29:33) Yes. And the strategic significance of this book, just to reiterate something that Rich and I started at and have been kind of hinting around about, is that lived experience is the terminology that people use to defend consequentialism. Lived experience can trump those moral norms. And we want to say that it's actually the lived experience of people who violate those norms that should tell us that the norms are very valuable to us. and that the norms are worth defending and the norms are worth keeping. Richard Dorflinger, thank you so much for being my guest on today's episode of the Dr. J Show. This has been very interesting, very, very helpful. Are you still writing and working in this series or do you have a website or something like that where people can keep up with you? Richard Doerflinger (30:25) I don't have a website. mean, if you were to do an internet search in my name, some of my work would come up. Also, some nasty articles about me from people who didn't appreciate what I was doing in Congress. my wife is asking me once in a while when I'm going to retire from my retirement. I continue to do writing and speaking. giving a talk at Notre Dame next week, part of their fall conference on the Catholic imagination, which is interesting, is they wanted me to apply the idea of the Catholic imagination, the Catholic worldview and how it looks at reality as having deeper levels than other accounts recognized and apply it to some of these issues like abortion. so So it's mainly, a lot of the speakers are gonna be novelists, poets and so on, but I get to take that idea and apply it to what I work on usually. And it's been an interesting exercise to figure out what I'm gonna say. I haven't figured out all of it yet. Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse (31:44) Well, Richard Darflinger, it has been a lot of fun talking with you about these issues, these very serious and important issues, but we have had a little bit of fun while we're doing it. I do hope that people will take this volume seriously. I do hope that people will use these thoughts to interpret what you see coming out of Rome from time to time and help you understand what some of these debates are in Catholic moral theology. Your contribution here, Richard, has been really a big help to me and I'm sure to many of the viewers of the Ruth Institute. So I want to thank you so much for being my guest on today's episode of The Dr. J Show. Have a question or a comment? Leave it in the comments, and we'll get back to you! Subscribe to our YouTube playlist: @RuthInstitute Follow us on Social Media: https://www.instagram.com/theruthinstitute https://twitter.com/RuthInstitute https://www.facebook.com/TheRuthInstitute https://theruthinstitute.locals.com/newsfeed Press: NC Register: https://www.ncregister.com/author/jennifer-roback-morse Catholic Answers: https://www.catholic.com/profile/jennifer-roback-morse The Stream: https://stream.org/author/jennifer-roback-morse/ Crisis Magazine: https://crisismagazine.com/author/jennifer-roeback-morse Father Sullins' Reports on Clergy Sexual Abuse: https://ruthinstitute.org/resource-centers/father-sullins-research/ Buy Dr. Morse's Books: The Sexual State: https://ruthinstitute.org/product/the-sexual-state-2/ Love and Economics: https://ruthinstitute.org/product/love-and-economics-it-takes-a-family-to-raise-a-village/ Smart Sex: https://ruthinstitute.org/product/smart-sex-finding-life-long-love-in-a-hook-up-world/ 101 Tips for a Happier Marriage: https://ruthinstitute.org/product/101-tips-for-a-happier-marriage/ 101 Tips for Marrying the Right Person: https://ruthinstitute.org/product/101-tips-for-marrying-the-right-person/ Listen to our podcast: Apple Podcasts - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-ruth-institute-podcast/id309797947 Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/1t7mWLRHjrCqNjsbH7zXv1 Subscribe to our newsletter to get this amazing report: Refute the Top 5 Gay Myths https://ruthinstitute.org/refute-the-top-five-myths/ Get the full interview by joining us for exclusive, uncensored content on Locals: https://theruthinstitute.locals.com/support
Creating the meaning of lifeDo life's struggles make the search for meaning a hopeless endeavour?Join renowned, continental philosopher Babette Babich as she explains the Nietzschean path to finding purpose, arguing that we must embrace all elements of life - good and bad - in our search for a meaningful existence.Babette is a trailblazing philosopher of technology and science. Known for her exploration of the philosophy, history, and sociology of science, she also works on the philosophy of digital media, poetry and art. Babette is a Professor of Philosophy at Fordham University, New York City.To witness such talks live buy tickets for our upcoming festival: https://howthelightgetsin.org/festivals/And visit our website for many more articles, videos, and podcasts like this one: https://iai.tv/You can find everything we referenced here: https://linktr.ee/philosophyforourtimesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
Prometheus & Alien Covenant: The Nietzschean Deicide & UFO Symbolism - Jay & TristanSend Superchats at any time here: https://streamlabs.com/jaydyer/tip Get started with Bitcoin here: https://www.swanbitcoin.com/jaydyer/ The New Philosophy Course is here: https://marketplace.autonomyagora.com/philosophy101 Set up recurring Choq subscription with the discount code JAY44LIFE for 44% off now https://choq.com Lore coffee is here: https://www.patristicfaith.com/coffee/ Orders for the Red Book are here: https://jaysanalysis.com/product/the-red-book-essays-on-theology-philosophy-new-jay-dyer-book/ Subscribe to my site here: https://jaysanalysis.com/membership-account/membership-levels/ Follow me on R0kfin here: https://rokfin.com/jaydyerBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/jay-sanalysis--1423846/support.
All the energy and vitality today is on the political right; the old conservative reactionary stance has been replaced with active, rival voices aimed at constructing a new regime. One such voice is Bronze Age Pervert and his followers. Through their series "The Politics of Paganism," Alex Denley and Dr. Andrew Jones have explored the Nietzschean proposal, arguing that it is doomed to failure. The pagan cosmos is a closed world which cannot provide the freedom and vitality that Nietzsche extols. In this final episode, Alex Denley and Dr. Andrew Jones discuss the failure of the Nietzschean alternative and the open world of a Christian political order.
The Pacific Northwest Insurance Corporation Moviefilm Podcast
Matt and Corbin talk about "Kiss Me Deadly," a film noir about a Nietzschean superman lost in an existential world... right up until the point when it turns out he's actually in a science fiction disasterpiece. Our analysis of the election: wrong. Sorry! Corbin reccomends "BALATRO," a video game. Matt reccomends e-readers. Next week's NOIRVEMBER selection is "STRAY DOG," which you can watch here.
"Many lies tell the poets" - Homer. Nietzschean exploration of art, of truth and appearance in the artistic world, the way that madness, art and ritual relate, and the translation of artistic expression into different cultural contexts. Join me for this continuation of our The Gay Science readthrough!
Dr. Greg dives into a captivating conversation with leadership expert Alexandre Havard (calling in from Moscow!) about the '3 Spiritual Diseases'—rationalism, sentimentalism, and voluntarism—that could be influencing your life in hidden ways. Are you unknowingly living as a 'partial human being'? Tune in to learn how to avoid these traps - and discover what it takes to reclaim true wholeness. Discussed in this episode: The 3 spiritual diseases plaguing our culture – and why they matter; How rationalism, sentimentalism, and voluntarism disconnect us from reality and human flourishing; How “partial human beings” are created by separating heart, mind, and will; How to recognize if you're living under the influence of Descartes, Rousseau, or Nietzsche; Why integration of heart, mind, and will is essential for true personal growth; The influence of philosophers like Descartes, Rousseau, and Nietzsche on modern ideologies; How gender ideology mirrors Nietzschean voluntarism; How rationalism disconnects people from reality by over-prioritizing intellect; The manipulation of sentimentalism in today's “I feel, therefore I am” culture; How voluntarism leads to a will-driven society, prone to ideological extremes; What it means to have an “integrated heart” in today's fractured world; Why understanding spiritual diseases can help identify and avoid ideological traps; Havard's process of categorizing historical philosophers as “destroyers” or “builders”; Dostoevsky, Pascal, and Soloviev as examples of integrated thinkers who inspire wholeness; Alexandre's latest book, Seven Prophets, and its call to unity of the person. Resources mentioned or relevant: Learn more about the Alex Havard's books, resources, and courses: www.alexhavard.com Seven Prophets and the Culture War: Undoing the Philosophies of a World in Crisis Free Hearts: The Power of Human Harmony Need help? Schedule a free consultation to discuss your next best step; Feeling called to help others? Learn more about our Certification program (CPMAP): CatholicPsych Model of Applied Personalism; Sign up for Being Human, our weekly newsletter, to stay up to date on the exciting developments at CatholicPsych; Visit our website to read the CatholicPsych blog, shop in the CatholicPsych bookshop, or discover other resources we have available; Download The Integrated App for access to free audio exercises, courses, prayer resources, and more; Become a member of the Integrated Life Community to get access to every course Dr. Greg has created, plus the opportunity to participate in Integrated LIVE's - weekly, Mentor hosted Q&As covering topics like boundaries, communication, trauma, forgiveness, and more! Follow: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CatholicPsych Instagram: @catholicpsych X: @CatholicPsych Contact us! Have a topic or a question you would like Dr. Greg to address on the podcast? Want to give some feedback about this episode? Email us at beinghuman@catholicpsych.com - we would love to hear from you! Rate, review, and subscribe Please help us in our mission to integrate the Faith with Psychology by hitting subscribe and also sharing this podcast with your friends. Please consider rating or leaving a review of our show. It helps us reach other Catholics just like you who want to become more integrated, whole, and happy human beings. For Apple podcasts, click here, scroll to the bottom, tap to rate 5 stars, and choose “write a review.” Then type your sincere thoughts about the show! If you haven't already, make sure to subscribe so you don't miss out on any episodes. Subscribe to the podcast now!
We discuss Part IV: "The Triumph and Death of Western Marxism" with particular focus on the work of Hannah Arendt in The Origins of Totalitarianism and On Revolution. We discuss Losurdo's analysis of "recognition" from Hegel and how revolution is theorized as recognition in Marx and Engels and how subsequent liberal theories of revolution in Arendt and Nietzschean theories of Foucault promote what Losurdo sees as the "death" of Western Marxism.
We examine Losurdo's criticism of western Marxism in relation to anticolonial revolution following the Second World War. We discuss Walter Benjamin's "Theses on the Philosophy of History," Max Horkheimer's Authoritarian State, Althusser's antihumanist turn, Sartre's Critique of Dialectical Reason, Adorno's Nietzschean pessimism, and Tronti's workerism. We discuss how Losurdo pinpoints an aversion to the anticolonial revolution in the Marxist theories that are generated by these thinkers. We discuss the merits of Losurdo's polemic, where it hits the mark and where it falls short. Please join us at https://www.patreon.com/torsiongroups.
the modern far right, The Matrix vs. They Live, the pros and cons of "gatekeeping," gatekeeping in the twenty-first century, Eugene Thacker, Thomas Ligotti, Cosmic nihilism, cosmic nihilism vs. Nietzschean nihilism, how bending perceived reality is the essence of black magick and social engineering, Mormonism, Mormonism's influence of the American New Age and far right, the 2016 Meme Wars, the extent of the Meme Wars influence on social media, Tenet Media, Russiagate2024, Blaze Media, Glen Beck, Blaze's links to Tenet, The Joker, Heath Ledger's Joker vs. Joaquin Phoenix's, Operations MIndfuck, the DKMU, the Assault on Reality, why the Assault on Reality succeeded while Operation Mindfuck failed, how the far right has exploited the Internet from the beginning, Louis Beam, the Satanic Temple, TST's authoritarian drift, the dangers in the search for "authenticity," Hindu nationalism, esoteric Hitlerism, Piss Earth 2025 and the futureMusic by: Keith Allen Dennishttps://keithallendennis.bandcamp.com/ Get bonus content on Patreon Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
We explore the big philosophical questions at the heart of Marxism. Does Marxism require a supplementary philosophy such as Nietzscheanism or Freudianism to properly ground its practice? How have the changing material conditions post-2008 shaped Marxist thought and practice? What is the best Marxist response to speculative realism, a major movement in contemporary philosophy? To explore these questions we are joined by Marxist scholar and writer Conrad Hamilton who is currently a postdoctoral research fellow at East China Normal University. Hamilton is the author of the forthcoming book, Marxism Contra Subjectivity (forthcoming from Brill) which looks at the philosophical impasses facing Marxism in a post-2008 conjuncture, with a particular focus on speculative realism, Althusserianism and different strains of French Marxism. We begin our discussion with Hamilton's analysis of Nietzsche's place in Marxism after World War II. We focus on Hamilton's recent essay on Nietzsche and French thought and his review of my book How to Read Like a Parasite. We then discuss some of the ideas in his forthcoming book on Marxism, philosophy and epistemology. Stay tuned for a symposium on Hamilton's book hosted by our study collective when it comes out. -------- Chapters: 0:00 - Introduction to Conrad Hamilton 4:11 - Recurrent Reaction: Nietzsche and the Thought of the French Middle Strata 21:10 - Nietzschean Appropriations and Marxism after World War II 30:17 - The Problems with the Nietzschean "extra class" left 48:30 - Does Marxism require a comprehensive philosophy? 1:12:10 - Speculative Realism, Real Abstraction and Marxism post-2008 1:22:20 - Where is the subject of the proletariat today? 1:43:50 - Why does philosophy matter to political Marxism? Show Notes: "The Monsters We Become" by Conrad Hamilton (https://cosmonautmag.com/2024/05/the-monsters-we-become-on-how-to-read-like-a-parasite) "Recurrent Reaction: Nietzsche and the Thought of the French Middle Strata" by Conrad Hamilton (https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-13635-1)
Some commenters on the recent post accused me of misunderstanding the Nietzschean objection to altruism. We hate altruism, they said, not because we're “bad and cruel”, but because we instead support vitalism. Vitalism is a moral system that maximizes life, glory and strength, instead of maximizing happiness. Altruism is bad because it throws resources into helping sick (maybe even dysgenic) people, thus sapping our life, glory, and strength. In a blog post (linked in the original post, discussed at length in the comments), Walt Bismarck compares the ultimate fate of altruism to WALL-E: a world where morbidly obese humans are kept in a hedonistic haze by robot servitors (although the more typical example I hear is tiling the universe with rats on heroin, which maximizes a certain definition of pleasure). In contrast, vitalism imagines a universe alive with dynamism, heroism, and great accomplishments. My response: in most normal cases, altruism and vitalism suggest the same solutions. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/altruism-and-vitalism-as-fellow-travelers
I. Bentham's Bulldog Blogger “Bentham's Bulldog” recently wrote Shut Up About Slave Morality. Nietzsche's concept of “slave morality” (he writes) is just a dysphemism for the usual morality where you're not bad and cruel. Right-wing edgelords use “rejection of slave morality” as a justification for badness and cruelty: When people object to slave morality, they are just objecting to morality. They are objecting to the notion that you should care about others and doing the right thing, even when doing so doesn't materially benefit you. Now, one can consistently object to those things, but it doesn't make them any sort of Nostradamus. It makes them morally deficient, and also generally philosophically confused. The tedious whinging about slave morality is just a way to pass off not caring about morality or taking moral arguments seriously as some sort of sophisticated and cynical myth-busting. But it's not that in the slightest. No one is duped by slave morality, no one buys into it because of some sort of deep-seated ignorance. Those who follow it do so because of a combination of social pressure and a genuine desire to help out others. That is, in fact, not in any way weak but a noble impulse from which all good actions spring. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/matt-yglesias-considered-as-the-nietzschean
Jim talks with Alexander Bard in the second of three conversations about his and Jan Söderqvist's recent book Process and Event. They discuss eventological monotheism vs nomadological iconology, dualism vs monism, substance dualism, Spinoza's monism, graded relationality, emergence vector theory, Syntheism & its concepts, God as the ultimate dream, creating God, 4 dimensions of time, a more complete metaphysics, the problem with oneness, the two-headed phallus, priests & chiefs, the 3 fundamental entities in Hinduism, a congress of grandmothers, Plato & Confucius's idealization of tyrants, libido & mortido, objectification of the mamilla, Julia Kristeva's discovery, the Gnostic delusion, being embodied and en-minded, examples of boy pharaohs & pillar saints, paradigmatics, membranics, archetypology, the geneplex vs the memeplex, 4 paradigms in human history, finding one's paradigmatic role, embedded membranes, trans men & women as new paradigmatic categories, the dialectics of the Hegelian negation & the Nietzschean oscillation, the negation of the negation in identity production, negation in phenomenology, the golden age of 19th century German philosophy, American pragmatists, transcendental emergentism, getting laid, principles rather than laws, studying each emergence vector as its own domain, emergence vector theory in creativity, the stability of physics, cosmological Darwinism, negation & oscillation as the fundamental dialectics of reality & thought, and much more. Episode Transcript "The Last Question," by Isaac Asimov Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection, by Julia Kristeva JRS EP 176 - Gregg Henriques Part 1: Addressing the Enlightenment Gap JRS EP 138 - W. Brian Arthur on the Nature of Technology JRS EP 227 - Stuart Kauffman on the Emergence of Life JRS EP 5 Lee Smollin - Quantum Foundations and Einstein's Unfinished Revolution Alexander Bard is a philosopher, artist, songwriter and music producer, author of six books with Jan Söderqvist, living in Stockholm, Sweden. Bard built his career as a philosopher in parallel with a highly successful 25-years-plus career in the international music industry. Bard & Söderqvist's philosophy concentrates on the relationship between human beings and technology, using human beings as the constant throughout civilization, with technology as the ever faster changing variable. Their work takes inspiration from thinkers like Hegel, Nietzsche, Whitehead, Deleuze, and Eastern philosophy and spirituality, in the latter case adding Persia to the well known triad of India, China and Japan. They are convinced philosophy will be the last human activity to ever be affected by AI.
Would you say Shawshank Redemption is "a movie with a happy ending"? Years ago as a young husband, that's what Brian picked to watch when his wife made a request for just such a film with a happy ending. (Spoiler: Shawshank Redemption was not the kind of movie she had meant.) For this momentous 145th episode, and the first ever LAMPC pick WITH CLIPS FROM THE MOVIE INCLUDED IN THE EPISODE (go watch it on Canon+, people), the guys discuss a movie this film that was a box-office failure upon release, and has since climbed into the upper echelons of film conversations. Brian asks Nate about its popular appeal. Nate surmises why it flopped upon release, and makes suggestions for improving that release (if given a time machine). Brian fails at describing Andy Dufresne's character flaw. Nate avoids talking about Stephen King, who wrote the original story. They discuss how Christians interpret movies wrong (Andy giving the 12 prisoners beer on the roof is the Last Supper) and how atheists do the same thing (Zihuatanejo is a Nietzschean paradise beyond guilt and innocence!). Enjoy! #LAMPC #LookAtMovingPicturesClub #SASF #StoriesAreSoulFood #ShawshankRedemption
© 2020-2026 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
