Podcasts about Parmenides

What a lot of fun I had talking to Zena Hitz about Gulliver's Travels. As well as discussing Swift, slavery, genocide, rationality, Christianity, and science, Zena told me that good philosophy is like a box of cake mix and that a liberal education requires you to be freed of false expertise. I also took Zena on a detour to discuss Iris Murdoch, the Catherine Project, and modern philosophy. TRANSCRIPTHENRY OLIVER: Today I am talking to Zena Hitz. Zena is a tutor at St. John's College. She is a philosopher, the author of Lost in Thought. She runs the Catherine Project. She's famous on Twitter. We don't know how she does it all. Zena, welcome.ZENA HITZ: Thank you, Henry. It's great to be here.OLIVER: And we're talking about Gulliver's Travels because it is 300 years since it was published, and it's a book that you love.HITZ: A book that I've loved for a long time.First Encounter with Gulliver's TravelsOLIVER: So tell me, when did you first read it?HITZ: Well, it was an important moment for me. I was in high school, and I was admitted to a scholarship summer program which offered college courses at different campuses. There were some normal-looking college courses at normal-looking colleges. And then there was this course at St. John's called Science as Literature, Literature as Science. [laughs] It had this description that was just unbelievable. And I thought to myself, “This is the one, obviously the one to go to.”So I went, and we read books that no one in their right mind would assign to high school students now, and maybe not then. The fragments of Parmenides, Plato's Timaeus, selections from Aristotle's Physics, Gulliver's Travels. After reading a number of—preface to Ptolemy's Almagest, geocentric astronomy. And we read Gulliver's Travels after reading selections from Hooke's Micrographia, so the inventor of the microscope, and Galileo's Starry Messenger, which is one of the great first uses of the telescope to discover the nature of the moon and the satellites of Jupiter.So then we read Gulliver's Travels. We also read Emma and Flannery O'Connor and various other things. And one of the faculty who was running it said at one point, “Well, we thought we'd throw a bunch of things together and see what you could do, what you could make of it. We didn't actually have an idea of how these all fit together,” which I think was probably true.At any rate, I think I came to Gulliver's Travels thinking about these scientists who were looking at very large things and very small things, and thinking in general about the follies of human perception, whether that was shown in literature or philosophy or what have you, the ways in which human perception and knowledge don't work very well. And I think Swift is still one of the best people to—Gulliver's Travels is still one of the best books about that because it's in the mode of a travel diary, an eyewitness account.Gulliver is trained as a surgeon, by his own account. He at one point says he was a bit of a projector in his younger days, someone who undertook scientific projects. And he's a terrible observer, the worst imaginable observer, and Swift so brilliantly lets us see through his eyes, lets us see all the things he doesn't see. And I think it's not just about seeing and knowing. It has a very profound, I think, moral and political set of commitments. So it's a very humane book. It's social criticism, but from a point of view of a very deep humanity. So I've always loved the book for these reasons since then.I came back to it more recently because it is part of the curriculum at St. John's. So when I came back to teach there, I began to reread it. The other experience I had was that I wrote a long essay on it when I was an undergraduate. So those are my—I'm not any kind of expert. My knowledge of the historical context of the book is limited. It's not zero, but it's limited. But I have always loved it as an account of human understanding and its failures and the way that might impact how we live and how happy we can be.The Houyhnhnm ProblemOLIVER: Have you changed how you think about it as you've taught it?HITZ: I have not really changed the way I think about it. It gets more—like all of these books, the more you read them, the more comes out of them, the more details come up. Hilarious. The more jokes you get, the more . . .I think the one more recent insight I had was, I hadn't understood the full horror of the Houyhnhnms in the last book until relatively recently. I think that took me some time to really take on. It's one of the cases where Gulliver's misperceptions are a bit harder to see, and I think many readers just assume that Swift is endorsing the praise of the Houyhnhnms in some sense or other.OLIVER: There are some very serious critics in the past who have called them Swift's ideal beings. Which at this point in history seems unthinkable, but it has been a belief among serious readers.HITZ: Yes, yes. And also common among students. Yes, it's absolutely one of the wrongest opinions you could have about anything, I think.OLIVER: Why does Swift allow us to make that mistake? Are we bad readers out of the context, or has he made too good a job of his diversions and concealments and ironies?HITZ: That's a great question, and I'll just take a stab at it. I think that he has hit on a mode of misperception which is very deep to us, and it's something that we're much more guilty of. We could imagine that if we were in a place where everyone was small or everyone was large, we might make mistakes like Gulliver makes. But we all live, I think, in communities that are a bit like the Houyhnhnms. And so we are all very subject to these kinds of deceptions, and I think that's how he gets us.That's not to really excuse the bad readings because, you know, Gulliver does leave the land of the Houyhnhnms with a boat made out of human skin, which should—I think that moment should make you realize, if you haven't yet, that something is very seriously wrong with Gulliver. Gulliver has been kind of destroyed as a person by his travels, and especially by this last trip. But if you pass over that little detail, maybe you think, “Oh, wow, he found some very simple beings.”OLIVER: Well, there's also the great council where they debate the genocide of the Yahoos.HITZ: [laughs] Yes.OLIVER: And it directly contradicts several things Gulliver has come to believe about the Houyhnhnms, about the Yahoos, and about himself. And he's completely unaware of these contradictions and so in awe of the Houyhnhnms that he doesn't quite understand, I think, that he's accounting a genocide.HITZ: That's right. That's right.OLIVER: Even though he uses a phrase from Genesis that's very unmistakable. It's a sort of remarkable moment of—particularly to us, having had the 20th century. I think that's why Swift came back into favor in a way, because people used to say, Swift's unbearable view of human nature . . .This is a great bit in Boswell's Life of Johnson where, when they're traveling through Scotland, they're with a lady, and she says to Johnson, “Is any man naturally good?” And Johnson says, “No, no more than a wolf.” And Boswell says, “Well, sir, what about ladies?” And Johnson says, “God, no, absolutely not.” And this woman says, “Oh my God, this is worse than Swift,” utterly horrific view of human nature.But of course, we can actually say, did he go far enough? [laughter] I mean, Swift clearly understands something very real and deep. The council of genocide is horrifyingly familiar to us. And I think that's much to Swift's credit that he can see that, and to show that Gulliver would blind himself to it. And people still blind themselves to it, right?HITZ: That's right. And I wonder—you would know more about this than me because it is a bit of a historical question, but my understanding is that quite a lot of the savagery, the worst parts of rule over men that we see in Gulliver's Travels are pictures of Ireland in the 17th, 18th centuries. And I wonder if that took some time to reveal itself to the British, and in some ways it's still not really as known as it might be. We think of the colonial project as being something that was directed at India and Africa—OLIVER: Faraway countries.HITZ: —faraway countries where people looked really different. And we're not as familiar with the kinds of things that were done to the cuddly Irish with their nice music, and who we don't think of as being people that you would savagely oppress like that. So I think—OLIVER: So, I think partly the English are not interested in their own history in the way that they are expected to be. And partly the English interest in Irish history has become very focused on the more recent events. And it's very hard to get back past that. And it all becomes very complicated, and it's a sort of different country. So there's some of that, but I think generally we don't want to know what we did, yes.HITZ: Well, and I think in anglophone countries in general, there's going to be a history of something like that. To attribute it to the British is not to say that—I mean, Americans have chattel slavery and the genocide of the natives, and the Australians have their own situation. All of the anglophone countries have something like this on their conscience.I think that obscures the meaning of that final book. I think we don't recognize—and that's really to Swift's credit, to have a social critique that is so real and so deep that you may not even recognize yourself in the picture.Slavery in Gulliver's TravelsOLIVER: Yes. When I read it again—I read it as an undergraduate, but I really was actually more interested in the other parts of Swift's work. And I thought it was brilliant, and then I read it again. And it was more recently that—I didn't understand how I couldn't have seen it, but it's basically a book about slavery, as I come back to it.And in each of the books there is enslavement of a different sort. So, to begin with, Gulliver is the one being kept in a box or kept in a house, or he's chained up by the Lilliputians or Glumdalclitch.HITZ: Right. That's right.OLIVER: She's a very nice sort of master, as it were, [laughter] but he has that box that can be sealed, and the dwarf has him swiping at the wasps. And then the enslavement that the flying island has of the country below is like England and Ireland. And then in the final book, you know, the Houyhnhnms are whipping the Yahoos.HITZ: That's right.OLIVER: The slavery thing gets worse and worse as the book goes on. And one of the things that's clever is that it's funny when Gulliver is enslaved, right? When the wasps are let out and he has to—and Swift sort of does that clever thing where he undermines things by making it a joke at the end. By the book of the Houyhnhnms, there is really very little humor. And the twist at the end is always dark.Gulliver can't see that—he can see that he's a bit like the Yahoos. But he can't see that they've been enslaved in the way that he—the farmer wanted to take him around the kingdom and show him off, and he says, “I couldn't possibly have had children in that condition because I couldn't have it on my conscience that I had begotten a slave, someone born into slavery. I couldn't do that.”HITZ: Right.OLIVER: Then he's in the Houyhnhnms and he can't—it's quite remarkable.HITZ: [laughs] Yes. I don't think it's quite true that in the end there's no humor. I read it with some Catherine Project group a couple of years ago, and one of the readers pointed out that it's not obvious Gulliver isn't leaving his home and sitting out in the ocean and always landing on England every single time; just every time, he lands there.And there's something hilarious about an Englishman that discovers a place where there's all horses, [laughter] and his love of horses overwhelms him, and he becomes persuaded that they're the only rational beings that there are. I mean, that is funny.OLIVER: Yes, I agree. There's a lot of irony and stuff. But I think it's in Lilliput when he describes their manner of writing. And he says they don't write from left to right as we do in England, or from right to left, or up-down like the Chinese, but from one corner to the other, as the ladies do in England. This is very funny, dry humor, and that sort of thing is gone. And the things that surprise you at the end of a sentence or a paragraph are more like, “Oh, and of course I used Yahoo skin to cover the boat.” And you're like, oh my God, this is not a joke anymore.You know, in A Modest Proposal, he makes real humor out of those kind of horrors. And with the Houyhnhnms, I think he actually refuses the joke to make you feel the disgust, in a way.HITZ: Yes, that might be right. That might be right.Swift and PhilosophyOLIVER: What do you think about the idea that the Houyhnhnms are drawn from the Phaedrus and Socrates's idea of the soul with the two horses? And there's the good, rational horse and the vulgar, passionate horse, and the Yahoos are the other horse. You see what I mean?HITZ: Yes, yes.OLIVER: Is Swift showing us the two sides, and Gulliver's mistake is to prefer the one and not the—HITZ: Right, I think I have heard something like this before. I'm a bit skeptical. Swift doesn't strike me as someone who uses philosophy in quite that way. I think he's much more interested in Gulliver's—the Houyhnhnms' self-deception about the kinds of beings they are. They do not say “the thing which is not,” yet Gulliver's master hides from him this conversation about the genocide for quite some time. And maybe we don't know if he tells him quite the whole truth about it. So there's—OLIVER: And he also conceals the fact that the others don't like Gulliver because he's a partial—a reasonable Yahoo, as it were.HITZ: Right. So their self-deception, Gulliver's being taken in by their self-deception, the ways in which they—this is one of the ways that I think it's profound about the nature of slavery. And to cheer us all up, I'll make a Holocaust analogy, as you also did.When I was traveling in Germany some years ago, in one of their Holocaust museums, there was an image from a Nazi-era German newspaper of Jewish people living in complete squalor in the ghetto. And of course, they had forced them into squalor. But somehow they forced them into squalor, and then this reinforces the sense that they're these rat-like beings.And there's something very similar that the Houyhnhnms do to the Yahoos. They force them into this animal state, and then they say, “Oh God, look, these people are disgusting. They just don't know how to act.” That seems to me the kind of level at which Swift is working. He is interested in the nature of a human being, but not in the abstract Platonic sense, I don't think.He strikes me as someone who believes in common sense, common decency, basic freedom, and basic use of reason. And he finds in his time that there's distorting teachings, distorting ways of behavior that have gotten people far off track. To me, that's what it feels like it comes from. It doesn't feel like Plato is in the background to me.OLIVER: Is there an extent to which, though, it's a work of sort of anti-philosophy? As you say, Swift, he likes common sense. He likes ordinary reason, and he likes what he would call the revealed truth of Christianity. So he talks, in his sermons about people, it comes to you from God like a light. It's revealed to you. And he doesn't like this idea that the philosophers can work it all out.And in a way, that's the same sort of mistake that the scientists think they can discover all this stuff, and they go in these crazy ways. And the Houyhnhnms are a bit like that. If you had philosopher-kings, they would end up being perverted examples of rationality because they're ignoring the—so do you think it's anti-philosophy in a way? The book is saying, “No, no, I don't want philosophers”?Criticizing Elite Intellectual CultureHITZ: That's definitely a plausible reading. But it's hard to tell whether it's anti-philosophy or anti a particular style of thinking. It's worth pointing out, in that light, that Gulliver, when he arrives in the land of the Houyhnhnms, before he even meets a horse, he sees a Yahoo who, from what I can tell from the text, is trying to wave at him and say hello, who recognizes him. And he's horrified. He sees him instantly as a monster.So I think immediately upon landing, he sees the Yahoos as monstrous, and that tells me that he must already be off kilter. So he's not just corrupted by the Houyhnhnms; he's been somehow led off track, away from the capacity to recognize fellow human beings before that.And he's come from this—the third book is all about various kinds of inquiry, scientific endeavors, practical endeavors, talking to the greats of the past, necromancy, and various kinds of inquiry into wisdom or things like wisdom. And somehow that's the thing that seems to push him to the point where he can no longer tell what a human being is.OLIVER: One of my favorite parts is when he's with the wizards, and he asks to be shown Homer and Aristotle and all their commentators. And he says that there were vast rooms full of these commentators, endless numbers of them. But Homer and Aristotle didn't recognize any of them because they were all so ashamed of the terrible things they'd said about these great men's works that they kept themselves forever in a different part of the underworld. They couldn't bear the shame of being revealed to having told lies and said second-rate things.It's very, very funny. And I think that's another sort of angle on which the book says, “You're so tempted to make a comment and have an idea and be a philosopher, and you should just accept the revealed truth of what is known. Just stop it. Just stop it.” [laughter]HITZ: Well, I suppose maybe I would also put it this way, that Swift sees the condition of 18th-century Ireland, which is quite poor, very bad. And it's ruled in a savage way by the English, who have a quite flourishing intellectual culture, as it happens, at this time.So I think what he might be is not a critic of philosophy so much as a critic of intellectual culture. Because intellectual culture seems to not only not help with existential concerns like slavery and oppression and savage poverty, but even serves to mask and hide and create illusions behind it.So that's, I guess, how it strikes me, as a book that's hostile to what you'd now call elite intellectual culture. And I don't know how fundamental that critique is, in light of its inability to solve problems for real human beings or to obscure the causes of what's going on with real human beings.OLIVER: I think it's quite fundamental because outside of Gulliver's—I think this comes into Gulliver's Travels, but what he might have said more explicitly elsewhere is, there are people starving in the streets of Dublin. And we've got corrupt politicians and intellectuals saying all these things, but you know, here she is starving. You don't need to work that out. [laughter] There's no question—the reveal—just be a Christian and, like, for goodness' sake . . .HITZ: Yes.OLIVER: And when, for example, he talks to the king of Brobdingnag, and there's that wonderful satire of the English government and everything. And he says, “Those people understood mathematics and poetry and whatever, but I could never drive into their head any sense of the abstract or any of these speculative—they simply didn't know what that was. They didn't know what I was saying.” [laughter]And so in a way, his ideal government is anti-philosophical because it would just look at the human problem in front of it. It wouldn't do speculative science. It wouldn't think of itself as rational, all this Platonic stuff. It would just—she's in rags, she has bare feet, you know?HITZ: Yes, that's right.OLIVER: What do we need a philosopher-king? Like, what are you talking about?HITZ: Exactly.OLIVER: The priest understands this because he's there in the city doing it. And is there something of that in the book, that constant resistance of the cleverness of people who cannot see daily life?HITZ: I think that's absolutely true, and I think it's probably one of the things I love about the book, because I think this somehow gets to something in my own heart. Even though I'm a professional intellectual—I have been my whole life—the distance between the concerns of professional intellectuals and the concerns of living, real people in various parts of the world is very large.And it's even worse when, as it was when I was coming up in grad school, there's a ton of explicit concern and various operations underway to improve life for others, which have zero connection with anything that anyone actually does. So I think the Laputans, which is the beginning of the third book, when Gulliver—OLIVER: The flying island.HITZ: Yes, when Gulliver visits the people on the flying island, who have one eye towards the heavens and one eye pointed inward. And they study music and mathematics, and they live in a giant flying saucer, which has the—OLIVER: And the flappers.HITZ: That's right. [laughter] When someone needs to talk to them, someone flaps their ears so that they pay attention. And their wives all run off with working people because they can't bear to be treated the way they are by men like this. And the flying saucer is not just distant. It also has the power to crush the towns underneath it if it judges them to be rebellious.This image will stick with you for the rest of your life. I mean, it's absolutely perfect, and the perfect image of bad government of a kind when intellectual culture is prized. And it's hinted early on in the book in Lilliput, when the rulers in Lilliput have to do these elaborate dances with ropes.OLIVER: Oh, with the king and the chief minister hold the pole, funny angles, and if you get under it, you get a green ribbon or a red ribbon.HITZ: Exactly. [laughter] And they have these athletic contests of grace and various colored ribbons, and that determine how far you get in the halls of power.OLIVER: Yes. Are you a cabinet minister or a junior minister? Yes, yes.HITZ: Exactly. So there, it's all just a funny joke. But it develops, I think, into the Laputans, people who have kinds of expertise that are actually hostile to them doing any kind of humane governing. So yes, that seems right to me.Christianity in GulliverOLIVER: To what extent is it a Christian book?HITZ: That's an interesting question. I've never found a strong Christian element in it myself. There are satires of religious wars, both in Lilliput, where Lilliput's at war with its neighboring city. Oh, wait a second, there's two different disputes in Lilliput. One is about what side you cut your egg on.OLIVER: There are the Little-Endians and the Big-Endians,HITZ: Right. And then there's also one about heel size. So there's two different kinds of disputes.OLIVER: With the marvelous image that the king is a Short-Heeler. But they think that the heir to the throne might be favorable to the High-Heelers because he has one heel slightly higher than the other, and he walks with a wobbly gait.HITZ: [laughs] That's right. This, again, in Lilliput is just utterly hilarious, outrageous, very silly, obviously a parody of religious wars between different kinds of Christians. But it resurfaces towards the end. It's the Houyhnhnms, where he talks to the Master Horse—OLIVER: And the horse sort of pretends to this great rationality, simply can't understand that men would kill each other over the question of whether flesh is bread or bread is flesh.HITZ: That's right. That's right. That's right. So there's definitely disparaging remarks about religious wars. And as you're talking about it, where along with Swift's praise of common sense, there's a kind of basic Christian morality, which is that the poor and the suffering need attention. That all strikes me as Christian. Apart from that, I'm not sure. If you have a religious take, I'd be interested to hear it.OLIVER: I find it very interesting that Swift had quite strict beliefs. He was not in favor of Catholics. He thought Dissenters should be tolerated, but he wanted the Test Act. He was very particular about all these things. And in his other works, he's quite direct about that. But in this book, he achieves a kind of high ambivalence. And he's not a Little-Ender or a Big-Ender.HITZ: That's right.OLIVER: And he says the religious text on which this is based simply says that you must break the egg at the most convenient end.HITZ: [laughs] That's right.OLIVER: Now, of course, in reality, he's a Little-Ender, and he's very committed to the Reformation, and he thinks it's all terrible that they're not. And it's interesting that someone with such angry, insistent beliefs on the Anglican Church would take this ambivalent position.And he satirizes so much. But the anti-slavery stuff, the description of the Laputans bringing the island down, and then he says, “I've never seen so much want and misery, and there's a wild look in their eyes, and they're wearing rags.” I mean, this is Dublin, right? This is just, along with the slavery, this basic Christian concern for the oppressed, the poor, the suffering.HITZ: Yes, that's right.OLIVER: And so I don't quite know. It's almost like the book is saying, again with this anti-intellectual thing, all these doctrinal disputes and which church this and who believes that. And here we have slaves and poor people and beggars and starving people.HITZ: Right.OLIVER: Christianity should deal with that first. So is the implicit criticism of his fellow Christians, in a way, that they're more interested in these disputes than in the fact that there are enslaved people and suffering people and—you see what I mean?HITZ: Yes, that's right.OLIVER: And Gulliver—the Houyhnhnms are highly rational but not Christian, which is a significant omission. And by the end, are you supposed to wonder if Gulliver actually isn't very much of a Christian? Because he can see this suffering and not respond to it at all.HITZ: Right, when maybe the—is the best person in the book the King of Brobdingnag? Does that seem right? The person with the—at least who says the best things?OLIVER: He says the best things. I think the best person is Glumdalclitch. She shows real charity and real love towards him.HITZ: What about the Houyhnhnm, the one who likes him, who says, “Fare thee well, gentle Yahoo”? It's tear-jerking—OLIVER: Oh, the sorrel nag.HITZ: The sorrel nag. I can literally weep at that moment when she says, “Fare thee well, gentle Yahoo.”OLIVER: That's true. That's true. She and Glumdalclitch are maybe more similar characters. Yes, yes, yes.HITZ: They're similar characters. Okay.OLIVER: And they have that basic, you don't need to call it Christian. You don't need—it doesn't need theology.HITZ: Humane. I would call it humane. Yes.OLIVER: They have that basic love of their fellow. You know, Glumdalclitch doesn't say, “Oh, how amusing this little man is, or how entertaining, or I can make—” She says, “He must be cared for. He looks a bit like me. He must be cared for.”HITZ: Right.OLIVER: And the sorrel nag, again, has the love of the fellow creature.HITZ: That's right. That's right.OLIVER: So I think Swift might be bringing in this, what he thinks of as the revealed truth of Christianity. Like, you shouldn't need telling, you shouldn't need to argue. It's there.HITZ: Right. This is just me making things up, which is what I'm here for. We're podcasting. Yes.OLIVER: Yes, of course. Also, is that not what the philosophers would do? That's what Swift would say.HITZ: But if I was going to make something up, what I would say is something like this: that Swift to me, from the testimony of Gulliver's Travels, which is the book of his I really know the best. I don't know much about the rest of it. He has a level of self-awareness and sophistication. So, he knows that that religious difference is being used as a pretext. He knows that it is obscuring the suffering of these people. So, for the purposes of the book, he says, “Look, if you're a smart person, if you're a smart ruler, if you're an actually humane, intelligent, commonsensical ruler, you know that the fact that they have the wrong religious views is not a reason for them to be enslaved and oppressed and starved.” So that would be my suspicion.And that's why I think, to me, the religion is so light, because it's not really a religious problem. It's actually just a human problem and a political problem that is, how do you run your country so that these subject peoples are allowed to be free and develop themselves and be full human beings? That would be my made-up guess.Students' Views of GulliverOLIVER: What do undergraduates think? What is it that they find interesting in the book, and what do they like or dislike?HITZ: It's been a couple of years. I think they like this idea that—we all think travel is very broadening, a great way to think about the world. You know, you can learn so much about one's fellow human beings. And whatever else is going on in Gulliver's Travels, travel does not necessarily produce enlightenment.So I think they like the attention to the ways in which, even when we are trying to learn, we fail to learn. And the ways in which structures of learning, like traveling or studying science, might actually make you worse and not better, things like that. But it's not a book—I think it's fair to say it's not one of the favorite books of the undergraduates.OLIVER: Okay.HITZ: I think they find it a little bit distant, and I'm not sure why that is.OLIVER: Is it because it sort of looks like a novel, but it's not what we have come to expect a novel to be? And it sort of has that—HITZ: I think that's right.OLIVER: The pre–Jane Austen novel is kind of weird to us now.HITZ: Well, they love Don Quixote.OLIVER: Okay.HITZ: And that is a challenge of a similar kind. It's a novel which doesn't quite read like a novel, and the humor is kind of old. I mean, it's also true—undergraduates, in my experience, in general—I hope they'll forgive me for saying this on a podcast—they're not always good at comedy. They tend to think that serious things must be tragic.OLIVER: You can't get an A by making a joke.HITZ: Well, more that they have a sense that an intellectual life is something serious. It's serious.OLIVER: Oh, yes. Okay. And the syllabus slightly reinforces that, doesn't it?HITZ: Well, it's sort of self-reinforcing because we used to read more Aristophanes. We used to read Rabelais.OLIVER: If you do Shakespeare, it'll be the tragedies.HITZ: No, no, we do Shakespeare comedies.OLIVER: Oh, you do? Okay.HITZ: Yes. We have As You Like It and The Tempest. And do we have more tragedies? Maybe one more tragedy than comedy, but not a terrible imbalance.OLIVER: Well, that's good.HITZ: It's not Shakespeare-type comedy that's—maybe, correct me if I'm wrong, a Shakespeare comedy is something that ends in a marriage, more or less.OLIVER: More or less.HITZ: It's things that are funny—they don't necessarily think that humor is a way of thinking.OLIVER: Do they struggle with irony?HITZ: No, not usually. As long as it's serious irony, Anyway, I'm not sure why. I think I'm making things—I'm going too far out of the grounds for drawing conclusions.Favorite Parts of the BookOLIVER: Sure. Do you have a favorite passage?HITZ: One of my favorites is the part—is it Balnibarbi where they have people who try to speak with objects?OLIVER: Oh, yes, yes, yes.HITZ: And they have to carry around wagons full of things because they never know what you might want to talk about. [laughter] That's so weird. Because I think I spent a lot of time studying with philosophers, there's a bit of—something's on the nose about this.OLIVER: Yes.HITZ: You know, it's like, “No, you've got to say exactly—no, that's too imprecise. You have to say exactly what you mean.” Bernard Williams, the great philosopher, has something complaining about how contemporary philosophers are very controlling of their readers. They don't want anyone to make the slightest mistake about what they mean by a particular word. That's how the people who speak by objects strike me.OLIVER: Do you think that is a problem of contemporary philosophy?HITZ: Oh, sure. Yes, absolutely. Yes. The way Williams puts it is that when you write something, it should be like a cake mix, and the reader should be able to put their own egg and bake the cake themselves.OLIVER: Oh, I see. You mean like a box of mix, yes.HITZ: Yes, yes, exactly. It's like a box of cake mix. Whereas making the cake painstakingly and force-feeding it bite by bite to the reader is not actually an—OLIVER: Telling them how it tastes.HITZ: Telling them how it tastes is not an educational endeavor.OLIVER: When does this become too dominant in philosophy?HITZ: It's a feature of 20th-century analytic philosophy to be very careful with the meanings of words. And it's by no means universal; it's just a natural vice to the territory.Iris MurdochOLIVER: Is this a problem for someone like Iris Murdoch, or is it more the A. J. Ayer type?HITZ: No, it's the A. J. Ayer type, not Iris Murdoch. No, Iris Murdoch is heterodox outside of the—OLIVER: Do you like her philosophy?HITZ: I do, yes.OLIVER: What do you like about it? Platonic?HITZ: Now, see, I came here to talk about Swift. [laughter]OLIVER: I know, but you made such a good point about the satire of philosophers.HITZ: I like her writing for a more general educated audience, her not making assumptions about the philosophical training of her readers, and her use of Plato for sure, which is quite interesting and creative. She sort of ingests Plato and does something with it that I think is very interesting.OLIVER: Is she properly appreciated as a Platonist, or do you think there's more attention to be paid?HITZ: There's probably more attention to be paid, but she gets some attention. She gets some attention. I also don't think it was particularly helpful, these two books that came out a couple of years ago about Murdoch, Foot, Midgley, and Anscombe.OLIVER: Oh, yes, yes, yes. I only read one of those. It was quite good.HITZ: It might be quite good, but those four women are quite different from one another. So it's an example of where attention to identity could obscure as much as it—OLIVER: Well, one of the books was more about the ideas—they were both obviously about the ideas—and one of them was more about the fact that they were together in Oxford. And that they benefited from hanging out, talking, doing different sorts of work, sleeping with each other's husbands, et cetera.HITZ: Yes, all the good stuff.OLIVER: And from the more sociological point of view, it was very interesting to see that, actually, a lot of what Murdoch did was bound up with her friendships and relationships, in that the argument basically is, A. J. Ayer and the others get sent away because of the war. So these four women are actually—they've been banned from this seminar and told they're not allowed.Well, now they can sit around and do what they want to do. And it worked, and they all produced very interesting things. So from that point of view, I think it was—but I agree with you, Elizabeth Anscombe and Iris Murdoch are not the same. [laughter]HITZ: Not even particularly similar. I also feel like I've read enough of Murdoch's novels to have a sense of what the sociological situation was like.OLIVER: You like the novels?HITZ: I do like them, yes.OLIVER: Do you have favorites?HITZ: I can't remember the name of my favorite because I haven't read them for years. It's one of the things I read years ago, the one—I'd remember it if I saw the title. There's an LSD trip at the beginning of it.OLIVER: Oh, The Good Apprentice. I love that book.HITZ: The Good Apprentice, yes. I think that was my favorite. But I never fell in love with it. I just liked it, and I found it interesting, and I found the sociology interesting. Okay, this is what academics at this time period were doing.What to Pair with SwiftOLIVER: We got diverted.HITZ: “We” got diverted. [laughs]OLIVER: We did. If Swift is on a great books syllabus, what is it good to pair him with? If people are reading Swift, on or off a syllabus, do you think there are other—Hooker, you said, which I think would be interesting.HITZ: No, Hooke. It's Hooke.OLIVER: Hooke. Hooke. That's a very good point.HITZ: The guy who wrote Micrographia, who has the enormous picture of the flea.OLIVER: Yes, yes, yes. So that would be good. But any other? Is it worth reading Plato alongside him?HITZ: Well, I like to—he's on the list for something we called Life of the Mind Seminar at Catherine Project, which is our introduction to the life of the mind.OLIVER: And just to tell people, the Catherine Project—this is not a university. Anyone can join a seminar.HITZ: That's right. It's an open online readers community. Consists of small, high-quality conversations, mostly on Zoom, some in person.OLIVER: You could be some kid, an accountant, a dentist, whatever, and you come and do a—you've got a PhD running a seminar, and you get that experience.HITZ: Right. Some of them are peer led, so they're not necessarily PhDs running them. The reading groups are not necessarily run by PhDs. But the core program in which the Life of the Mind Seminar is—either a PhD or an ABD [all but degree] or someone with some academic experience is usually leading that. We have it there, and we have it there with a set of books that are meant to disorient rather than to orient.So one of the difficulties with reading great books with more or less random selections of adults is that people feel uncertain, out of place. And they bring expertise, real or fake, to the table, which makes it very difficult to have a conversation. It's usually fake expertise, for what it's worth.OLIVER: Give us an example of what you mean by fake expertise.HITZ: Well, so someone will have—we'll be, say, reading Hamlet. Someone will have taken a class on Shakespeare in college, and they'll say, “Actually, we're asking this question. But what I learned, my professor told me, is that Hamlet actually symbolizes—he has an Oedipus complex and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, and then this is what this means, and this is what that means.” And then your conversation's over, because you need to focus just on the text that's shared between the—OLIVER: It's not a crossword puzzle.HITZ: Exactly. It's not a crossword puzzle, and it's not something where—or the other—people often, again, they feel a bit on their back feet. So they'll google a bunch of stuff about the author, and they'll start tossing out random facts about the book or about the author, about the context. And again, you don't get really into the meat of the book that way.So, Gulliver's Travels is there to help us think about ways in which we might not be expert in things we're expert. Ways in which we might think we understand something and not understand it. And ways in which people who, with every appearance of seriousness and scientific principle, can just say unbelievably stupid things.So it's a very, very good book for that, where in that sense, it's I think very good for any liberal education program. It's liberating that way. One of the things we need to be liberated from is false expertise.OLIVER: You're talking really about these secondhand opinions that you haven't interrogated and come to understand yourself.HITZ: Exactly. Exactly, exactly, exactly.OLIVER: This is what Mill says. Everything is new to someone, and the real genius is that you find it out.HITZ: Exactly.OLIVER: You don't get taught it. Yes, yes.HITZ: Exactly, exactly. So real learning is things you find for yourself. Anyway, that's what I like it with. As for pairing it, yes, I think it would just depend on what you were—I don't have a clear thought about that. I think it'd be good to pair it with Galileo's Starry Messenger and preface to Hooke's Micrographia.But you could also pair it with Emma. Be quite good, actually, because Emma is also about someone who really doesn't know what they're doing and has no idea. Thinks they know what's going on; they really have no idea what's going on.OLIVER: Yes. Hamlet as well, in fact.HITZ: I guess so. Does he not know what's going on?OLIVER: Who's diverting now? [laughter] Well, there's an interesting question, isn't there, about whether Hamlet has legitimate doubts. So he says, “This ghost could be a demon. I should be careful. I don't know what I'm doing. I'm going to pretend to be mad. I'm going to find out.” Or whether he just doesn't want to see the truth in front of him, and he quote-unquote “delays” because of that. I don't know if you have a view.HITZ: I don't think he's deluded. I think the problem is something different, but I haven't thought enough about it recently to know what his volitional obstacle is. But I don't think he's deluded. I think he sees what's going on, but there's something about acting that doesn't work for him.OLIVER: An internal—HITZ: Something internal. Something internal. In a way, I find the play very hard. I don't know what, for instance, what does that obstacle have to do with Ophelia? What's going on with that? Anyway, he's very mysterious, but I don't—yes, that'd be my sense, is that he's not—OLIVER: Do you buy this idea that he's a nihilist?HITZ: No, although he's definitely faced with something like nihilism. He has to look at it. And of course, the play does end with everyone dead, [laughs] so it's not obvious that he's wrong.Sympathy for GulliverOLIVER: This question hangs over Gulliver as well. Is the problem by the end that he's basically become a nihilist? His response to the Yahoos is to deny meaning, deny the possibility of meaning, to shut himself away.HITZ: He is a true misanthrope. He hates human beings and refuses to interact with them and in that sense, in some way, removes himself from any further mistakes. In another way, the mistake that he's in is so massive that that hardly seems like a consolation. But yes, he's definitely stuck, and he's stuck in a place where who he is—because he's a human being. We have to remember that.So he's in a place of total self-hatred and the hatred of his neighbor, what you'd call from the Christian perspective a total loss of charity. Is that nihilist? I don't know, but it's definitely bad. It's not a good state to be in. Maybe I don't know what you mean by nihilism exactly.OLIVER: Are we supposed to disapprove of him at the end or sympathize with him?HITZ: Disapprove, I think.OLIVER: Yes? You don't feel sorry for him?HITZ: I do a bit.OLIVER: But not much.HITZ: Well, should I?OLIVER: I have come to believe—yes, this is what I've come to feel in subsequent readings, is that Gulliver, as you say, is very mistaken. He thinks he understands things that he does not understand. He has the sort of pretense of rationality, but he lacks any sort of meta rationality to see what his limits are.And he becomes, therefore—he doesn't advocate genocide, and he doesn't take any pleasure in using Yahoo skin, but he's just completely null to it. There's a sort of void there where human feeling ought to be. And it's tragic for him. It's a tragic ending that he is so isolated. And we can't sympathize with him, as it were, but we can feel sort of awful that he's shriveled into this state rather than judging or blame.I think one of the persistent themes of the book is, as I say, this kind of basic love of fellow creature, the Glumdalclitch or the sorrel. And if you take that from the book, you will wish you could bring Gulliver back.HITZ: Right. What you're saying reminds me that there is an interesting parallel in Plato's dialogues that I hadn't thought of before, Plato's Parmenides, which is perhaps the most difficult Plato's dialogue. So it's a conversation between young Socrates and the philosopher Parmenides. The first third of it is relatively clear, some arguments against what people think of as Plato's theory of forms.Then there's an extensive, insane dialectical process where various theses about the connection between being and oneness are both argued for and then refuted, and argued for and then refuted, pages and pages and pages and pages of it. So this seems to be—it's Parmenides and Zeno who are running Socrates through this ringer.And the person at the very beginning of the dialogue who they have to go find, to tell him the story of how Socrates met Parmenides, used to study philosophy. But now he just trains horses. [laughs] One of my teachers pointed this out to me, and I've never been able to get over it, that he spent this time doing philosophy, and he's like, “You know what? I'm going to work with horses for the rest of my life. If I never hear another human voice, that's fine with me.”So I think that is an interesting parallel. And I think it is not really that uncommon to see people who are totally disillusioned with relating to humans, who then relate to animals instead, like they devote themselves to animals.OLIVER: But on that reading, it might be a disillusionment with philosophical humanity. It might be philosophy that's killed Gulliver's human feeling.HITZ: That's right. Well, I think that's one possibility, one very strong possibility. That's why I think the Houyhnhnms come after the Laputans. Going to the furthest reaches of his intellectual interests just destroys his humanity.But it doesn't seem like exhaustion in the same way that whoever, I can't remember his name, the character who relates the Parmenides, where you just think he must be exhausted from having heard more than one conversation like this. [laughter] And just in the stable with the horses eating oats, I mean, it's just delightful. It's just so peaceful, you know?OLIVER: Bucolic, pastoral, yes.HITZ: Yes, exactly. Exactly. Maybe you're right that we should be more sympathetic to someone in that situation.OLIVER: Well, next time you read it, you can tell me if you change your mind.HITZ: All right. I will tell you if I change my mind.OLIVER: Very good. Zena Hitz, thank you very much.HITZ: Thank you very much, Henry Oliver. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.commonreader.co.uk

你以為人生的目標是追求快樂嗎？2014年，一個實驗讓所有人都沒有料到它的結果——三分之二的男性，寧可電擊自己，也不要獨自坐著什麼都不做。這不是極端行為。這是你每次放下手機又拿起來的那個動作，在實驗室裡的樣子。現代神經科學發現了三件事：你的大腦有一個「想要系統」，它設計成永遠追、永遠不滿足。你的神經系統有自動校準機制，快樂一定會消退。你的大腦永遠在預測未來的危險，所以那個財富自由的數字，永遠在移動。但科學說到這裡，有一個它說不到的地方。兩千五百年前，佛陀在第一次說法裡，把這個問題說得比現代科學更深。他給的不是優化你這個人的方法，而是一個完整的診斷——苦從哪裡來，為什麼追樂本身就是苦的來源，以及那個出口在哪裡。這一集，從神經科學走到四聖諦、十二因緣，走到一個你現在就可以開始的練習。▼ 本集引用研究Timothy Wilson，電擊實驗，2014，《Science》，維吉尼亞大學Philip Brickman，享樂適應研究，1978Erik Lindqvist、Robert Östling、David Cesarini，瑞典樂透得主長期追蹤，2020，斯德哥爾摩大學Kent Berridge，Wanting與Liking雙迴路理論，1990年代，密西根大學Peter Sterling，Allostasis恆定壓力理論，2012，賓州大學Richard Davidson，冥想與大腦研究，威斯康辛大學麥迪遜分校Parmenides，《論自然》，約西元前五世紀《大藏經》，四聖諦、三苦、十二因緣、四禪八定

In their second episode featuring the works of modern Platonist Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947), James Myers and Michael Fitzpatrick brought Plato into the 21st century through Whitehead's perspectives as a mathematician and philosopher. The discussion relates Whitehead's perspectives to many of Plato's dialogues, including The Sophist, The Timaeus, The Republic, The Parmenides, and The Philebus.Writing his landmark work Process and Reality during the years when quantum mechanics and general relativity were discovered, Whitehead's philosophy of organism treats the universe as a web of interconnected processes and changes. Whitehead applied the logic of Plato's writing from 2,400 years ago to identify crucial connections in the web and, by following their paths, he related concepts in general relativity and quantum mechanics to the universe as an organism. From Whitehead's perspective, there was clear logic for an eternal co-dependency of the infinite universe and the finite connections within its web.The mathematician had much to say about the nature of time, which was a prominent in the episode's discussion. To Whitehead, time was not linear but circular, and likewise Plato's character Timaeus described the universe as spherical. Timaeus also stated that the changes we see everywhere around us are in a “moving image of eternity, moving according to number, of eternity remaining in unity.” The appeal of Timaeus' perspective to a mathematician becomes even more obvious in the character's next statement: “This number, of course, is what we now call 'time'.”Can science and philosophy be reunited? If ever there was a time for such unity, the time is now, and Whitehead paved the way to connecting ancient principles with the discoveries of Albert Einstein and Nils Bohr that have transformed the modern world.

Erst gab es Marx, dann kamen die Marxisten. Erst gab es Kant, dann kamen die Kantianer. Wieso sind aber die Denker, die *vor* Sokrates gelebt haben, nach ihm benannt? Und wie ging die große Wende vom Mythos zum Logos von Statten? Wieso konnte in der griechischen Antike überhaupt so frei miteinander gestritten werden und wieso suchten diese Naturphilosophen nach dem Urgrund von allem? Über die Vorsokratiker im Allgemeinen und Thales, Phytagoras, Xenophanes, Heraklit und Parmenides im Speziellen spricht Christian mit Dorothea Frede, sie ist emeritierte Professorin für Philosophie an der Universität Hamburg. (Ich bitte die durchwachsene Audioqualität zu entschuldigen, es gab ein Problem mit der Aufnahme

Mathematics as MethodA Conversation with Alexander V. GheorghiuBryan Kam in conversation with Alex, assistant professor and a New Frontiers Fellow in the School of Electronics and Computer Science at the University of Southampton.As you'll hear in this podcast, my meeting with Alex Gheorghiu was random and fortuitous. In this podcast we discuss whether and how mathematics and logic relate to reality, why Buddhist thought challenges Western categories, and what Gödel's incompleteness theorem might mean for how we understand the world.Alex traces his intellectual development from teenage mathematical realism—the belief that mathematics describes the fundamental structure of reality—to his current anti-realist position. Through studying algebra and analysis during his degree, he came to the view that these mathematical tools are cultural constructs rather than discoveries about an objective reality "A model is just a model in the way that a map is never the land itself."Alex is also a Zen practitioner. We explored the famous Zen koan of Master Joshu, to the question of whether a dog has Buddha-nature. He responds "mu"—which neither affirms it nor denies it, but rather rejects the question. This exemplifies a philosophical move that transcends binary thinking, similar to how the Daodejing presents the Dao as preceding both unity and duality. We discuss how Chinese philosophy, lacking the Indo-European grammatical structures that equate existence and predication, developed fundamentally different approaches to how categories work.Through Michael Dummett's anti-realist philosophy, we explore how meaning emerges from use rather than correspondence to reality. This challenges millennia of Western philosophical assumptions about categories and definitions.The ancient tension between Parmenides (static being) and Heraclitus (dynamic becoming, which I've written about here) continues to shape philosophy today. We examine how Plato attempted to reconcile these positions through his theory of forms, and why this synthesis may have taken Western philosophy down a particular path—one that privileges nouns over verbs, objects over processes, and abstract categories over lived experience.Eugene Wigner's famous question—why mathematics works so unusually well in describing nature—dissolves when viewed through an anti-realist lens. If mathematics is a human tool rather than a discovery of reality's structure, its effectiveness becomes less mysterious and more a reflection of how we've shaped our tools to solve our problems.Alex shares his vision for bringing Gödel's incompleteness theorem into public consciousness the way physics has done with black holes. Having just won the 2025 Graham Hoare Prize for his essay, he argues that this "small technical result" has profound implications for how we understand the limits of formal systems and human knowledge itself.Alex Gheorghiu is an assistant professor at the University of Southampton and honorary fellow at University College London, working in logic with interests spanning philosophy of mathematics, theories of language, and the relationships between reasoning and reality. He's currently developing a mathematical account of Dummett's philosophy and working to make logic and mathematics accessible to wider audiences.Bryan Kam hosts the Clerestory podcast and is writing Neither/Nor, exploring how conceptual and experiential ways of knowing can inform both individual flourishing and our approach to philosophical problems.Recorded at Drake & Morgan, London, where philosophical work happens with "consistently low" productivity but high engagement.

From philosophy to science, metaphysics to psychology, the idea of 'nothing' is central to the universe, existence and experience as a whole. But the nature of 'nothing' is even more bewildering than we might first imagine. Parmenides argued that non-being is impossible because thinking about nothing is still something. Join philosopher Peter van Inwagen in this talk as he explores the metaphysics of 'nothing'.Peter van Inwagen is one of the leading figures in contemporary philosophy. Known for his thought-provoking contributions to metaphysics, the philosophy of religion, and the free will debate, van Inwagen has shaped modern discussions around determinism, the problem of evil, and the existence of God. With key works like An Essay on Free Will and Material Beings, his ideas continue to influence both scholars and curious thinkers.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Philosophize This!: Read the notes at at podcastnotes.org. Don't forget to subscribe for free to our newsletter, the top 10 ideas of the week, every Monday --------- Today we try to produce a philosophical guide for the book The Unbearable Lightness of Being by Milan Kundera. We talk about Parmenides, Nietzsche's eternal recurrence, kitsch as something more than just an aesthetic category, existential codes and his animal test of morality. Hope you love it! :) Sponsors: ZocDoc: https://www.ZocDoc.com/PHILO Nord VPN: https://nordvpn.com/philothis Thank you so much for listening! Could never do this without your help.  Website: https://www.philosophizethis.org/ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/philosophizethis  Social: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/philosophizethispodcast X: https://twitter.com/iamstephenwest Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/philosophizethisshow Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today we try to produce a philosophical guide for the book The Unbearable Lightness of Being by Milan Kundera. We talk about Parmenides, Nietzsche's eternal recurrence, kitsch as something more than just an aesthetic category, existential codes and his animal test of morality. Hope you love it! :) Sponsors: ZocDoc: https://www.ZocDoc.com/PHILO Nord VPN: https://nordvpn.com/philothis Thank you so much for listening! Could never do this without your help.  Website: https://www.philosophizethis.org/ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/philosophizethis  Social: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/philosophizethispodcast X: https://twitter.com/iamstephenwest Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/philosophizethisshow Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Früher suchten Menschen Antworten in Mythen und Göttergeschichten. Doch vor über 2500 Jahren begannen einige griechische Denker, die Welt mit Vernunft zu erklären – der Beginn der Philosophie. Heraklit meinte: Alles fließt, alles verändert sich. Parmenides hielt dagegen: Veränderung ist Illusion, nur das Sein ist wirklich. Genau diese Philosophien haben wir uns in der letzten Episode angeschaut. Nun – im Aufnahmeschluss – reden wir erneut über diese Themen. Doch dieses mal ganz ungezwungen, ohne Skript, ohne viele Schnitt – das freie Philosophieren. Du möchtest mehr über unsere Werbepartner erfahren? ⁠Hier findest du alle Informationen & Rabatte⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

FragmanlarFragmanlar AlternatifAntik Felsefe Tarihi

Woher kommen wir eigentlich? Was ist der Ursprung von allem? Lange Zeit suchten die Menschen Antworten in Mythen und Göttergeschichten. Doch dann, vor über 2500 Jahren, wagten einige griechische Denker etwas Revolutionäres: Sie fragten nach rationalen Erklärungen. Dieser Wandel vom Mythos zum Logos markiert den Beginn der Philosophie. Heraklit erkannte, dass alles fließt und sich ständig wandelt. Parmenides hingegen behauptete das Gegenteil: Das Sein ist starr, Veränderung ist pure Illusion. Aber wer hat recht? Und was ist mit dem Nichts – kann es überhaupt existieren? Warum die Gedanken der Vorsokratiker noch immer unser Weltbild prägen, das erfahrt ihr in dieser Episode. Du möchtest mehr über unsere Werbepartner erfahren? Hier findest du alle Informationen & Rabatte. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Jonathan Pageau (  @JonathanPageau  ) & John Vervaeke (  @johnvervaeke  ) have a conversation about the nature of Spirit and the importance of fellowship. We mention Paul Vanderklay (  @PaulVanderKlay  ), Elizabeth Oldfield (  @thesacredpodcast  ), Kale Zelden, Rod Dreer, James Filler, William Desmond, Iamblichus, Dionysius the Areopagite, Johannes Hoffken, Greg Enriqueus, Eric Hull, Dan Chappie, Mike Levin, Jordan Peterson, Jacques Derrida, Hilary Putnam, Willard Van Orman Quine, Catherine Pickstock, Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Schelling, Owen Barfield, Alfred North Whitehead, Edwin Hutchins, Tanya Luhrmann, L.J. Savage, Parmenides, G.W.F. Hegel, Evan Thompson, St. Maximus the Confessor, St. Gregory of Nyssa, Aristotle, Martin Heidegger, Pavel Florensky, Alex O'Connor, Jesus Christ, Ezekiel, Moses, Muhammad, Michael Jordan, Sebastian Melmoth and more. Midwestuary Conference - https://www.midwestuary.com/What is Spirit Part 1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMjEY3BOPPI&t=909sWhat is Spirit Part 2 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiTAI_r31Ts00:00:00 - Introduction & Midwestuary Conference Announcement00:01:50 - What is Spirit? The Central Question00:03:30 - John's Opening: Relational Ontology & Com-unity00:09:15 - Jonathan's Opening: Synergy, St. Maximus, & the One and the Many00:14:50 - Spiritual Dualism vs. Monism: Deconstructing Modern Dichotomies00:22:30 - Jonathan on Traditional Views of Spirit & Angels00:29:08 - John: Non-Psychological Descriptors of Spirit (Mike Levin's work)00:30:50 - Jonathan: Spirit Animates All Things (St. Maximus)00:34:15 - Where is Self-Consciousness? Persons, Cities, and God-Man00:40:50 - Is Spirit Dependent on Humans? Perception vs. Projection00:44:50 - Going Back & Going Forward: Post-Kantian Neoplatonism00:50:20 - Exaptation, Incarnation, and Levels of Understanding00:53:40 - Barfield, Post-Contian Neoplatonism, and Integrating Science & Myth01:03:30 - Spirit and Fellowship: Superorganisms & Hyperobjects01:09:49 - Liturgy as Theurgy: Making Receptive to Theophany01:15:08 - Prophecy: Channeling the Group or Transcendent Knowledge?01:25:07 - Fellowship in the Digital Age: Breath, Fiber Optics, and AI01:30:00 - John: The Virtual Coming Alive & The Future of Theology (Claude AI)01:40:55 - Final Thoughts: Prioritizing Embodied Fellowship

We discuss how Plato used dialectical thinking to deal with objections to the theory of the forms. Then we discuss how this kind of thinking enriches our ability to make use of all sorts of political concepts and abstractions.

Met dr. Bert van den Berg van de Universiteit Leiden duiken we in de wilde jaren van het denken! In deze aflevering spreken we uitgebreid over de vroeg Griekse filosofen, die je ook zou kunnen kennen als de "presocraten". Van Thales tot Anaximander, Heraclitus tot Parmenides - wie waren deze denkers uit het verre verleden? Hoe kennen we ze, waar kennen we ze van en in welke (Griekse) wereld bewogen ze zich?Shownotes

With your donation of any amount, request R.C. Sproul's book The Consequences of Ideas and his companion teaching series as a special edition DVD collection. You'll also receive lifetime digital access to the messages and study guide: https://gift.renewingyourmind.org/3876/donate Meet Today's Teacher:   R.C. Sproul (1939–2017) was known for his ability to winsomely and clearly communicate deep, practical truths from God's Word. He was founder of Ligonier Ministries, first minister of preaching and teaching at Saint Andrew's Chapel, first president of Reformation Bible College, and executive editor of Tabletalk magazine.   Meet the Host:   Nathan W. Bingham is vice president of ministry engagement for Ligonier Ministries, executive producer and host of Renewing Your Mind, host of the Ask Ligonier podcast, and a graduate of Presbyterian Theological College in Melbourne, Australia. Nathan joined Ligonier in 2012 and lives in Central Florida with his wife and four children. Renewing Your Mind is a donor-supported outreach of Ligonier Ministries. Explore all of our podcasts: https://www.ligonier.org/podcasts

John Vervaeke engages in a profound discussion with James Filler, author of 'Heidegger, Neoplatonism, and the History of Being'. They examine the core arguments of Jame's book, which emphasizes relationality as more fundamental than individual existence in understanding reality. The conversation explores Neoplatonism, Heidegger's philosophy, and the convergence of these ideas with contemporary physics and biology. James recounts his journey in developing his dissertation into a pivotal work aimed at reorienting ontological perspectives. John and James also discuss the trajectory of Western and Eastern Christian thought, touching upon relational ontology's scientific and ethical ramifications. James Filler is the author of Heidegger, Neoplatonism, and the History of Being, a groundbreaking work exploring the philosophical underpinnings of relational ontology. His forthcoming book, Substance Ontology and the Crisis of Reason deepens the critique of substance thinking in Western philosophy. Notes:  (0:00) Welcome to the Lectern (1:00) Core themes of Heidegger, Neoplatonism, and the History of Being (3:00) Background of James Filler (5:30) Core argument of the book (10:00) The philosophical debate between Parmenides and Heraclitus (15:00) Ontological relationality and its philosophical implications (25:00) Heidegger's dialogue with Asian philosophy and the Christian trinity (34:00) Western vs. Eastern Christianity - diverging paths (40:00) A critique of Process Philosophy  (48:30) The conceptual and ethical implications of historical Christian interpretations (51:30) Distinction between discursive and non-discursive reasoning (58:30) Substance ontology and the crisis of reason (1:03:00) Addressing the crisis of rationality in modernity (1:11:00) Final reflections on relationality and its broader impacts   ---  Connect with a community dedicated to self-discovery and purpose, and gain deeper insights by joining our Patreon. The Vervaeke Foundation is committed to advancing the scientific pursuit of wisdom and creating a significant impact on the world. Become a part of our mission.   Join Awaken to Meaning to explore practices that enhance your virtues and foster deeper connections with reality and relationships.   John Vervaeke: Website | Twitter | YouTube | Patreon     Ideas, People, and Works Mentioned in this Episode Martin Heidegger  Plotinus Aristotle St. Gregory  Heraclitus  Parmenides Plato Jordan Hall Evan Thompson Relationality  Neoplatonism Substance Ontology Trinity Process Philosophy Virtue Epistemology Humility Dialogical Rationality "Heidegger, Neoplatonism, and the History of Being" by James Filler "Substance Ontology and the Crisis of Reason" by James Filler (upcoming book) "Awakening from the Meaning Crisis" by John "Recovering Plato: A Platonic Virtue Epistemology" by James Filler (published in Episteme) "The Divine Matrix" by David Ray Griffin "The One" by Paas "Being and Time" by Martin Heidegger "The Republic" by Plato "The Enneads" by Plotinus "Metaphysics" by Aristotle   Quotes:   "Relationality is itself more primordial, more fundamental to understanding the nature of reality."   "To be independent in the first place required a relation—because to be independent means there's something you're independent from."   "Our rationality operates best dialogically, not nomologically, which aligns deeply with relational ontology."  

Charles Stein is a poet, scholar of ancient Greek, and a practitioner of Dzogchen Buddhism. Stein discusses his life's work, including a book connecting translations from Ancient Greek to the figure of Hermes Trismegistus and his contemplative and intellectual practices that aim to integrate religion, science, philosophy, and metaphysics. The conversation delves into the nature of being, the legacy of ancient Greek thinker Parmenides, and the distinctions between thought and consciousness. Stein also touches on the principles of alchemy, the Piscean and Aquarian ages, and how modern art and abstraction relate to perception and being. The dialogue extends to the exploration of materialism, spirituality, karma yoga, and the significance of service in the Aquarian age, with references to the teachings of Dr. King from the Aetherius Society. The episode provides a profound inquiry into the essence of reality, consciousness, and the interconnectedness of all things. https://charlessteinpoet.com/ 00:24 Introducing Charles Stein: Poet, Scholar, and Mystic 00:37 Exploring the Depths of Consciousness and Being 02:09 The Essence of Hermes and the Journey of Thought 11:11 Diving into the Piscean and Aquarian Ages 16:40 Alchemy, Materialism, and the Nature of Reality 22:28 The Cosmic Perspective: Jupiter and Beyond 32:19 The Path of Enlightenment: Practices and Perspectives 44:12 Karma Yoga: The Aquarian Age's Call to Action 45:08 Wrapping Up: Insights and Where to Find More - - - - Resources related to The Aetherius Society and advanced teachings - - - - - The Aetherius Society - https://www.aetherius.org/ Aetherius Radio Live - https://www.aetherius.org/podcasts/ Spiritual Freedom Show - https://www.aetherius.org/the-spiritual-freedom-show/ King Yoga FB Group - https://www.facebook.com/groups/awakeningthroughkingyoga The International Mystic Knowledge Center - http://www.mysticknowledge.org/ IMKC youtube - https://www.youtube.com/c/MysticKnowledge

This lecture discusses key ideas from the ancient philosopher and statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero's work, On The Nature Of The Gods, which critically examines Epicurean, Stoic, and Skeptic perspectives on matters of theology and cosmology Specifically it the Epicurean Velleius' criticisms of various ancient philosophers viewpoints on the divine. These include a number of pre-Socratics, such as: Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, Alcmæo of Croton, Pythagoras, Xenophanes, Parmenides, Empedocles, Protagoras, Democritus, and Diogenes of Apollonia. He also criticises the views of post-Socratics like Plato, Xenophon, Antisthenes, Speusippus, Aristotle, Xenocrates, Heraclides of Pontus, and Theophrastus To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 3,000 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler Purchase Cicero's On The Nature Of Gods - https://amzn.to/3JITSZc

Exploring Parmenides and the Origins of IdealismIn this episode we delve into the philosophical contributions of Parmenides. We examine his impact on idealism, distinguishing between ordinary and philosophical uses of the term. The discussion covers Parmenides' ideas about the nature of reality, including his belief that change and plurality are illusions and that true reality is unchanging and indivisible. We also tackle how Parmenides influenced later philosophers like Plato and the challenges his ideas pose to internal coherence and rational explanation.00:00 Introduction and Greetings00:12 Defining Idealism02:45 Philosophical Context and Examples07:22 Parmenides' Life and Influence09:01 The Way of Truth vs. The Way of Opinion19:45 Evaluating Parmenides' Philosophy27:27 Conclusion and Final Thoughts

Thomas Jockin is a Fellow at the Halkyon Guild and the Founder of TypeThursday. He has taught at Pratt Institute, FIT (SUNY), Queens College (CUNY), and City College of New York (CUNY). Sign Up for Thomas Jockin's Course: Plato on Beauty and Virtue | Halkyon Academy   Can re-engaging with classical ideals of beauty help us address the meaning crisis? In this episode of "Voices with Vervaeke," John Vervaeke and Thomas Jockin explore the concept of beauty through the lens of Plato's philosophy. Thomas shares insights from his upcoming course, discussing the interconnectedness of beauty, truth, and goodness. They examine how modern interpretations of beauty differ from Plato's original vision and how re-engaging with classical ideals can address the current meaning crisis. John and Thomas challenge contemporary perspectives and seek to rediscover foundational principles. Join the discussion to learn more about the profound impact of beauty on our lives.   Connect with a community dedicated to self-discovery and purpose, and gain deeper insights by joining our Patreon.   —   00:00 Exploring Plato's Concept of Beauty with Thomas Jockin 01:10 Jockin's Halcyon Course: Plato on Beauty and Virtue 04:25 The Cultural Decline of Beauty 08:00 Plato's Beauty: Love, Reason, and the Soul's Recollection 10:25 Philosophical Implications of Beauty, Love, and Truth 24:00 The Rationality of Beauty Beyond Propositions  31:45 The Cascade Effect of Moral Virtues in Everyday Life 35:55 Bridging the Material and the Divine 40:55 The Interconnectedness of Beauty, Goodness, and Truth 51:15 Modern Art and the Role of the Artist 01:08:15 Beauty as a Solution to the Meaning Crisis in Modern Art and Architecture 01:14:25 Conclusion: Returning to Foundations in the Modern World       —   The Vervaeke Foundation is committed to advancing the scientific pursuit of wisdom and creating a significant impact on the world. Become a part of our mission.   Join Awaken to Meaning to explore practices that enhance your virtues and foster deeper connections with reality and relationships.    —   Ideas, People, and Works Mentioned in this Episode   Plato. Greater Hippias. Plato. Symposium. Plato. Phaedrus. Plato. Meno. Plato. Cratylus. Plato. Parmenides. Sonia Sedivy, Beauty and the End of Art Byung-Chul Han, Saving Beauty Drew A. Hyland, Plato and the Question of Beauty D. C. Schindler, “The Primacy of Beauty, the Centrality of Goodness, and the Ultimacy of Truth” John Russon, Bearing Witness to Epiphany: Persons, Things, and the Nature of Erotic Life Duchamp (Fountain) Heidegger Maurice Merleau-Ponty Habermas Neoplatonism Follow John Vervaeke: Website | Twitter | YouTube | Patreon   Follow Thomas Jockin: Website | Twitter | LinkedIn    —   Thank you for Listening!  

Explore the philosophy of Parmenides, a key figure in pre-Socratic thought and founder of the Eleatic School. Learn about his concept of Being, which asserts the eternal, unchanging, and unified nature of reality. Discover the contrast between the Way of Truth and the Way of Opinion, emphasizing rational inquiry and logical reasoning over sensory perception. Examine the influence of Parmenides on philosophers like Zeno of Elea, Melissus of Samos, Plato, and Aristotle, as well as his impact on Neoplatonism and Martin Heidegger's ontology. Understand the relevance of Parmenides' ideas in contemporary metaphysical debates and their practical implications across various fields. Keywords: Parmenides philosophy, concept of Being, Eleatic School, pre-Socratic philosophers, metaphysical framework, nature of reality, rational inquiry, logical reasoning, sensory perception critique, unity of Being, Way of Truth, Way of Opinion, Zeno paradoxes, Melissus of Samos, Plato and Parmenides, Aristotle metaphysics, Neoplatonism and Plotinus, Martin Heidegger ontology, metaphysical debates, epistemic limitations.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/philosophy-acquired--5939304/support.

The implications of "panta rhei" - everything flows. How might this concept change our understanding of epistemology and human existence? We shall examine the Logos concept and the unity of opposites, pondering how these ideas challenge our perception of reality's nature. Our dialogue shall not shy from comparisons; indeed, we shall juxtapose Heraclitus' dynamic worldview with Parmenides' static universe, a veritable dialectical thinking exercise. From cosmic fire to the ever-popular river metaphor, we shall unravel the tapestry of Heraclitean influence on ancient Greek philosophy and beyond. For those enthralled by ethical implications and the pursuit of wisdom in flux, this episode promises rich intellectual nourishment. Join us as we navigate the currents of process philosophy and contemplate the enduring legacy of this remarkable thinker.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/philosophy-acquired--5939304/support.

Should we follow our philosophical conclusions wherever they take us? Or is there a hard wall of common sense that we are beholden to?Listen to some of today's leading philosophers in science and metaphysics as they talk it out!Tim Maudlin is Professor of Philosophy at New York University as well as the Founder/Director of the John Bell Institute for the Foundations of Physics. Michael Della Rocca is Professor of Philosophy at Yale University and a famous disciple of the pre-Socratic philosopher Parmenides. Kathleen Higgins is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin, specialising in aesthetics, philosophy of music, nineteenth and twentieth-century continental philosophy, and philosophy of emotion.Looking for a link we mentioned? It's here: https://linktr.ee/philosophyforourtimesThere are thousands of big ideas to discover at IAI.tv – videos, articles, and courses waiting for you to explore. Find out more: https://iai.tv/podcast-offers?utm_source=podcast&utm_medium=shownotes&utm_campaign=fragments-and-reality.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Welcome to Episode 230 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world.Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com.For our new listeners, let me remind you of several ground rules for both our podcast and our forum.First: Our aim is to bring you an accurate presentation of classical Epicurean philosophy as the ancient Epicureans understood it.Second: We won't be talking about modern political issues in this podcast. How you apply Epicurus in your own life is of course entirely up to you. We call this approach "Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean." Epicurean philosophy is a philosophy of its own, it's not the same as Stoicism, Humanism, Buddhism, Taoism, Atheism, Libertarianism or Marxism - it is unique and must be understood on its own, not in terms of any conventional modern morality.Third: One of the most important things to keep in mind is that the Epicureans often used words very differently than we do today. To the Epicureans, Gods were not omnipotent or omniscient, so Epicurean references to "Gods" do not mean at all the same thing as in major religions today. In the Epicurean theory of knowledge, all sensations are true, but that does not mean all opinions are true, but that the raw data reported by the senses is reported without the injection of opinion, as the opinion-making process takes place in the mind, where it is subject to mistakes, rather than in the senses. In Epicurean ethics, "Pleasure" refers not ONLY to sensory stimulation, but also to every experience of life which is not felt to be painful. The classical texts show that Epicurus was not focused on luxury, like some people say, but neither did he teach minimalism, as other people say. Epicurus taught that all experiences of life fall under one of two feelings - pleasure and pain - and those feelings -- and not gods, idealism, or virtue - are the guides that Nature gave us by which to live. More than anything else, Epicurus taught that the universe is not supernatural in any way, and that means there's no life after death, and any happiness we'll ever have comes in THIS life, which is why it is so important not to waste time in confusion.Today we are continuing to review the Epicurean sections of Cicero's "On the Nature of The Gods," as presented by the Epicurean spokesman Velleius, beginning at the end of Section 10.For the main text we are using primarily the Yonge translation, available here. The text which we include in these posts is the Yonge version, the full version of which is here at Epicureanfriends. We will also refer to the public domain version of the Loeb series, which contains both Latin and English, as translated by H. Rackham.Additional versions can be found here:Frances Brooks 1896 translation at Online Library of LibertyLacus Curtius Edition (Rackham)PDF Of Loeb Edition at Archive.org by RackhamGutenberg.org version by CD Yonge A list of arguments presented will be maintained here.Today's TextXI. Anaxagoras, who received his learning from Anaximenes, was the first who affirmed the system and disposition of all things to be contrived and perfected by the power and reason of an infinite mind; in which infinity he did not perceive that there could be no conjunction of sense and motion, nor any sense in the least degree, where nature herself could feel no impulse. If he would have this mind to be a sort of animal, then there must be some more internal principle from whence that animal should receive its appellation. But what can be more internal than the mind? Let it, therefore, be clothed with an external body. But this is not agreeable to his doctrine; but we are utterly unable to conceive how a pure simple mind can exist without any substance annexed to it.Alcmæon of Crotona, in attributing a divinity to the sun, the moon, and the rest of the stars, and also to the mind, did not perceive that he was ascribing immortality to mortal beings.Pythagoras, who supposed the Deity to be one soul, mixing with and pervading all nature, from which our souls are taken, did not consider that the Deity himself must, in consequence of this doctrine, be maimed and torn with the rending every human soul from it; nor that, when the human mind is afflicted (as is the case in many instances), that part of the Deity must likewise be afflicted, which cannot be. If the human mind were a Deity, how could it be ignorant of any thing? Besides, how could that Deity, if it is nothing but soul, be mixed with, or infused into, the world?Then Xenophanes, who said that everything in the world which had any existence, with the addition of intellect, was God, is as liable to exception as the rest, especially in relation to the infinity of it, in which there can be nothing sentient, nothing composite.Parmenides formed a conceit to himself of something circular like a crown. (He names it Stephane.) It is an orb of constant light and heat around the heavens; this he calls God; in which there is no room to imagine any divine form or sense. And he uttered many other absurdities on the same subject; for he ascribed a divinity to war, to discord, to lust, and other passions of the same kind, which are destroyed by disease, or sleep, or oblivion, or age. The same honor he gives to the stars; but I shall forbear making any objections to his system here, having already done it in another place.

Welcome to Episode 229 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world.Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com. Be aware that none of us are professional philosophers, and everyone here is a a self-taught Epicurean.For our new listeners, let me remind you of several ground rules for both our podcast and our forum.First: Our aim is to bring you an accurate presentation of classical Epicurean philosophy as the ancient Epicureans understood it, which is often not the same as presented by many modern commentators. We encourage you to study Epicurus for yourself, and one of the best places to start is the book, "Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Canadian professor Norman DeWitt.Second: We won't be talking about modern political issues in this podcast. How you apply Epicurus in your own life is of course entirely up to you. We call this approach "Not Neo-Epicurean, But Epicurean." Epicurean philosophy is a philosophy of its own, it's not Stoicism, Humanism, Buddhism, Taoism, Atheism, Libertarianism or Marxism - it is unique and must be understood on its own, not in terms of any conventional modern morality.Third: One of the most important things to keep in mind is that the Epicureans often used words very differently than we do today. To the Epicureans, Gods were not omnipotent or omniscient, so Epicurean references to "Gods" do not mean at all the same thing as in major religions today. In Epicurean ethics, "Pleasure" refers not ONLY to sensory stimulation, but also to every experience of life which is not felt to be painful. The classical texts show that Epicurus was not focused on luxury, like some people say, but neither did he teach minimalism, as other people say. Epicurus taught that all experiences of life fall under one of two feelings - pleasure and pain - and those feelings -- and not gods, idealism, or virtue - are the guides that Nature gave us by which to live. More than anything else, Epicurus taught that the universe is not supernatural in any way, and that means there's no life after death, and any happiness we'll ever have comes in THIS life, which is why it is so important not to waste time in confusion.Today we are continuing to review the Epicurean sections of Cicero's "On the Nature of The Gods," as presented by the Epicurean spokesman Velleius, beginning at the end of Section 10.Today's TextThese are your doctrines, Lucilius; but what those of others are I will endeavor to ascertain by tracing them back from the earliest of ancient philosophers. Thales the Milesian, who first inquired after such subjects, asserted water to be the origin of things, and that God was that mind which formed all things from water. If the Gods can exist without corporeal sense, and if there can be a mind without a body, why did he annex a mind to water?It was Anaximander's opinion that the Gods were born; that after a great length of time they died; and that they are innumerable worlds. But what conception can we possibly have of a Deity who is not eternal?Anaximenes, after him, taught that the air is God, and that he was generated, and that he is immense, infinite, and always in motion; as if air, which has no form, could possibly be God; for the Deity must necessarily be not only of some form or other, but of the most beautiful form. Besides, is not everything that had a beginning subject to mortality?XI. Anaxagoras, who received his learning from Anaximenes, was the first who affirmed the system and disposition of all things to be contrived and perfected by the power and reason of an infinite mind; in which infinity he did not perceive that there could be no conjunction of sense and motion, nor any sense in the least degree, where nature herself could feel no impulse. If he would have this mind to be a sort of animal, then there must be some more internal principle from whence that animal should receive its appellation. But what can be more internal than the mind? Let it, therefore, be clothed with an external body. But this is not agreeable to his doctrine; but we are utterly unable to conceive how a pure simple mind can exist without any substance annexed to it.Alcmæon of Crotona, in attributing a divinity to the sun, the moon, and the rest of the stars, and also to the mind, did not perceive that he was ascribing immortality to mortal beings.Pythagoras, who supposed the Deity to be one soul, mixing with and pervading all nature, from which our souls are taken, did not consider that the Deity himself must, in consequence of this doctrine, be maimed and torn with the rending every human soul from it; nor that, when the human mind is afflicted (as is the case in many instances), that part of the Deity must likewise be afflicted, which cannot be. If the human mind were a Deity, how could it be ignorant of any thing? Besides, how could that Deity, if it is nothing but soul, be mixed with, or infused into, the world?Then Xenophanes, who said that everything in the world which had any existence, with the addition of intellect, was God, is as liable to exception as the rest, especially in relation to the infinity of it, in which there can be nothing sentient, nothing composite.Parmenides formed a conceit to himself of something circular like a crown. (He names it Stephane.) It is an orb of constant light and heat around the heavens; this he calls God; in which there is no room to imagine any divine form or sense. And he uttered many other absurdities on the same subject; for he ascribed a divinity to war, to discord, to lust, and other passions of the same kind, which are destroyed by disease, or sleep, or oblivion, or age. The same honor he gives to the stars; but I shall forbear making any objections to his system here, having already done it in another place.

Remnants of Humanity: Journey Throughout Our Sacred Earth to Restore Balance Held Within the Feminine Dimension by Christine Van Camp ZeccaThe twenty-first century is facing worldwide disintegration. The spiritual systems are falling apart, revealing the lack of all that used to sustain humanity as notions of separation prevail. However, inclusion is essential for survival. Profound love is more powerful than hate, but those in power amplify/ hate, destroying humanity in the process. After the collapse of Western civilization in North America, survivors grounded in healing love flee south. Seven millennia later, an isolated outpost of women wants to share its hard-earned wisdom. These earth-based shamans are losing the energy to continue, unless they can connect with the Underworld of Dreaming Nature to find suitable males to join them. Their quest attracts other “remnants” that also wish to regenerate the planet and return joy to the world. Paradigm shifts are required to reinvigorate the inevitable toxic collapse of a corrupted society, hope rests in the hands of feminine energy and hard-earned wisdom.  She works with creativity and the imaginal realm integrating her background of 30 years of Jungian studies and analysis, DreamTending, and other forms of embodied dream work. She completed BodySoul Rhythms Leadership Training with Marion Woodman that integrates Jung's work with experiential modalities of dream, imaginal work, voice & body expressions with the intention of bringing deeper levels of awareness into our conscious being. Her own practices include painting (since she was 2), Tai Chi (50 years), yoga (20 years), QiGong (6 years), 5Rhythms practice (12 years), Authentic Movement (4 years), Continuum (3 years), Incubation practice rediscovered by Peter Kingsley from Ancient Pre-Socratic philosophers Empedocles & Parmenides (recent) & is currently studying / experiencing Shamanic Trainings:‘The World in Balance' or Katasee (1 year), Visionseeker Trainings and Continuum Private Trainings with Hank Wesselman and Jill Kuykendal: 4 years, completed both one year of VisionSeeker and two years of Advanced Continuum Trainings on two separate occasions. Sandra Ingerman's: Soul Retrieval and 2 Year Teacher Training (completed). Most recent Christine completed Alberto Villoldo's Four Winds Training in Joshua Tree, CA. Now she does illuminations as well.   https://www.amazon.com/Remnants-Humanity-Throughout-Feminine-Dimension/dp/B0BZCPKRCM/ref=sr_1_1?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.rUmRoy3-lob9Lu9a_zwNFg.cd4MFXoPy2G5CB40eBDvsKJ1JGVOx1WcHqC-14tbgac&dib_tag=se&keywords=Remnants+of+Humanity%3A+Journey+Throughout+Our+Sacred+Earth+to+Restore+Balance+Held+Within+the+Feminine+Dimension&qid=1710288289&sr=8-1https://www.christinezecca.com/www.WritersBranding.com  http://www.bluefunkbroadcasting.com/root/twia/5924cvcz.mp3   

This lecture discusses key ideas from the 18th century philosopher Immanuel Kant's work, The Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics. Specifically it focuses on the "Appendix", specifically the discussion distinguishing Kant's own critical or transcendental idealism from other, earlier forms of idealism ranging from that of Parmenides all the way down to Berkeley. Kant asserts that on some matters concerning space, time, experience, the understanding, and reason his idealism is in fact the reverse of the other sort of idealism, and resolves problems that they cannot address. To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 3,000 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler Purchase Kant's Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics - amzn.to/49pc1Xm

In this episode, we continue our discussion of the Pre-Platonics, and cover the ideas of Parmenides, Anaxagoras, Empedocles, and Democritus. The episode begins with a brief recap of the previous philosophers and the dialogue up to this point. After considering the remaining Pre-Platonics, I have some brief concluding remarks in which I attempt to make sense of the entire picture as Nietzsche lays it out in this unfinished essay.

Gary Whited has studied philosophy, taught philosophy, and is now a trained IFS therapist. He has published books with his poems, and has done a number of translations of the great poet and philosopher Parmenides. It was so wonderful to be introduced to this ancient world through Gary. It was also a treat to have him read some of his original poetry! It was so interesting to look at some IFS concepts through a poetic lense. I hope you ejoy this episode as much as I did!

Am I the Reincarnation of Parmenides Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode we explore the fragments of the works of Parmenides that survive to modern times, with a focus on the mystical, shamanistic tradition expressed in them. In Parmenides, like Pythagoras before him, we find a mystic seeking a personal experience of the divine; we also find an honest-to-God Shaman, who visits the divine realm, speaks to "the Goddess" and brings mystical insight back to the living. It is fascinating to see just how closely linked the classical world and Western philosophy are with the pre-historic religious ideas of traditional shamanism. Enjoy ;)

Anaxagoras was a maverick who lived in Ancient Greece in the 5th century BCE. He was schooled in the Milesian and Eleatic philosophical traditions and was especially interested in celestial mechanics. Chiefly, solar and lunar eclipses. His answers to Parmenides' thoughts on reality and the Milesian forms of arche as well as his insights on the causes of eclipses were prescient and in many ways correct. His suggestion that the Sun and Moon weren't gods got Anaxagoras into hot water with the establishment in Athens and narrowly escaped personal disaster. Find out more about his story in this 20 minute episode. If you like the show please click the subscribe or the like buttons! https://www.ronvoller.com/bangSupport the show

Is it possible for people to share a loved one's experience of dying? Co-authors Paul Perry and Raymond Moody ("Life After Life") believe so, based on extensive research into the subject, distilled into their new book PROOF OF LIFE AFTER LIFE: 7 REASONS TO BELIEVE THERE IS AN AFTERLIFE. They joined me to discuss their multiple decades of research into near-death experiences (NDEs) and various other aspects of afterlife research, going back to the godfather himself, Plato, and his PHAEDO. Both Paul and Raymond have had NDEs themselves, so they know from experience, not just book learning. We also discuss: Raymond's psychomanteum experiments, the lack of humour (and insight) shared by fundamentalists towards afterlife research, why the NDE may be the root of religion (dating back to ancient Egypt), why "skeptics" of the NDE are really pseudoskeptics, why no one eats their food at dinner parties with Raymond, other "paranormal" experiences relating to death, insights of Parmenides, crystal ball gazing, the origins and nature of truth, David Hume's thoughts on new faculties of mind, the ongoing evolution of consciousness, the need for a new logic to grapple with the afterlife, Queen Elizabeth's scryer John Dee (and the connection to 007), and much more. Find Part 2 of all episodes and all other premium content at: Truthiversity.com Special Guests: Paul Perry and Raymond Moody.

In this episode we track the first 100 years of Pre-Socratic philosophy with an eye toward it's insights into human psychology and the origins of religion. We take this tour with the great Jungian psychologist Edward Edinger, through his book "The Psyche in Antiquity." From Thales to Parmenides we trace their search for the "Arche," the generative unity from which all of reality was born--the cosmos and the psyche. Is it Water, Air, Fire...or being itself? Enjoy ;)

Ancient Greece is often considered to be the birthplace of science and medicine, and the explanation of natural phenomena without recourse to supernatural causes. The early natural philosophers - lovers of wisdom concerning nature - sought to explain the order and composition of the world, and how we come to know it. They were particularly interested in what exists and how it is ordered: ontology and cosmology. They were also concerned with how we come to know (epistemology) and how best to live (ethics). At the same time, the scientific thinkers of early Greece and Rome were also influenced by ideas from other parts of the world, and incorporated aspects of Egyptian, Babylonian, and Indian science and mathematics in their studies.In this Very Short Introduction Liba Taub gives an overview of the major developments in early science between the 8th century BCE and 6th century CE. Focussing on Greece and Rome, Taub challenges a number of modern misconceptions about science in the classical world, which has often been viewed with a modern lens and by modern scientists, such as the misconception that little empirical work was conducted, or that the Romans did not 'do' science, unlike the Greeks. Beginning with the scientific notions of Thales, Pythagoras, Parmenides and other Presocratics, she moves on to Plato and Aristotle, before considering Hellenistic science, the influence of the Stoics and Epicurean ideas, and the works of Pliny the Elder, Eratosthenes, and Ptolemy. In her sweeping discussion, Taub explores the richness and creativity of ideas concerning the natural world, and the influence these ideas have had on later centuries.ABOUT THE SERIES: The Very Short Introductions series from Oxford University Press contains hundreds of titles in almost every subject area. These pocket-sized books are the perfect way to get ahead in a new subject quickly. Our expert authors combine facts, analysis, perspective, new ideas, and enthusiasm to make interesting and challenging topics highly readable.Liba Taub is a Professor Emerita in the Department of History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Cambridge, and previously the Director and Curator of the Whipple Museum of the History of Science. She is a Fellow of Newnham College. Her books include The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Greek and Roman Science (2020); The Cambridge History of Science, vol. 1: Ancient Science (2018), co-edited with Alexander Jones; and Science Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity (2017).

Dr. John Vervaeke reunites with guest Damien Walter in an engaging second episode to unpack the fascinating theory of Star Trek as a potent contemporary mythos. They dissect storytelling as a "psycho-technology" that mirrors human cognition and immerses us in collective human experiences. The episode focuses on how Star Trek bridges the gap between traditional, modern, and postmodern narratives, with discussions on metamodernism and its relevance in narrative reconstruction. Vervaeke and Walter delve into Plato's influence on narrative crafting, modern myth-making, and the cultivation of new ways to access the sacred. Walter elucidates the unique structure of Star Trek, explaining its appeal to society's conservative aspects and its subversion of the military-industrial complex. Vervaeke aligns Star Trek's philosophy with the Enlightenment's mythos, further establishing its significance in our modern narrative.   Timecodes: [00:00:00] Dr. John Vervaeke introduces Damien Walter, setting the stage for an exploration of Star Trek as a contemporary mythos. [00:01:03] Damien Walter shares his video essay, inspiring the conversation around the postmodern deconstruction of Star Trek. [00:03:16] Walter discusses how storytelling enables persona creation, marking a critical moment in understanding narrative impact. [00:07:00] Vervaeke probes the authority of metanarratives, challenging postmodernism's stance, and introduces metamodernism, hinting at a new stage of societal narratives. [00:11:07] Walter addresses our need to integrate different stages of civilization and personas into our narratives. [00:13:06] Emphasis on the need to appreciate past narratives while fostering narrative evolution. [00:18:15] Highlighting societal desire for dismissed narratives, using "Top Gun Maverick" and "Lord of the Rings" as examples. [00:20:35] Vervaeke discusses liminal spaces, focusing on the reinvention of narratives. [00:25:24] Walter delves into Plato's influence on myth-making and his innovative approach to philosophy through dialogues. [00:30:38] Vervaeke explores the philosophical ideas of Heraclitus and Parmenides and their interplay in Plato's thinking, then the conversation shifts towards the cultivation of myths, discussing the organic growth of narratives. [00:35:44] Walter presents Gene Roddenberry as a modern myth-maker, transitioning to Star Trek's narrative analysis. [00:39:05] Comparing the idealized order in Star Trek's Enterprise to Plato's Republic. [00:43:01] Vervaeke commends Damien Walter's thesis, aligning Star Trek's philosophy with the Enlightenment's mythos, dissecting Star Trek's ability to cater to conservative aspects of society while still providing a platform for progress. [00:47:14] Walter discusses Star Trek's critique and subversion of the military-industrial complex, demonstrating its dual appeal. [00:50:15] Vervaeke builds upon Walter's point, illuminating the series' progressive elements rooted in the Enlightenment's mythos. [00:52:47] Walter and Vervaeke delve into the idea of Star Trek's Federation as a utopian vision, a 'sacred' space for exploring societal issues. [00:57:00] The episode concludes with reflections on how Star Trek, as a modern mythos, offers a new perspective for understanding our society and its future.   Resources:   Voices with Vervaeke: Part 1: Science Fiction & Philosophy: Star Trek's Deep Commentary with Damien Walter  | The Transformational Impact of Story Telling with Shawn Coyne    Why Do Movies Feel So Different Now? Culture Series by Iain M. Banks  

Welcome to our philosophical journey through time, exploring the profound influence of ancient Near Eastern wisdom literature and mythological cosmogonies on Greek philosophy. We'll look at the Milesian school of philosophy, Pythagoras, Parmenides of Elea, the sophists, Socrates and Plato, and Epicurus, and how their teachings continue to shape our understanding of the world today. source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_philosophy

Barbara M. Sattler's book The Concept of Motion in Ancient Greek Thought: Foundations in Logic, Method, and Mathematics (Cambridge UP, 2020) examines the birth of the scientific understanding of motion. It investigates which logical tools and methodological principles had to be in place to give a consistent account of motion, and which mathematical notions were introduced to gain control over conceptual problems of motion. It shows how the idea of motion raised two fundamental problems in the 5th and 4th century BCE: bringing together being and non-being, and bringing together time and space. The first problem leads to the exclusion of motion from the realm of rational investigation in Parmenides, the second to Zeno's paradoxes of motion. Methodological and logical developments reacting to these puzzles are shown to be present implicitly in the atomists, and explicitly in Plato who also employs mathematical structures to make motion intelligible. With Aristotle we finally see the first outline of the fundamental framework with which we conceptualise motion today. Professor Barbara Sattler is Chair in Ancient and Medieval Philosophy at the Ruhr University Bochum. The main area of her research is metaphysics and natural philosophy in the ancient Greek world. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. 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

Barbara M. Sattler's book The Concept of Motion in Ancient Greek Thought: Foundations in Logic, Method, and Mathematics (Cambridge UP, 2020) examines the birth of the scientific understanding of motion. It investigates which logical tools and methodological principles had to be in place to give a consistent account of motion, and which mathematical notions were introduced to gain control over conceptual problems of motion. It shows how the idea of motion raised two fundamental problems in the 5th and 4th century BCE: bringing together being and non-being, and bringing together time and space. The first problem leads to the exclusion of motion from the realm of rational investigation in Parmenides, the second to Zeno's paradoxes of motion. Methodological and logical developments reacting to these puzzles are shown to be present implicitly in the atomists, and explicitly in Plato who also employs mathematical structures to make motion intelligible. With Aristotle we finally see the first outline of the fundamental framework with which we conceptualise motion today. Professor Barbara Sattler is Chair in Ancient and Medieval Philosophy at the Ruhr University Bochum. The main area of her research is metaphysics and natural philosophy in the ancient Greek world. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/mathematics

Barbara M. Sattler's book The Concept of Motion in Ancient Greek Thought: Foundations in Logic, Method, and Mathematics (Cambridge UP, 2020) examines the birth of the scientific understanding of motion. It investigates which logical tools and methodological principles had to be in place to give a consistent account of motion, and which mathematical notions were introduced to gain control over conceptual problems of motion. It shows how the idea of motion raised two fundamental problems in the 5th and 4th century BCE: bringing together being and non-being, and bringing together time and space. The first problem leads to the exclusion of motion from the realm of rational investigation in Parmenides, the second to Zeno's paradoxes of motion. Methodological and logical developments reacting to these puzzles are shown to be present implicitly in the atomists, and explicitly in Plato who also employs mathematical structures to make motion intelligible. With Aristotle we finally see the first outline of the fundamental framework with which we conceptualise motion today. Professor Barbara Sattler is Chair in Ancient and Medieval Philosophy at the Ruhr University Bochum. The main area of her research is metaphysics and natural philosophy in the ancient Greek world. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

Barbara M. Sattler's book The Concept of Motion in Ancient Greek Thought: Foundations in Logic, Method, and Mathematics (Cambridge UP, 2020) examines the birth of the scientific understanding of motion. It investigates which logical tools and methodological principles had to be in place to give a consistent account of motion, and which mathematical notions were introduced to gain control over conceptual problems of motion. It shows how the idea of motion raised two fundamental problems in the 5th and 4th century BCE: bringing together being and non-being, and bringing together time and space. The first problem leads to the exclusion of motion from the realm of rational investigation in Parmenides, the second to Zeno's paradoxes of motion. Methodological and logical developments reacting to these puzzles are shown to be present implicitly in the atomists, and explicitly in Plato who also employs mathematical structures to make motion intelligible. With Aristotle we finally see the first outline of the fundamental framework with which we conceptualise motion today. Professor Barbara Sattler is Chair in Ancient and Medieval Philosophy at the Ruhr University Bochum. The main area of her research is metaphysics and natural philosophy in the ancient Greek world. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

All of us change over the years. How can we be the same people, yet different? Today, R.C. Sproul explores the philosophical ideas of "being" and "becoming." Get R.C. Sproul's 'The Consequences of Ideas' 35-Part DVD Series along with the Audio and Video Download for Your Gift of Any Amount: https://gift.renewingyourmind.org/2834/the-consequences-of-ideas Don't forget to make RenewingYourMind.org your home for daily in-depth Bible study and Christian resources.

Laser on the Prairie Is a life made up of a series of images? Which images do we choose? Do you begin to fade if there are no images of you? Heat wave, 4th of July weekend recap, doing things when you want to, Dogs Per Minute, bonelessness, the word “sploot,” hauntological music, modern rock music, the Gorillaz, the confusion and sorrow of the times, men and women, leaving your keys in your car, basing your life on the best possible outcomes, Zeno of Elea, Parmenides, the slaving meat wheel, memory's dependence on images, photographic evidence as stability, the authority of the photograph, our dependence on photographs, Kodak albums, the speeding up of time, memory as experiential molasses, James Ellroy vs. David Foster Wallace, database animals, cities as live performance theater, White Jazz, content and context, the opposite of “inhabit,” containerism, getting results without work, you can't have a ghost without being killed, an analysis of chaos magic, Universal Studios, return to the water, pool communication, talking to a wall, checking in on rhythms, self-care, dangerous women, and practical and tactical avoidance.

Michael is head of philosophy at the University of Liverpool. His current work spans transhumanism, death & meaning. He has written a vast range of topics, including on whether non-human animals can have meaningful lives & "What It Is Like to Be a Bot". He says of his work: "As a philosopher, I am a generalist, which is a nice way of saying that I have done many different things & I am not really an expert on anything in particular." In Sentientist Conversations we talk about the two most important questions: “what's real?” & “who matters?” Sentientism is "evidence, reason & compassion for all sentient beings." The video of our conversation is ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠here on YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. We discuss: 00:00 Welcome 01:42 Michael's Intro - What it means to be human, to live a good life, a meaningful life - Transhumanism & human enhancement - Meaning & life & death - When dealing with foundational, broad questions: "It is very difficult to be precise... I hardly ever feel that 'now I've got it'" 06:06 What's Real? - "It's much easier to point at something & disuss whether that is real" - "If you can name something then in some sense it must be real" - Raised #Christian & sent to Sunday school & Bible classes & regular confessions to the village priest - "I sort of believed there was a god when I was little" - A god watching me "a means of controlling me... Big Brother in heaven... it was just oppressive... a punishing god, a critical god" - "I didn't feel the presence... I just believed that there was something because I was told there was something" - "Very quickly I dropped my religious beliefs... as soon as I started to think for myself I became an #atheist" - "It just faded away... it was always superficial" - "Some people take me for a Christian because I share some of the intuitions religious believers have" - "I'm not entirely comfortable with calling myself a naturalist although I don't believe in anything supernatural" - "Naturalism is also very programmatic & ideological" - "There are a lot of things in this world that we cannot understand...& some naturalists are very confident that we can understand everything & that's there's no mystery... there is a lot of mystery." - Max More's #transhumanism ... pits science vs. religion - Origins of the universe & life & consciousness "we don't know!" Science might figure it out - it might not - "... whatever there is is part of nature" - Over-confidence vs. humility - The subjective & the objective - Plato & Parmenides: "being is more real than becoming"... "but we live in a world of becoming... how can that be less real?" - The "normative use of reality"... to "declare something else as not real... a term to deny something else its reality" - The denial of animal suffering "not so common any more" & the #cartesian model - "If you see an animal in pain you know it is in pain... it takes a lot of willful blindness not to acknowledge..." - "One of the reasons... why animals could not possibly feel any pain... because it would then be far too horrible how we treat animals... god wouldn't allow it!" - "If we assume the world is good & we see all the apparent suffering... then it cannot be... A moral reason behind denying the suffering of animals" - JW "An echo of a religious mode of thought that's then re-built in a humanist mode of thought" - "If we have evolved naturally... there's no reason to assume our brains are capable of understanding the universe... what possible use can it have?" - "A naturalistic perspective should actually teach us humility" 29:03 What Matters? ...and much more. Full show notes at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Sentientism.info⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Sentientism is “Evidence, reason & compassion for all sentient beings.” More at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Sentientism.info⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Join our ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠"I'm a Sentientist" wall⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ via ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠this simple form⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Everyone, Sentientist or not, is welcome in our groups. The biggest so far is ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠here on FaceBook⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Come join us there!

Von dem großen Philosophen Parmenides existieren heute nur noch wenige Textfragmente, sie füllen gerade mal ein paar DIN A4 Seiten. Dennoch ziehen diese wenigen Zeilen seit 2.500 Jahren die größten Denker der Menschheitsgeschichte in ihren Bann. Autor: Fabian Mader

Alex Priou is Teaching Assistant Professor in the Herbst Program at the University of Colorado Boulder. He is the author of Becoming Socrates: Political Philosophy in Plato's Parmenides from University of Rochester Press, as well as a number of articles and essays on the history of political philosophy. He has two books forthcoming this year, Defending Socrates: Political Philosophy Before the Tribunal of Science from Mercer University Press and Musings on Plato's Symposium from Political Animal Press. And he is a cohost of the New Thinkery podcast: https://thenewthinkery.com/

The goddess Persephone was queen of the Underworld. To the amazement of the other divinities, she became the wisest of them all. On rare occasions she would invite humans to visit her in that dark place.In this episode we recount her visit with Parmenides, the pre-Socratic philosopher who influenced modern thought.If you love this podcast, you'll also enjoy Garner's audible novel about the gods, Homo Divinitas, now available on Amazon.com and Audible.com.Support the showTweet me comments at @Garner_images, or email any episode suggestions to patrickgarner@me.com

Parmenides

Dr. James Faulconer, a Latter-day Saint philosopher and theologian now emeritus of Brigham Young University joins me to discuss "performative" or "scriptural" theology and how it helps illuminate Latter-day Saint scripture. In his recent book, Thinking Otherwise: Theological Explorations of Joseph Smith's Revelations, Faulconer argues that Joseph Smith's revelations addressed philosophical enigmas and dilemmas inherited from classical Christian theism, some of which dated back to the Presocratic philosopher Parmenides and his doctrine of the One.