Podcasts about Philosophical Investigations

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

Stephen Wolfram answers questions from his viewers about the history of science and technology as part of an unscripted livestream series, also available on YouTube here: https://wolfr.am/youtube-sw-qa Questions include: Any progress on your understanding of Buddhist philosophy from digging into East Asian history? - How do we address the interesting ways that footnotes in history have led to knowledge? How do we address multiple issues of publication within different texts and the problems of translation? What happens to the "origin" of a text? - Do you think weird names are an advantage in academics? E.g. one of the translators of the new edition of Philosophical Investigations is P. M. S. Hacker, not something I would have remembered otherwise. - Who came up with floating-point arithmetic and what is it? - How would you think about scientific collaboration in the age before technology? How did ancient researchers/scientists collaborate with each other? - Do you think there is hidden mathematics or geometry in biblical writings or the Egyptian pyramids? - If you woke up tomorrow in ancient Greece with a pouch of gold coins, what sort of computing machines do you think you could have fabricated? - Why is there only one species of human beings; isn't that kind of absurd? - With hindsight, would "Computational Principles of Natural Philosophy" have been a good title for NKS?

Wittgenstein famously wrote about games in a book called Philosophical Investigations, one of the most important philosophical works of the 20th century. To contextualize his thoughts, Part 1 of this series provides an introduction to Wittgenstein's life and philosophy. Part two will discuss the most famous passages from the Philosophical Investigations where he discusses games. These passages form part of a much wider critique of the philosophy of language and meaning. A future third episode will examine subsequent philosophical criticism of Wittgenstein's remarks on games from the point of view of games and sport.Watch the video version on YouTube here.CreditsWritten and presented by James CartlidgeProduced by Greta RauleacOriginal Music by James CartlidgeBreaking the Game is a YouTube channel and podcast series about philosophy and video game studies. It aims to facilitate discussions about games, the games industry and philosophy with wider audiences. It mainly (though not exclusively) focusses on the indie games sphere, and current and future philosophical topics include phenomenology, existentialism, political philosophy, ethics, philosophy of mind/consciousness, cognitive science, psychoanalysis and psychology. It is based on the postdoctoral research of James Cartlidge.Check out and subscribe to Breaking the Game here.

This episode continues our exploration of Wittgenstein's philosophy, moving on to his famous remarks on games in his Philosophical Investigations, which have become one of the most famous pieces of philosophical writing in video game studies.  Watch the video version on YouTube here.CreditsWritten and presented by James CartlidgeProduced by Greta RauleacOriginal Music by James CartlidgeBreaking the Game is a YouTube channel and podcast series about philosophy and video game studies. It aims to facilitate discussions about games, the games industry and philosophy with wider audiences. It mainly (though not exclusively) focusses on the indie games sphere, and current and future philosophical topics include phenomenology, existentialism, political philosophy, ethics, philosophy of mind/consciousness, cognitive science, psychoanalysis and psychology. It is based on the postdoctoral research of James Cartlidge.Check out and subscribe to Breaking the Game here.

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

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

Murray Shanahan is a professor of Cognitive Robotics at Imperial College London and a senior research scientist at DeepMind. He challenges our assumptions about AI consciousness and urges us to rethink how we talk about machine intelligence. We explore the dangers of anthropomorphizing AI, the limitations of current language in describing AI capabilities, and the fascinating intersection of philosophy and artificial intelligence. Show notes and full references: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ICtBI574W-xGi8Z2ZtUNeKWiOiGZ_DRsp9EnyYAISws/edit?usp=sharing Prof Murray Shanahan: https://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~mpsha/ (look at his selected publications) https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=00bnGpAAAAAJ&hl=en https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Shanahan https://x.com/mpshanahan Interviewer: Dr. Tim Scarfe Refs (links in the Google doc linked above): Role play with large language models Waluigi effect "Conscious Exotica" - Paper by Murray Shanahan (2016) "Simulators" - Article by Janis from LessWrong "Embodiment and the Inner Life" - Book by Murray Shanahan (2010) "The Technological Singularity" - Book by Murray Shanahan (2015) "Simulacra as Conscious Exotica" - Paper by Murray Shanahan (newer paper of the original focussed on LLMs) A recent paper by Anthropic on using autoencoders to find features in language models (referring to the "Scaling Monosemanticity" paper) Work by Peter Godfrey-Smith on octopus consciousness "Metaphors We Live By" - Book by George Lakoff (1980s) Work by Aaron Sloman on the concept of "space of possible minds" (1984 article mentioned) Wittgenstein's "Philosophical Investigations" (posthumously published) Daniel Dennett's work on the "intentional stance" Alan Turing's original paper on the Turing Test (1950) Thomas Nagel's paper "What is it like to be a bat?" (1974) John Searle's Chinese Room Argument (mentioned but not detailed) Work by Richard Evans on tackling reasoning problems Claude Shannon's quote on knowledge and control "Are We Bodies or Souls?" - Book by Richard Swinburne Reference to work by Ethan Perez and others at Anthropic on potential deceptive behavior in language models Reference to a paper by Murray Shanahan and Antonia Creswell on the "selection inference framework" Mention of work by Francois Chollet, particularly the ARC (Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus) challenge Reference to Elizabeth Spelke's work on core knowledge in infants Mention of Karl Friston's work on planning as inference (active inference) The film "Ex Machina" - Murray Shanahan was the scientific advisor "The Waluigi Effect" Anthropic's constitutional AI approach Loom system by Lara Reynolds and Kyle McDonald for visualizing conversation trees DeepMind's AlphaGo (mentioned multiple times as an example) Mention of the "Golden Gate Claude" experiment Reference to an interview Tim Scarfe conducted with University of Toronto students about self-attention controllability theorem Mention of an interview with Irina Rish Reference to an interview Tim Scarfe conducted with Daniel Dennett Reference to an interview with Maria Santa Caterina Mention of an interview with Philip Goff Nick Chater and Martin Christianson's book ("The Language Game: How Improvisation Created Language and Changed the World") Peter Singer's work from 1975 on ascribing moral status to conscious beings Demis Hassabis' discussion on the "ladder of creativity" Reference to B.F. Skinner and behaviorism

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

What's actually going on in a cell–or on the spiky outside of an invading virus? Gael McGill, Director of Molecular Visualization at the Center for Molecular and Cellular Dynamics at Harvard Medical School is founder and CEO of Digizyme and has spent his career exploring and developing different modes for visualizing evidence. For this scientific conversation taped back in 2021, Recall this Book host John is joined once again by Brandeis neuroscientist Gina Turrigiano (think ep 4 Madeline Miller; think ep 2 Addiction!). You may want to check out Digizyme‘s images of the spike protein attaching the SARS-CoV2 virus to a hapless cell and fusing their membranes. Or click through to watch a gorgeous video Gael and his team have created. Mentioned in the Episode: Gael praised Galileo's revolutionary images (drawings? diagrams?) of Jupiter's moons: Leonardo's stunning anatomical drawings: The DNA Double-Helix: We all knew that Watson and Crick‘s revelation came with this model: But it's easy to forget this indispensable antecedent: the enigmatic yet foundational x-ray crystallography of Rosalind Franklin: “All models are wrong; some are useful.”smiley statistician George Box “A picture held us captive. And we could not get outside it, for it lay in our language and language seemed to repeat it to us inexorably.” Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, 115 And what sort of deceptive picture did Wittgenstein have in mind? well, how about the 1904 “Plum-pudding model” of what the atom might look like? Wrong, and productive of all sorts of mistaken hypotheses. Gina credited the beautiful drawings of Santiago Ramón y Cajal with inspiring and illuminating generations of neuroscientists. John credits Science in the Marketplace, an edited collection reminding us that even in crowded lecture-halls, to display science may also mean doing science….. Gael ended his historical tour by praising David Goodsell, cell-painter extraordinaire: John also raved (as he is wont to do) about cave paintings as the first animation in the world (e.g. these horses from Peche-Merle). Listen and Read Here: 47 Glimpsing COVID: Gael McGill on Data Visualization Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

What's actually going on in a cell–or on the spiky outside of an invading virus? Gael McGill, Director of Molecular Visualization at the Center for Molecular and Cellular Dynamics at Harvard Medical School is founder and CEO of Digizyme and has spent his career exploring and developing different modes for visualizing evidence. For this scientific conversation taped back in 2021, Recall this Book host John is joined once again by Brandeis neuroscientist Gina Turrigiano (think ep 4 Madeline Miller; think ep 2 Addiction!). You may want to check out Digizyme‘s images of the spike protein attaching the SARS-CoV2 virus to a hapless cell and fusing their membranes. Or click through to watch a gorgeous video Gael and his team have created. Mentioned in the Episode: Gael praised Galileo's revolutionary images (drawings? diagrams?) of Jupiter's moons: Leonardo's stunning anatomical drawings: The DNA Double-Helix: We all knew that Watson and Crick‘s revelation came with this model: But it's easy to forget this indispensable antecedent: the enigmatic yet foundational x-ray crystallography of Rosalind Franklin: “All models are wrong; some are useful.”smiley statistician George Box “A picture held us captive. And we could not get outside it, for it lay in our language and language seemed to repeat it to us inexorably.” Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, 115 And what sort of deceptive picture did Wittgenstein have in mind? well, how about the 1904 “Plum-pudding model” of what the atom might look like? Wrong, and productive of all sorts of mistaken hypotheses. Gina credited the beautiful drawings of Santiago Ramón y Cajal with inspiring and illuminating generations of neuroscientists. John credits Science in the Marketplace, an edited collection reminding us that even in crowded lecture-halls, to display science may also mean doing science….. Gael ended his historical tour by praising David Goodsell, cell-painter extraordinaire: John also raved (as he is wont to do) about cave paintings as the first animation in the world (e.g. these horses from Peche-Merle). Listen and Read Here: 47 Glimpsing COVID: Gael McGill on Data Visualization Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science

What's actually going on in a cell–or on the spiky outside of an invading virus? Gael McGill, Director of Molecular Visualization at the Center for Molecular and Cellular Dynamics at Harvard Medical School is founder and CEO of Digizyme and has spent his career exploring and developing different modes for visualizing evidence. For this scientific conversation taped back in 2021, Recall this Book host John is joined once again by Brandeis neuroscientist Gina Turrigiano (think ep 4 Madeline Miller; think ep 2 Addiction!). You may want to check out Digizyme‘s images of the spike protein attaching the SARS-CoV2 virus to a hapless cell and fusing their membranes. Or click through to watch a gorgeous video Gael and his team have created. Mentioned in the Episode: Gael praised Galileo's revolutionary images (drawings? diagrams?) of Jupiter's moons: Leonardo's stunning anatomical drawings: The DNA Double-Helix: We all knew that Watson and Crick‘s revelation came with this model: But it's easy to forget this indispensable antecedent: the enigmatic yet foundational x-ray crystallography of Rosalind Franklin: “All models are wrong; some are useful.”smiley statistician George Box “A picture held us captive. And we could not get outside it, for it lay in our language and language seemed to repeat it to us inexorably.” Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, 115 And what sort of deceptive picture did Wittgenstein have in mind? well, how about the 1904 “Plum-pudding model” of what the atom might look like? Wrong, and productive of all sorts of mistaken hypotheses. Gina credited the beautiful drawings of Santiago Ramón y Cajal with inspiring and illuminating generations of neuroscientists. John credits Science in the Marketplace, an edited collection reminding us that even in crowded lecture-halls, to display science may also mean doing science….. Gael ended his historical tour by praising David Goodsell, cell-painter extraordinaire: John also raved (as he is wont to do) about cave paintings as the first animation in the world (e.g. these horses from Peche-Merle). Listen and Read Here: 47 Glimpsing COVID: Gael McGill on Data Visualization Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science-technology-and-society

What's actually going on in a cell–or on the spiky outside of an invading virus? Gael McGill, Director of Molecular Visualization at the Center for Molecular and Cellular Dynamics at Harvard Medical School is founder and CEO of Digizyme and has spent his career exploring and developing different modes for visualizing evidence. For this scientific conversation taped back in 2021, Recall this Book host John is joined once again by Brandeis neuroscientist Gina Turrigiano (think ep 4 Madeline Miller; think ep 2 Addiction!). You may want to check out Digizyme‘s images of the spike protein attaching the SARS-CoV2 virus to a hapless cell and fusing their membranes. Or click through to watch a gorgeous video Gael and his team have created. Mentioned in the Episode: Gael praised Galileo's revolutionary images (drawings? diagrams?) of Jupiter's moons: Leonardo's stunning anatomical drawings: The DNA Double-Helix: We all knew that Watson and Crick‘s revelation came with this model: But it's easy to forget this indispensable antecedent: the enigmatic yet foundational x-ray crystallography of Rosalind Franklin: “All models are wrong; some are useful.”smiley statistician George Box “A picture held us captive. And we could not get outside it, for it lay in our language and language seemed to repeat it to us inexorably.” Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, 115 And what sort of deceptive picture did Wittgenstein have in mind? well, how about the 1904 “Plum-pudding model” of what the atom might look like? Wrong, and productive of all sorts of mistaken hypotheses. Gina credited the beautiful drawings of Santiago Ramón y Cajal with inspiring and illuminating generations of neuroscientists. John credits Science in the Marketplace, an edited collection reminding us that even in crowded lecture-halls, to display science may also mean doing science….. Gael ended his historical tour by praising David Goodsell, cell-painter extraordinaire: John also raved (as he is wont to do) about cave paintings as the first animation in the world (e.g. these horses from Peche-Merle). Listen and Read Here: 47 Glimpsing COVID: Gael McGill on Data Visualization Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We compare translations of Dostoyevsky in prep for our April live show, discuss future show topics, and go over insights from our past discussions on Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations. If you're not hearing the full version of this part of the discussion, sign up via one of the options described at partiallyexaminedlife.com/support.

313: People who “yes-butt” you. People who resist exposure. Does God exist? Does the “self” exist? How to you justify Ellis?  "Should" we care about Putin's war on Ukraine? " 1. Rhonda asks: How can you respond to someone who yes-butts you? 2. Thomas asks: Do we have a self? Does God exist? 3. Thomas also asks: Ellis said we should upset ourselves over someone else's problems, but how about Putin, and Russia? Note: The answers below were generated prior to the podcast, and the information provided on the live podcast may be richer and different in a number of ways. 1. Rhonda asks: How can you respond to someone who yes-butts you? David's Reply Thanks, Rhonda. We can demonstrate this with Matt on the podcast recording later today! Matt's Reply: The answer is to fall back to Empathy and try to see how we are creating the problem.  For example, when we are giving advice, we may have fallen into a trap, in which we are getting ahead of their resistance and would want to get behind it. As often happens, the question, and its answer, went in an unexpected direction. Rhonda, like many therapists, noticed that one of her social anxiety patients was subtly resisting exposure—facing her fears. Matt and Rhonda model how to respond to patients who keep putting off the exposure. This answer illustrates how therapists and the general public alike can improve your use of the Five Secrets of Effective Communication (LINK) with the use of “Deliberate Practice,” with role reversals and immediate feedback on your technique. Rhonda starts with a low grade, and then rapidly achieves an A grade! Click here for the Five Secrets of Effective Communication 2. Thomas asks: Do we have a self? Does God exist? Thank you for giving me your time and attention. I appreciate it, even if we don't agree. I have talked about whether or not God and the self exist. David Hume made the argument about not having a self, only perception. Of course, questions arise if we don't have a “self.” Thomas Thomas also comments on Nathaniel Brandon: Why do we use the words who? Him? Her? He she they.?? I certainly don't believe Nathaniel Brandon's horseshit. He talks about a teenage self, a father self, and a child self And all that is just horseshit. But do we have any self? David's response: Hi Thomas, Thanks for your question! You ask, “But do we have any self?” You ask about God, too. People have been asking for my chapter on the “Death of the Self,” and my efforts to debunk the idea of a “self.” I have not had the time and motivation to bring that chapter back to life, since it is so hard for people to “get” what I've been trying to say, which is exactly what Wittgenstein and the Buddha were trying to say. But I will try to share one idea with you, in the hopes that it might make sense. As I have previously suggested, these questions about some “self” or “God” have no meaning. For example, how about this question: ‘What would it look like if someone had no ‘self?' What, exactly, are we talking about? I know what this question means: “So you think Henry is too high on himself.” This means that we think some person named Henry is arrogant or narcissistic, something like that, and we want to know if someone agrees with us. I understand this question, it makes sense. There is a distinct difference between people who are quite humble and folks who are overly impressed with themselves. So, we are talking and using words in a way that has meaning and makes sense. However, I cannot answer the following question because it does not make any sense to me: “Does Henry have a ‘self'?” So, this question, to me, is language that is out of gear, like a car in neutral gear. No matter how hard you press on the accelerator, it will not move forward or backward. If you cannot “see” or “grasp” the difference between my examples of a meaningful question and a nonsensical non-question, that's okay. In my experience, few people can grasp or “get” this. But to me, the difference is quite obvious. Is it okay if I use your email as a somewhat edited “Ask David?” I can change your name if you prefer. I don't think people will “get” my answer, but hope springs eternal! David Matt's Response Many brilliant minds have addressed this question in more eloquent and thorough ways than I could, including the Stanford-trained neurologist and philosopher, Sam Harris, in his book, ‘Free Will' and Jay Garfield in his book, ‘Losing Ourselves' There's very little I can say, about this topic, that hasn't been said more eloquently by individuals like these and many others. Meanwhile, I'm glad that this question has arisen on the podcast because I see clinical utility in the implications of this question, including in the treatment of depression, anxiety, anger, narcissistic pride and relationship problems. For example, I might be thinking, ‘I'm so mad at my (bad) self for eating all those cookies'.  Or, I'm so proud of myself for making a million dollars'.  I might start to think I deserve more, because of my special self and feel superior and angry, ‘that persons (bad self) shouldn't have cut me off in traffic!'. When we take the ‘self' out of the equation, we realize that these thoughts don't make sense.  If our brains are just following the laws of physics, without any self, jumping in there to influence the process, then we couldn't have done differently, with the brains we had, and neither could anyone else. Hence, the idea that people have ‘selves', which can be good or bad, make decisions and the like, is a setup for suffering.  In the cookie example, I would have to train my brain, through practice with therapy methods, to develop a different set of habits, rewiring of my brain, to reach for a salad rather than a cookie.  I can't simply insist that my ‘self' rewire my brain for me.  I'd have to practice and do my TEAM therapy homework! Anger and Narcissism are some of the hardest-to-defeat problems.  However, realizing other people are simply doing what their brains are programmed to do, takes away the anger and blame.  Just like we wouldn't hold a grudge for years against a wild animal that bit us, we could also forgive and accept a person who bit us.   and we can't feel unnecessarily superior or proud of our ‘self' if we accomplish something wonderful, because we don't' have a ‘self' that did those things, just a brain and the right environment, neither of which we can take credit for. This approach is called ‘reattribution' in TEAM, which is useful for defeating ‘self-blame' and ‘other (self) blame'. Here are some other methods to leverage the no-self concept and free your mind of this hazardous way of thinking: 1. Experimental Technique:  Try to define what a ‘self' is.  Then conduct an experiment to see whether the self is capable of doing the things you think it can do.  For example, can your ‘self' stop understanding the words you are seeing on this page?  Or does your brain helplessly decipher the shapes of these letters into meaningful sounds and language?  Can your self exert its free will to decide to focus exclusively on one thing for one minute, like your breath or a point on the wall?    It can't.  If your self can't do such simple tasks, what can it do?  One can see meditation as a kind of ‘experiment' to see whether our ‘self' is calling the shots, using its free will, or if our brains are just doing what brains do. 2. Socratic Questioning: You can ask questions that can't be answered to show that the ‘self' is more like a ‘unicorn' than a cat.  For example, how big is the ‘self'?  What's it made of? Where is it located?  Can you see it on a MRI?  No radiologist has ever visualized a ‘self' and you probably realize you can't answer these questions, any more than you can, ‘what do Unicorns like to eat?', bringing us closer to understanding that it's probably a made up thing. 3. Examine the Evidence: What evidence is there that there's a Self?  What evidence is there that there is no self? On the latter side, Consider Occam's Razor, which suggests that the better hypothesis is the simpler one which still explains the observations.  One hypothesis is we have a brain generating consciousness.  Another hypothesis is that we have a brain that generates consciousness and a self that is having those experiences, operating the brain.  Based on Occam's Razor, the better hypothesis is the former, that we have a brain creating consciousness. 4. Outcome Resistance: People get scared off by the idea that there's no self or free will, that their brain is making decisions, without a self intervening.  In Christian Tradition, for example, Thomas Aquinas essentially invented the concept of ‘free will' so that God's punishment of Adam and Eve could be explained, morally. Otherwise, God would seem rather cruel, to create a system where he knew that would happen.  This is an example of how ‘free will' and the ‘self' are linked to blame and anger. Even if you don't believe in God, you might be concerned that the idea that there is no free will would mean that the criminal justice system would fall apart.  Criminals could say, ‘I had no choice'.  Talking back to these elements of ‘resistance' could help free one's mind. For example, without free will, it's true that blaming other people and retaliatory justice wouldn't make sense.  However, one could still enforce laws, only in a compassionate way, for the sake of protecting others making the same mistake.  A murderer, if they realized this, could mind meaning in fulfilling their sentence, realizing they were doing a service to humanity, rather than being punished for their bad self.  Instead of seeing other people as having ‘bad' selves, we can have a sense of sadness, connection and concern, even with a murderer, when carrying out justice, understanding that, ‘there but for the grace of God, go I'. David mentions, in passing, a mild red flag with the concept of "free will." He points out that this is another concept, like "God" or the "self," that has no meaning, if you really grasp what Ludwig Wittgenstein was trying to say in his classic book, Philosophical Investigations. One way to "see" this, although it is admittedly almost impossible to "see:" because it is so simple and obvious, would be to ask yourself, "What would it look like if we "had" something called "free will?" And what would it look like if we "didn't?" The question is NOT "do we have free will," but rather, "Does this concept have any meaning? Once you suddenly "see" that the answer is no, you will be liberated from many philosophical dilemmas. But as they say, enlightenment can be a lonely road! the Buddha, as well as Wittgenstein, ran into this problem that people could not "grasp" the simple and obvious things they were trying so hard to say! As humans, we get spellbound by the words we using, thinking that nouns, like "self," must refer to some "thing" that either exists or doesn't exist! To my way of thinking the question is NOT "Does god exist" or "do human have free will," but rather, do these questions make sense? Do they mean anything? The answer, to my way of thinking (DB), is no. However, . . . you might not "get" this! 3. Thomas also asks about Dr. Albert Ellis Hi David, Do you agree with Ellis that one is better off without making oneself upset over other people's problems? What about Putin and Russia and all the violence, another mass shooting, and trump running for president again? Ellis didn't think one should be disturbed about these things. Or at least upset. What do you think? David's reply Hi Thomas: Here's my take. Healthy and appropriate negative feelings exist! One SHOULD be upset by horrific war crimes. I suspect that if Beck and Ellis, were they still alive, they would both strongly agree, but of course, I cannot speak for them! Thanks for listening today! Matt, Rhonda, and David!

In this mini-episode, we discuss , The Philosophical Investigations, the differences between early and late Wittgenstein, “Language Games”, meaning as use, and much more.Two Guys One Book is now in podcast form! It is available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Please consider subscribing directly to our feed so you get updates in your podcast catcher whenever a new podcast goes live!Follow us on Goodreads to see what we're reading:https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/96149881-max-chapinhttps://www.goodreads.com/user/show/96136938-pedro-michelsYou can also watch the video here: This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit maxchapin.substack.com

We are looking at how conversations about theology and politics break down by analyzing Ludwig Wittgenstein's classic work Philosophical Investigations. Wittgenstein argues that words have no stable meaning and that, like the rules of a game, people need to define terms during conversations if we want to be able to productively communicate with each other. We will then look at how F.A. Hayek recognizes that totalitarian regimes use the subjectivity of language to oppress people.*This was originally supposed to be episode 10, which is why I sometimes say things like ‘last week' and ‘next week' referring to shows that I published weeks ago.Episode Outline:I. Why Conversations FailII. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations (1953) III. Having Productive Conversations as Protestants and Libertarians  Media Referenced:The Future of Justification, John PiperJustification, N.T. WrightPhilosophical Investigations, Ludwig WittgensteinThe Road to Serfdom, F.A. Hayek Questions, comments, suggestions? Please reach out to me at theprotestantlibertarian@gmail.com.  You can also follow the podcast on Twitter: @prolibertypod. If you like the show and want to support it, you can! Check out the Protestant Libertarian Podcast page at https://www.buymeacoffee.com/theplpodcast. Also, please consider giving me a star rating and leaving me a review, it really helps expand the shows profile! Thanks!

Lugwig Van Wittgenstein wrote Tactatus Logico Philosophicus and Philosophical Investigations centred around a central question: Is language a competent tool to compare expereinces of reality to the end of demystifying it. This episode talks about foundational language in learning psychology, the growth of children in terms of cognitive abilities and how that relates to an operative person cognitively conveying intention. We look at the barrier of language resulting in a sea of context, that causes for Witgenstein's "language game" to have implications in real life governance, and legal procedure. Recommended reading: Tractatus Logico Philosophicus, Ludwig Wittgenstein Philosophical Investigations, Ludwig Wittgenstein Psychology - Cicarelli Developmental Psychology - Harlow K. Puttaswamy V. Union of India Criminal Law - Ratan Lal and Dheeraj Lal Music: @triggerfish.wut, Logo by @edgy.ajji on instagram Support me on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/deepfriedneurons Or buy me a coffee at: www.buymeacoffee.com/deepfriedneuron Follow me on social media: www.instagram.com/deepfriedneurons

The team reassembles to talk Wittgenstein, champion of "ideas-don't-matter" philosophy, and about why he matters—even if ideas don't. The primary sources referenced throughout this ep are the Tractatus (https://amzn.to/3t0wD56) for Mr. Early Wittgenstein, and Philosophical Investigations (https://amzn.to/3wVfUkC) for Mr. Late Wittgenstein.

This episode is a re-publication of a seminar organised by the research project the End of Law, at CTR. Dr Mårten Björk will take the lead, and introduces the inaugural episode of the End of law podcast, and a lecture by professor Jeff Lo ve, with the title: "Between Kant and Hegel: Alexandre Kojève and the End of Law" It was recorded on 1 June 2021 as part of the Law, Theology and Culture seminar in Lund. Alexandre Kojève is best known for the influential lectures he gave on Hegel to an enthralled audience of French intellectuals including Raymond Aron, Henry Corbin, Jacques Lacan, and Maurice Merleau-Ponty. Aside from these lectures, published in 1947 as Introduction to the Reading of Hegel, Kojéve published relatively little before his death in 1968. Yet, he left over 26 boxes of unpublished material on a variety of topics, from quantum physics and the continuum hypothesis to a major treatise on law called Outline of a Phenomenology of Right (Esquisse d'une phénoménologie du droit). Kojève wrote this treatise (586 pages in the French book edition) in 1943 while living in Vichy France. He expounds in it a comprehensive theory of justice and the universal homogeneous state that promises to usher in the end of history and perhaps of law itself. In my talk, I shall examine some of the central legal features of Kojève's universal and homogeneous state and consider whether Kojève actually affirms that history can be brought to an end through a final legal regime or not. In this respect, Kojève reprises his end of history thesis from the Hegel lectures as well as putting it in question, opposing Hegelian finality to what Kojeve terms Kantian "skepticism" about final ends.  Jeff Love is Research Professor of German and Russian at Clemson University. He is the author of The Black Circle: A Life of Alexandre Kojève (Columbia University Press, 2018), Tolstoy: A Guide for the Perplexed (Continuum, 2008), and The Overcoming of History in War and Peace (Brill, 2004). He has also published a translation of Alexandre Kojève's Atheism (Columbia University Press, 2018), an annotated translation (with Johannes Schmidt) of F.W. J. Schelling's Philosophical Investigations into the Essence of Human Freedom (State University of New York Press, 2006), and recently a translation of António Lobo Antunes's novel Until Stones Become Lighter Than Water (Yale University Press, 2019). ---------------------------------------------- Religion and Theology is produced by Joel Kuhlin for the Center for Theology and Religious Studies. If you have comments or critique of this episode, or any other episodes of R&T, please contact us via the podcast's twitteraccount: @reloteol.

The topic of games and play has fascinated JF and Phil since the launch of Weird Studies. Way back in 2018, they recorded back-to-back episodes on tabletop roleplaying games and fighting sports, and more recently, they did a two-parter on Hermann Hesse's The Glass Bead Game, a philosophical novel suggesting that all human culture tends toward play. In this episode, your hosts draw on a wealth of texts, memories, and nascent ideas to explore the game concept as such. What is a game? What do games tell us about life? What is the function of play in the formation of reality? Support us on Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/weirdstudies) Find us on Discord (https://discord.com/invite/Jw22CHfGwp) Get the new T-shirt design from Cotton Bureau (https://cottonbureau.com/products/can-o-content#/13435958/tee-men-standard-tee-vintage-black-tri-blend-s)! Get your Weird Studies merchandise (https://www.redbubble.com/people/Weird-Studies/shop?asc=u) (t-shirts, coffee mugs, etc.) Visit the Weird Studies Bookshop (https://bookshop.org/shop/weirdstudies) Buy the Weird Studies soundtrack (https://pierre-yvesmartel.bandcamp.com/album/weird-studies-music-from-the-podcast-vol-1) REFERENCES Roger Caillois, Man, Play, and Games (https://bookshop.org/a/18799/9780252070334) Johan Huizinga, Homo Ludens (https://bookshop.org/a/18799/9781621389996) Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations (https://bookshop.org/a/18799/9781405159289) Bernard Suits, The Grasshopper: Games, Life, and Utopia (https://bookshop.org/a/18799/9781554812158) Jobe Bittman, The Book of Antitheses US version (https://us.lotfp.com/store/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=87), EU version (http://www.lotfp.com/store/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=412) Weird Studies, Episode 6, Dungeons and Dragons (https://www.weirdstudies.com/6) Weird Studies, Episode 7, Boxing (https://www.weirdstudies.com/7) C. Thi Nguyen, Games: Agency as Art (https://bookshop.org/a/18799/9780190052089) Eduardo Vivieros de Castro, Cannibal Metaphysics (https://bookshop.org/a/18799/9781517905316) BF Skinner (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._F._Skinner), American psychologist Heraclitus, Fragments (https://bookshop.org/a/18799/9780142437650)

Episode 16 Austin KopackIn this episode we talk with Austin Kopack on Wittgenstein and the theology of metaphor. Book Recommendations:Wittgenstein's workshttps://www.goodreads.com/search?q=wittgenstein&qid=BIfbHLv4Jjhttps://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12073.Philosophical_Investigations?from_search=true&from_srp=true&qid=BIfbHLv4Jj&rank=3https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/762159.On_Certainty?from_search=true&from_srp=true&qid=BIfbHLv4Jj&rank=7Secondary Literaturehttps://www.goodreads.com/book/show/312955.Theology_After_Wittgenstein?from_search=true&from_srp=true&qid=5s96RaFgAj&rank=1https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/771742.God_Matters?ac=1&from_search=true&qid=UcI37U8n82&rank=2https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1994956.Multiple_Echo?from_search=true&from_srp=true&qid=7VMjSHXPDy&rank=1

"If I could talk with the animals, just imagine it..." In this week's podcast, we discuss what it would be like if we could indeed talk with animals. We consider the ethics of such conversations and try to work out what our non-human friends might be able to teach us. We also dive into topics such as language processing, communication and intelligence. A few things we mentioned in this podcast: - Are We on the Verge of Chatting with Whales? https://www.hakaimagazine.com/features/are-we-on-the-verge-of-chatting-with-whales/ - Philosophical Investigations by Wittgenstein https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54889e73e4b0a2c1f9891289/t/564b61a4e4b04eca59c4d232/1447780772744/Ludwig.Wittgenstein.-.Philosophical.Investigations.pdf - Wittgenstein and the Lion https://www.philosophy-foundation.org/blog/wittgenstein-and-the-lion - Arrival https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrival_(film) - Tardigrade Becomes First 'Quantum Entangled' Animal in History https://www.livescience.com/tardigrade-quantum-entangled-experiment For more information on Aleph Insights visit our website https://alephinsights.com or to get in touch about our podcast email podcast@alephinsights.com

Who the hell is…? brings you our new Biography Bites – compact biographies of the world's greatest thinkers.This episode tells the life story of Ludwig Wittgenstein. Regarded as the most important philosopher since Kant, Wittgenstein set out to solve all the major problems of philosophy, stating that these arise from misunderstandings of the logic of language. But who was Wittgenstein as a person? Part of a cultured and talented family, Ludwig was however, always uncomfortable in his own skin, contemplating suicide every day of his life. Disliked by some, admired by many, this brilliant man would spend his whole life preoccupied with philosophical problems.We hope you enjoy this episode and don't forget to look out for our other biography bites on the world's greatest thinkers! 

02:15 - David’s Superpower: Being Confused * Norms of Excellence (https://notebook.drmaciver.com/posts/2020-05-31-09:20.html) * The Inner Game of Tennis: The Classic Guide to the Mental Side of Peak Performance (https://www.amazon.com/Inner-Game-Tennis-Classic-Performance/dp/0679778314) 11:56 - Daily Writing * David’s Newsletter: Overthinking Everything (https://drmaciver.substack.com/) * Unfuck Your Habitat (https://www.unfuckyourhabitat.com/) 15:47 - Learning to Be Better at Emotions 23:22 - Achievement and Joy as Aspirational Goals * [Homeostasis vs Homeorhesis](https://wikidiff.com/homeostasis/homeorhesis#:~:text=is%20that%20homeostasis%20is%20(physiology,to%20a%20trajectory%2C%20as%20opposed) * Aspiration: The Agency of Becoming by Agnes Callard (https://www.amazon.com/Aspiration-Agency-Becoming-Agnes-Callard/dp/0190639482) * Seeing like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed by James C. Scott (https://www.amazon.com/Seeing-like-State-Certain-Condition/dp/0300078153/ref=sr_1_2?crid=HEYGC212F6SG&dchild=1&keywords=seeing+like+a+state+by+james+c+scott&qid=1613057768&s=books&sprefix=seeing+like+a+state%2Cstripbooks%2C164&sr=1-2) * Philosophical Investigations by Ludwig Wittgenstein (https://www.amazon.com/Philosophical-Investigations-Ludwig-Wittgenstein/dp/1405159286/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1JRUU030WBCWQ&dchild=1&keywords=philosophical+investigations&qid=1613058025&s=books&sprefix=philos%2Cstripbooks%2C209&sr=1-1) Reflections: Jessica: Trying not knowing yourself. Rein: You shouldn’t be the owner of all your desires. Instead, you should measure your life by how well you follow the intentions that arise out of your values. Jacob: Thinking of yourself as the sum of all of the habits you maintain or don’t. David: The [Homeostasis vs Homeorhesis](https://wikidiff.com/homeostasis/homeorhesis#:~:text=is%20that%20homeostasis%20is%20(physiology,to%20a%20trajectory%2C%20as%20opposed) distinction, and cleaning a home as an ongoing process. This episode was brought to you by @therubyrep (https://twitter.com/therubyrep) of DevReps, LLC (http://www.devreps.com/). To pledge your support and to join our awesome Slack community, visit patreon.com/greaterthancode (https://www.patreon.com/greaterthancode) To make a one-time donation so that we can continue to bring you more content and transcripts like this, please do so at paypal.me/devreps (https://www.paypal.me/devreps). You will also get an invitation to our Slack community this way as well. Transcript: SPONSORED AD: Whether you're working on a personal project or managing enterprise infrastructure, you deserve simple, affordable, and accessible cloud computing solutions that allow you to take your project to the next level. Simplify your cloud infrastructure with Linode's Linux virtual machines and develop, deploy, and scale your modern applications faster and easier. Get started on Linode today with $100 in free credit for listeners of Greater Than Code. You can find all the details at linode.com/greaterthancode. Linode has 11 global data centers and provides 24/7/365 human support with no tiers or hand-offs regardless of your plan size. In addition to shared and dedicated compute instances, you can use your $100 in credit on S3-compatible object storage, Managed Kubernetes, and more. Visit linode.com/greaterthancode and click on the "Create Free Account" button to get started. JACOB: Hello and welcome to Greater Than Code, Episode 223. My name is Jacob Stoebel and I'm joined with my co-host, Rein Henrichs. REIN: Thanks, Jacob and I'm here with my friend and also stranger because we haven't done this together in months, Jessica Kerr. JESSICA: Thank you, Rein! And Iím really excited today because our guest is David MacIver. Twitter handle, @DRMacIver. David MacIver is best known as the developer of Hypothesis, the property-based testing library for Python, and is currently doing a Ph.D. based on some of that work. But he also writes extensively about emotions, life, and society and sometimes coaches people on an eclectic mix of software development, intellectual, and emotional skills. As you can probably tell, David hasn't entirely decided what he wants to do when he grows u and that's the best because if you had decided well, then so few possibilities would be open. David, hello! DAVID: Hi, Jessica! Great to be here. JESSICA: All right. I'm going to ask the obligatory question. What is your superpower and how did you acquire it? DAVID: So as you saw me complaining about on Twitter, this question doesn't translate very well outside of the United States. JESSICA: Yeah, which is fascinating for me. DAVID: I'm a bit too British to say nice things about myself without sounding like I'm being self-deprecating. JESSICA: Self-depreciating it is! DAVID: [laughs] So I thought about this one for a while and I decided that the answer is that I'm really good at being confused and in particular, I have a much more productive response to being confused than it seems like most people do because basically, the world is super confusing and I think I never know what's going on, but then I notice that I know what's going on and I look at it and I'm just like, ìHmm, this is weird, right?î And then I read a book about it, or I sort of poke at it a bit and then I'm not less confused, but I'm less confused about that like, one little facet of the world and have found ten new things to be confused about. [laughter] JESSICA: Nice. DAVID: Usually, I can then turn this into being slightly better at the thing I was previously confused about, or writing about it and making everyone else differently confused than they started with. JESSICA: Definitely confused. That is a win. That's called learning. DAVID: Yeah, exactly. [laughter] This is where a lot of the writing you were talking about comes from and essentially, about 2 years ago, I just started turning these skills less on software development and more just going like, ìLife, it doesn't make sense, right?î [laughter] And noticing a whole bunch of things, I needed to work on and then that a lot of these were shared common problems. So I am, if anything, far more confused about all of it than I was 2 years ago, but I'm less confused about the things I was confused about that and seem to be gradually becoming a more functional human being as a result of the process. So yay, confusion. JESSICA: That superpower, the productive response to confusion, ties in with your reaction to the superpower question in general, which is as Americans, we're supposed to be ñ we want to have power. We want to be special. We want to be unique. We want to make our unique contribution to the world! And as part of that, we're not comfortable being confused because we need to know things! We need to be smart! We need to convey strength and competence and be the best! I hate the superlatives. [laughter] I hate the implied competition there, but instead, we could open our hearts to our own confusion and embrace that. Be comfortable being uncomfortable. DAVID: One of the things that often comes up for me is it's a thing that I think is slightly intentioned with this American tendency youíre pointing at, which is that I kind of want to be the best, but I don't really want to be better than other people. I just want to be better than I am now. I wrote a post a while ago about neuromas of excellence like, what would a community look like, which helped everyone be the best version of themselves and one of the top lists was basically that everyone has to be comfortable with not being good at things, but another is just that you have to not want to be better to the other people. You just need want to be better. Again, this is where a lot of the writing comes from. I've just gone, ìWell, this was helpful to me. It's probably helpful to other people.î That's not as sense of wanting to change the world and wanting to put my own stamp on things and it does require a certain amount to self-importance to go, ìYes, my writing is important and other people will like to read it,î but then other people like to read it so, that's fine and if they don't, that's fine, too. JESSICA: Well, you didn't make anyone read it, but you did start a newsletter and let people read it. JACOB: Is this weird thinking reflect a journey that you took in your life? Because I think about my company and my team and how incredibly generous everybody is and even still, I just find it's natural to compare myself to everyone else and needing to not be on the bottom. Part of me wonders if that's just like a natural human tendency, but just because it's natural doesn't make it so. JESSICA: Way natural American. JACOB: Yeah, basically I'm asking how do I stop doing that? [laughter] DAVID: It's definitely not something I've always been perfectly good at. But I think the thing that helped me figure out how to do this was essentially being simultaneously at the bottom of the social rung, but also super arrogant. So it's your classic nerd kit thing, right? It's completely failing at people, but also going, ìBut I'm better than all of you because I'm smart,î and then essentially, gradually having the rough edges filed off the second part and realizing how much I had to learn off the first part. I think sometimes my attitude is due to a lot of this is basically, to imagine I was a time traveler and basically going back in time and telling little David all the things that it was really frustrating that nobody could explain to me and I sadly haven't yet managed to perfect my time machine, but I can still pay it forward. If nobody was able to explain this to me and I'm able to explain it to other people, then surely, the world is a better place with me freely handing out this information. I don't think it's possible, or even entirely desirable to completely eliminate the comparing yourself to others and in fact, I'd go as far as to say, comparing yourself to others is good, but I think theÖ JESSICA: Itís how do we have a productive response to compare ourselves to others? DAVID: Yeah, absolutely. There's a great section in The Inner Game of Tennis, which is a book that I have very mixed feelings about, but it has some great bits where he talks about competition. If you think of a mountain climber, a mountain climber is basically pitting themselves against the mountain, right? They're trying to climb the mountain because it is hard and you could absolutely take a helicopter to the top of the mountain, but that wouldn't be the point. It's you're improving yourself by trying a hard thing. I mean, you're improving yourself in the sense that you're getting better at climbing mountains. You might not be improving yourself in any sort of fully generalizable way. JESSICA: Okay. [laughter] DAVID: When you are playing tennisóbecause this is a book about tennisóyou are engaged in competition with each other and you're each trying to be better than the other. In this context, essentially, what you are doing is you are being the mountain for each other. So you are creating the obstacles that the other people overcome and improve themselves that way and in doing this, you're not just being a dick about it. You're not doing this in order to crush them. You're doing this in order to provide them with the challenge that lets them grow. When you think about it this way, other people being better than you is great because there's this mountain there and you can climb it and by climbing the mountain, you can improve yourself. The thing that stops everyone becoming great is feeling threatened by the being better rather than treating it as an opportunity for learning. JESSICA: Yeah, trying to dynamite the mountain instead of climbing it. Whereas, when you are the mountain for someone else, you can also provide them footholds. Rein, do you have an example of this? REIN: I sure do, Jess. Thanks for asking. So I was just [laughs] thinking while you were talking about this, about the speed running and speed running communities. Because speed running is about testing yourself against a video game, which in this case, serves the purpose of the mountain, but it's also about competing against other speed runners. If it was purely competitive, you wouldn't see the behaviors, the reciprocity in the communities like sharing speed running strats, being really happy when other people break your record. I think it's really interesting that that community is both competitive, but there's also a lot of reciprocity, a lot of sharing. JACOB: And it's like the way the science community should work. It's like, ìOh, you made this new discovery because of this discovery I shared with you and now I'm proud that my discovery is this foundation for all these other little things that now people can be by themselves in 10 seconds instead of 30.î JESSICA: Yeah. Give other people a head start on the confusion you've already had so that they can start resolving new confusions. DAVID: Yeah, absolutely. Definitely one of my hopes with all of this writing is to encourage other people to do it themselves. Earlier this year, I was getting people very into daily writing practices and just trying to get people to write as much as possible. I now think that was slightly a mistake because I think daily writing is a great thing to do for about a month and then it just gets too much. So I will probably see if I can figure out other ways of encouraging people to notice their confusion, as you say, and share what they've learned from edge. But sadly, can't quite get into do it daily. JESSICA: This morningís newsletter you talked about. Okay, okay, I can do daily writing, but now I want to get better at writing. I've got to go do something I'm worse at. DAVID: Yeah, absolutely. I think daily writing is still a really good transitional stage for most people. To give them more context for this newsletter for people listening. Basically, most of my writing to date, I just write in a 1- or 2-hour sitting from start to finish. I don't really edit it. I just click publish and I've gotten very good at writing like that. I think that most people are ñ I mean, sometimes it's a bit obvious that I haven't edited it because they're obvious typos and the like. But by and large, I think it is a reasonably high standard of writing and I'm not embarrassed to be putting it out in that quality, but the fact that I'm not editing is just starting to be sort of the limiter on growth for me. It's never going to really get better than it currently is. It's certainly not going to allow me to tackle larger projects that I can currently tackle without that editing skill. JESSICA: [laughs] I just pictured you trying to sit down and write a book in one session. [laughter] And then you'd be tired. DAVID: Yeah. I've tried to doing that with papers even and it doesn't really work. I mean, I do edit papers, but Iím very visibly really bad at editing papers and it's one of my weaknesses as a academic is that I still haven't really got the hang of paper writing. JESSICA: Do you edit other people's papers? DAVID: I don't edit other people's papers, but I provide feedback on other people's writing and say, ìThis is what worked for me. This is what didn't work for me. Here are some typos you made.î It's not reading as providing good feedback on things, that is the difficult part of editing for me. It is much more ñ honestly, it's an emotional problem more than anything else. It's not really that I'm bad at editing at a technical level. I'm okay at editing at a technical level. I just hate doing it. [laughs] JESSICA: That is most problems we have, right? DAVID: Yeah. JESSICA: In the end, itís an emotional problem. DAVID: Yeah, absolutely. I think that is definitely one of the interesting things I've been figuring out in my last 2 years of working on learning more about emotions and the various skills around them is just going, ìOh, right. It's not this abstract thing where you are learning to be better at emotions and then nothing will change in your life because you're just going to be happier about everything.î I mean, some people do approach it that way, but for me, it's very much been, ìOh, I'm learning to be good at emotions because this really concrete problem that I don't understand, it turns out that that's just feelings.î [laughter] It's like, for example, the literature on how to have a clean home, turns out that's mostly anxiety management and guilt management. It's like fundamentally cleaning your home is not a hard problem. Not procrastinating on cleaning your home is a hard problem. Not feeling intensely guilty and aversive about the dirty dishes in the sink and is putting them off for a week. I don't do that. But just as a hypothetical example. [laughter] I mean, not a hypothetical example, I think a specific example that comes from the book, Unfuck Your Habitat, which is a great example of essentially, it's a book that's about it contains tips, like fill the spray bottle with water and white vinegar and also, tips about how to manage your time and how to deal with the fact that you're mostly not cleaning because of shame, that sort of thing. Writing books are another great example where 80% about managing the feelings associated with writing; it turns out practical problems pretty much all come down to emotionsóat least practical life problems. REIN: Sorry, I was just buying Unfuck Your Habitat real quick. [laughter] DAVID: It's a good book. I recommend it. JESSICA: Our internal like emotional habitat and our external habitat are very linked. You said something earlier about learning to be at emotions is not just you're magically happier at other things in your life change. DAVID: Yes. I mean, I think there are a couple of ways in which it manifests. One of them is just that emotions often are the internal force that maintains our life habits. It's you live in a particular way because moving outside of those trained habits is scary or aversive in some way. Like the cleaning example of how, if your home is a mess, it's not necessarily because you don't know how to make your home not a mess. Although, cleaning is a much harder skill than most people treat it as speaking as someone who is bad at the practical skills of cleaning, as well as the emotional side of cleaning. But primarily, if it were just a matter of scale, you could just do it and get better at it, right? The thing that is holding you in place is the emotional reaction to the idea of changing your habits. So the specific reason why I started on all of this process was essentially relationship stuff. I'd started a new major relationship. My previous one hadn't gone so well for reasons that were somewhere between emotional and communication issues, for the same reason basically every relationship doesn't go so well, if it doesn't go so ñ Oh, that's not quite true. Like there are actual ñ JESSICA: Some people have actual problems. [chuckles] But these things are. I mean, our emotions really, as sometimes we treat them as if they're flaws. As if our emotions are getting in our way is some sort of judgment about us as not being good people, but no, it just makes us people. DAVID: For sure. JESSICA: So you started on this journey because of the external motivation of helping someone you're in a relationship with, because it's really hard to do these things just for ourselves. DAVID: It is incredibly hard to do things just for ourselves. I guess, that is exactly an example of this problem, right? It's that there is a particular habit of life that I was in and what I needed to break out of that habit of life was the skills for dealing with it and then figuring out these emotional reactions. But unfortunately, the thing that the habits were maintaining, it was me not having the skills and so having the external prompts of a problem that was in the world rather than in my life, as it was, was what was needed to essentially kick me out of that. Fortunately, it turns out that my standard approach of reading a thousand books now was one that worked for me, in this case. I probably haven't read a thousand books on this, but that certainly worked. JESSICA: It wouldnít surprise me. [laughs] DAVID: I read fewer books than people think I do. I may well have read more than a hundred books about emotions and therapy and the like. But I probably haven't, unless I cast that brush really broadly, because I mean, everything's a book about emotions and therapy, if you look at your right. REIN: Have you read any books by average Virginia Satir? [laughter] DAVID: I don't know who that is, I'm afraid. JACOB: Drink! REIN: Excellent! Excellent news. [laughter] JESSICA: Itís about Virginia Satir, right? REIN: Virginia was a family therapist who wrote a lot about processing emotions and I have been a huge fan of her work and it's made a huge difference in my life and my career. So I highly recommend it. DAVID: Okay. I will definitely hear recommendations on books. What's the book title, or what's your favorite book title by? REIN: I think I would start with The Satir Model, which is S-A-T-I-R M-O-D-E-L. The Satir Model, which is about her family therapy model. JESSICA: Chances are good, you've read books based on her work. I was reading Gerry Weinberg's Quality Software Management: Volume Two the other day, which is entirely based on The Satir Model. REIN: Yeah. He was a student of hers. One of the things that she likes to say is that the problem is never the problem, how we cope is the problem. JESSICA: Can we have a productive response to the problem? DAVID: Yeah, that absolutely makes sense. I think often, the problem is also the problem. [laughter] JESSICA: It's often self-sustaining like the habits you're talking about. Our life habits form a self-sustaining system and then it took that external stimulus. It's not like an external stimulus somehow kicked you in the butt and changed you, it let you change yourself. DAVID: Yes, absolutely. I guess what I mean is ñ so let's continue with the cleaning example. The problem is that your flat is messy and your flat is messy because of these life habits, because your emotional reactions to all these things. If you do the appropriate emotional work, you unblock yourself on shame and anxiety around a messy flat, and you look around and you've saw you've processed all these emotions. You fixed how you respond to the problem and it turns out your flat is still messy and you still have to clean it. I think emotional reactions are what either ñ Iím making it sound like emotional reactions are all negative and I really don't mean that. I mean, that way is just ñ JESSICA: Oh, right because once you've dealt with all that shame and the anxiety and stuff, and maybe you've picked up your flat some, and then you come in and you have groceries and you stop and you immediately put them away and you get a positive, emotional feeling from that as you're in the process of keeping your flat tidy. The emotions can reinforce a clean flat as well. DAVID: Yeah, absolutely. I think this is something that has always been one of my goals more than it is what am I active? JESSICA: No, I love this distinction that you're making here. Is it a goal or is it something I'm activelyÖ? The word goal is [inaudible]. DAVID: Yeah. So I think for me, one of the other problems, other than the relationships it starts, was me essentially realizing that my emotional experience, it wasn't bad. I mean, it wasn't great, but I wasn't actively miserable most of the time, but it also just didn't have very many positive features, which it turns out is also a form of depression. It's very easy to treat depression as just like you're incredibly sad all the time, but that doesn't have to what it can be like flatness is. So I think very much from early on in my mind was that the getting better at emotions wasn't just about not being anxious. It was also about experiencing things like joy, it was about being happier and I think having this as sort of an aspirational goal is very, very motivating in terms of a lot of this work and in terms of a lot of trying to understand all of this, because I think I don't want to be miserableóit only gets you so far. If you have a problem that you're trying to solve, and that turns out to be an emotional block, you have to actually wants to solve the problem. It's like, I think if you don't want to clean the flat, then it doesn't matter how much you sort of fix your anxiety around that. You're still just going to go, ìOkay. I'm no longer anxious about this messy flat. That's great,î and your flat is going to stay messy because you don't actually want it not to be and that's fine. JESSICA: Itís just fine, yeah. Who cares? Especially now. DAVID: Unless it becomes a health hazard, but yeah. [laughter] DAVID: Certainly like thereís ñ JESSICA: If you're affecting the neighboring flats with your roaches, thatís fine. DAVID: [laughs] Yeah. JESSICA: So you were talking about joy as an aspirational goal, but it's not the kind of goal where you check the box at the end of the year and declare yourself worthy of a 2% raise. DAVID: [laughs] No, absolutely not and I think for all big goals, really, I find that I want to be very clichÈ and say, it's the journey, not the destination. JESSICA: But it is! No, it totally is! DAVID: Yeah. JESSICA: See, the word goal really irks me because people often use it to mean something that you should actually reach. Like write every day per month, that's a goal that you find benefits from hitting, but feelings of joy are, as you said, aspirational. I call it a quest, personally. Some people call it a North Star. It is a direction that can help you make decisions that will move you in that direction, but if you ever get thereÖ No, that doesn't make sense. You wouldn't want to exist in a perpetual state of joy. That would also be flat. [laughs] DAVID: No, absolutely. And I think even with big but achievable goals, it still is still quite helpful to treat them in this way. So for one, quite close to my heart right now, a goal of doing a Ph.D. I think you've got a 3-, 4-year long project in the States, I think it's more like 5 or 6 and if you treat the Ph.D. as it's pass/fail, like either you get the Ph.D. or those 3 or 4 years have been wasted, then that's not very motivating and also will result in, I think, worst quality results in work. Like the thing to do is ñ JESSICA: Like anxiety, stress, and shame. DAVID: Yeah. Yeah, very much so. [chuckles] So just thinking in terms of there's this big goal that you're trying to achieve of the Ph.D., but the goal doesn't just define a pass/fail; it defines a direction. Like if you get better at paper writing in order to get your Ph.D., then even if you don't get your Ph.D., you got better at paper writing and that's good, too. JESSICA: Because the other outcome is the next version of you. DAVID: Yes, exactly. JESSICA: Itís about who does this aspirational goal prompt you to become? REIN: This reminds me of the difference between homeostasis and homeorhesis. Homeostasis is about maintaining a state; homeorhesis is about maintaining a trajectory DAVID: That makes sense. Yes, very much that distinction and also, one of the nice things about this focus on a trajectory is that even if a third of the way through the trajectory, you decide you don't want to maintain it anymore and actually you're fine where you are. This goal was a bad idea or you've got different priorities now, possibly because a global pandemic has arrived and has changed all of your priorities. Then you still come all that way. It's like the trajectory doesn't just disappear backwards in time because you're no longer going in that direction. You've still made all that progress. Youíve still got to drive some of the benefits from it. JESSICA: Yeah. There's another thing that maybe it's an American thing, or maybe it's wider than that of if it doesn't last forever, then it was never real, or if you don't achieve the stated goal, then all your effort was wasted. DAVID: Yeah. I don't think itís purely an American thing. It's hard to tell with how much American pop culture permeates everything and also, I shouldn't say that although I'm quite British, I am also half American. So Iím a weird third culture kid where my background doesn't quite make sense to anyone. But yeah, no, I very much feel that. This idea that permanence is required for importance and it's something that every time I sort of catch myself there, I'm just like, ìYeah, David, you're doing the thing again. Have you tried not doing the thing?î [chuckles] But it's hard. It's very internalized. JESSICA: If you clean your flat and a week later, it's dirty again. Well, it was clean for a week. That's not nothing. DAVID: Yeah. I do genuinely think that one of the emotions that people struggle with cleaning. Certainly, it is for me. JESSICA: Oh, because it's a process. It is not a destination. Nothing is ever clean! DAVID: Yeah. JACOB: I think of myself sometimes as I want to be the kind of person that always has a clean home, as opposed to, I like it when my house is clean. JESSICA: Yeah. Is it about you or is it about some real effect you want? JACOB: Yeah. Is it about like the story that that I imagine I could project if I could project on Instagram because I'm taking pictures of my pristine house all the time, or is it just like, I like to look around and see things where they belong? DAVID: Yeah. I'm curious, does this result in your home being clean? JACOB: No, it doesnít and thatís sort of the issue that I'm just realizing is it's not actually a powerful motivator because it's just not possible trying to imagine that I could maintain homeostasis about it. It's not a possible goal and so yeah, it's not going to happen. REIN: Yeah. The metaphor here is it changes motion, but it's always happening so it's more like the flow of time than motion through space. JESSICA: Itís not motion, too. REIN: Actually staying the same is very hard to do and very expensive. DAVID: Absolutely. JESSICA: No wonder it takes all of our feelings to help us achieve it. [chuckles] DAVID: So the reason I was asking by the way about whether this idea of being the sort of person who has a clean home is effective is that this ties in a little bit to what today's newsletter was about. There's this problem where when you have self-images that are constructed around being good at particular things, being bad at those things is very much, it's a shame trigger. It's essentially, you experienced the world as clashing with your conception of yourself and we get really good at not noticing those things. You see this a lot with procrastination, for example, where you are putting off doing a thing because it does force you to confront this sort of conflict between identity and reality. I think sometimes, the way out of it is just to identify less with the things that we want to achieve in the world and just try and go, ìI'm doing this because I want to and if I didn't want to, that would be fine, too.î Essentially, becoming fine with both an outcome and failing to achieve that outcome is often the best way to achieve the outcome. JESSICA: So practicing editing in order to practice editing, whether you achieve writing a book or not, whether you're good at it or not, and it does come back to the journey. If what you're doing is a means to an end and yet not in line with that end, it often backfires because the means are the end. In the end, they become it. So having a clean house is stupid. That's not a thing. Picking up is a thing. That's something you can do and what I am picking up. True fact! [laughs] You don't have to worry about whether you can, are you doing it? All right then, you can! Whereas, having a clean house is not a thing. DAVID: Very much. This kind of ties into the comments about books earlier, where you were talking about how many books I read, and one of the things that I think very much stops people from reading books is the idea that oh God, there are so many books to read, I'll never get through all of them. JESSICA: If I started, I have to finish it. DAVID: Oh, yeah. I mean, people definitely shouldn't do that; books are there to be abandoned if they're bad. JESSICA: I read a lot of chapter ones. DAVID: Yeah. I have a slightly bad habit of buying books speculatively because they seem good and as a result, I think my shelf of books that I'm probably never going to get around to read, but might do someday and might not and either is fine is probably like a hundred plus books now. JESSICA: I love that shelf. I have big piles everywhere. [laughs] There's always something to read wherever I sit and most of it, I will never read, but it's beautiful. DAVID: I'm currently in a very weird experience where I write, for possibly the first time in my life, I have more bookshelf space than books. JESSICA: Huh, that's not a stable state. DAVID: No, no. This will be fixed by the time I leave this flat. The piles will return. JESSICA: You will maintain the trajectory. DAVID: Yeah. [laughs] Because I'm just reading. I can read these as many books because I just sit down and read and at some point, I will finish a book or I will abandon the book and both are fine. But I think if you treat this as a goal where your goal is to read all the books, then that's not the thing and also, I think people go, ìMy goal is to read a hundred books a year,î or I don't know how normal people guesstimates are. JESSICA: Itís like, is it really or itís their goal to learn something. DAVID: Yeah, exactly. JESSICA: And the means is reading books. DAVID: Yeah. I think if one instead just goes, ìI like reading and it's useful so I'm going to read books,î you'll probably end up reading a lot more than setting some specific numerical goal. Also, you run into sort of Goodhart's law things where if your goal is to read a hundred books in a year, great buy the Mr. Men set. But wait, it's not a thing in ñ the Mr. Men are a series of kidsí books which tells ñ JESSICA: With the big smiley face? DAVID: Yeah. Exactly, that's the one. [laughter] You can read a hundred of those in a weekóI assume there are hundred Mr. Men books, I don't actually knowóand youíll probably learn something. JESSICA: Then again, you might choose Dynamics in Action, never get through it, and then feel bad about it, and that would be pointless because you learned more from the introduction than you did from the Mr. Men series. DAVID: I don't think I've even opened my copy of Dynamics in Action. I think you recommended on Twitter or something and I was just like, ìThat does sound interesting. I will speculatively buy this book.î JESSICA: It's a hard book. DAVID: Yeah. It's far from the hardest book on my shelves, but it's definitely in the top. I'm going to confidently say top 20, but it might be harder than that. I just haven't done a comparative analysis and I don't want to overpromise. [laughter] JESSICA: The point being read books because you want to know. DAVID: Yeah. JESSICA: Or sometimes because you want to have read them. That's the thing. There's a lot of things I may not want to pick up, but I do want to have picked up and I can use that to motivate me. DAVID: Yeah, and even then, there are two versions of that and both are good, actually. I think one of them sounds bad. One version is you want to have read it because you want to understand the material in it and the other one is just, you want to be able to say that you have read it and thus, you ñ and probably for the status game and also, just sort of as a box ticking, like I think ñ JESSICA: Oh, itís not completely wrong. DAVID: No, it's not completely wrong. JESSICA: You still get something out of it. DAVID: Yeah. JESSICA: On the other hand, if you want to read it because you want to be the kind of person who would read it. I don't know about that one. DAVID: Yeah, I agree. I thinkÖ JESSICA: Then again, life habits. Sometimes, if you want to be the kind of person who picks up and so you fake it long enough to form the habit, then you are. DAVID: Yeah, absolutely and I read a book recentlyóof course, I didóby Agnes Callard called Aspiration, which I'm glad I read it. I cannot really recommend it to people who aren't philosophers, because there's a thing that often happens with reading analytic philosophy, where the author clearly has a keen insight into an important problem that you, as the reader, lack and the way they express that insight is through an entire bookís worth of slightly pedantic arguments with other analytic philosophers who have wrong opinions about the subjects. JESSICA: Half of Dynamics in Action is like that. DAVID: Yeah, I think it very complicated. REIN: Was it written as a thesis? DAVID: I don't think so. I'm not certain about that, but it might've been. It ended up being quite an influential book and I think she was mentioning that there's going to be a special issue of a journal coming out to recently about essentially, its impact and responses to it. But I think it's just genuinely that analytic philosophers had a lot of really wrong opinions about this subject. So the relevance of this is the idea she introduces the book is that of a proleptic value where ñ JESSICA: Proleptic, more words. DAVID: Proleptic basically, I think originally comes from grammar and it means something that stands in place for another thing. A proleptic value is what you do when you're engaged in a process of aspiration, which is trying to acquire values that you don't currently have. So she uses the example of a music student who wants to learn to appreciate the genre of music that they do not currently appreciate and they find a teacher who does appreciate that genre and they basically use their respect for that teacher as a proleptic value. They basically say, ìI don't currently value this genre of music, but I trust your judgment and I value your opinion and I will use your feedback and that respect for you as a value that stands in place of the future value of appreciating this genre of music that I hope to acquire.î So I think this thing of reading a book because you want to be the sort of person who reads that kind of book can have a similar function where even though, you don't really wants to read the book, that process of aspiration gives you a hook into becoming the sort of person who does want to read the book. JESSICA: That's like being the mountain for each other. DAVID: Yeah. JESSICA: In some ways. You're not going to get a view yet. You're only 10 feet off the ground, but meanwhile, just climb to climb because it's here. DAVID: Yeah. I'm not necessarily very good at being the sort of person reading books for this reason. Partly because there are so many books, I have so many other reasons to read, but yeah. JESSICA: Yeah, you're fine. You don't need more reasons to read a book. DAVID: [laughs] But I think two books that I have read mostly to have read them rather than necessarily because I was having an amazing time and learning lots of things reading them are Seeing Like a State by James Scott, which it's a good book. I don't think it's a bad book, but it is very much a history book that also has a big idea and there are like 70,000 blog posts about the big idea. So if you're going and wanting just the big idea, read one of the blog posts, but I'd seen a reference so many times and I was just like, ìYou know, this seems like a book that I should rate,î and my opinion is now basically that like, if you like history books and if you want lots of detail, then yeah, it's a great book to read. If you just want the big idea, donít. JESSICA: Right, because other people have presented it more succinctly, which probably happens with your Aspiration book that you talked about. DAVID: I would like it to happen with the Aspiration book. The Aspiration book is only a few years old. JESSICA: You've written a ñ oh, okay, so it's too soon for that. So you'll write about it, if you haven't yet. DAVID: Yeah, I havenít yet. Looking at it, it was published in 2018 and you have the paperback from 2019. So this is really cutting-edge philosophy to the degree that there is such a thing. [chuckles] JESSICA: Yeah. Oh no, what do you mean? [inaudible]. REIN: Seeing Like a State is. DAVID: Well, I've had this argument with philosopher friends where I was arguing that it was a thing and the philosopher friend was just like, ìIs it a thing, though?î Because the interesting thing about philosophy is just that it never goes out to date. People are sort of engaging with the entire historical cannon so the question is not does new philosophy get done? The question is more, I think is this less ñ? JESSICA: This isnít really a cutting edge. DAVID: Yeah, exactly. JESSICA: Itís more kind of a gentle nuzzling. DAVID: [laughs] Yeah. But also, is this more cutting edge than, I don't know, reading Aristotle's Nicomachean ethics? I don't know. JESSICA: Philosophy [inaudible]. DAVID: Yeah, I personally think that there is cutting-edge and this is on it, but plenty of room for philosophical dialogue on that subject if you can sort of dig Socrates up and ask him about it. [laughter] Yeah, and speaking of philosophy, the other book that I have read essentially to have read it rather than because I was getting a lot out of it was Wittgensteinís Philosophical Investigations where I essentially read it in order to confirm to myself that I had already picked up enough Wittgenstein by osmosis that I didn't really need to read it, which largely true. JACOB: This is the part of the show where we like to reflect on what we took from everything and just wrap things up a little bit. JESSICA: I have one thing written down. We talked a bit about who you are and who you want to be as a person, and how sometimes what you want to do is in conflict with how you think of yourself. Like, when you think of yourself as good at something, it's hard to be bad at it, long enough to learn better. It occurs to me that in our society, we're all about getting to know yourself and then expressing your true self, which is very much a homeostasis more than a homerhesis. But what have we tried not knowing yourself? What if we tried just like, I don't know who I am and then I can surprise myself and have more possibilities. That's my reflection. REIN: All of this discussion about happiness and pleasure, and diversion and striving reminds me a lot of Buddhist philosophy, or what I should say is, it reminds me a lot of my very limited understanding of Buddhist philosophy. Specifically, this idea that you shouldn't judge your life by the outcome of your preferences; that you shouldn't identify yourself with your wants and cling to the outcome of things. You can acknowledge that these things have happened and you can avoid unpleasant things, but you shouldn't be the owner of all of your desires. Instead, what you should do is measure your life by how well you follow the intentions that arise out of your values. JACOB: Yeah. Maybe to put another way, I'm starting to think maybe I could think of myself as the sum of all of the habits I maintain or don't, and try to think of outcome of those habits as what a lagging indicator, I guess, or as a secondary and think more of myself like, ìWell, what are the things that I find I am naturally doing and if I'm not, what can I do to just try to enforce it for myself that I'm going to do that more?î Or maybe I don't care. DAVID: So I'm not finding myself with sort of a single cohesive summation of the conversation, but I've really enjoyed it and there's been a couple of things I'm going to take away from it and mull over a bit more. I really liked the homeostasis versus homeorhesis distinction. I'd obviously heard the first word, but not the second word and so, I'm going to think about that a bit more. Sort of tying onto that, I very much liked Jessica's point of how a clean home isn't really a thing, you can only do cleaning and thinking much more in terms of the ongoing process than trying to think of it as a static goal that you are perfectly maintaining at all times. Slightly orthogonal in relation to that, but I'm also just going to look up Satir as an author and maybe read some of her books. [chuckles] REIN: Yay! DAVID: Because as we have established, always up for more reading. [laughs] JACOB: That should wrap up our Episode 223. I'd like to thank David for joining us and weíll see you next time. Special Guest: David MacIver.

At the start of today’s podcast, we got an update on the Feeling Great app from Jeremy Karmel. We are looking for one or more programmers who might like to join our project. Our goal is to create the first electronic tool that can outperform human therapists, and some super promising preliminary data suggests we may be on the right path to make this happen. We are looking for talented engineers and designers who would share our passion for this incredible dream. If you are interested, contact Jeremy@FeelingGreatapp.com Today we are joined by our beloved and brilliant colleague, Dr. Jill Levitt to ask two questions: Can the “self” be judged? Does the “self” exist? We got quite a bit of positive feedback to a recent Ask David Podcast that included a question about Buddhism, but people said they wanted more on the topic of the “great death” of the self. Bottom line was this: You can judge your own or someone else’s specific thoughts and actions, but you cannot judge your (or somebody else’s) “self.” The question, “does the ‘self’ exist,” is meaningless. The goal of therapy is not to get promoted from the “worthless” to the “worthwhile” category, but to reject these categories as having no meaning. David argues that it is impossible to feel depressed without the distortions of Overgeneralization and Labeling—that where you jump from a specific flaw or problem, like getting rejected by your boyfriend to some abstract label or judgment, like thinking you are “unloveable.” We also used the real-life example of David responding to criticisms that he was too harsh with Steven Hayes on Episode 220. We show how TEAM therapy works, and illustrate several techniques for crushing the Negative Thoughts that lead to the painful negative thoughts that including Overgeneralization and Labeling, including: Empathy Positive Reframing Externalization of Voices Be Specific Acceptance Paradox Feared Fantasy We also focused on the concept of “laughing enlightenment,” a key Buddhist concept, along with the “great death” of the self. When you lose your “self,” you actually lose nothing, because there was nothing there in the first place. This is a kind of cosmic joke. But you inherit the world and gain liberation from your suffering, along with great joy, and of course, sadness as well. We also summarized the thinking of Ludwig Wittgenstein, arguably the greatest philosopher of all time, and how his sudden insight when a soccer ball hit him in the head transformed the history of philosophy. He was an extremely lonely man who had numerous episodes of depression, and never attempted to publish anything when he was alive, because only a handful of students and colleagues could understand what he was trying to say. This was intensely frustrating to him, because his message was so simple, clear, and basic—and yet the great philosophers could not grasp it. The Buddha had the same problem. The book, Philosophical Investigations was published in 1950, right after his death. It is just a series of numbered paragraphs, or brief comments, on different everyday themes, like bricklayers, string, games, and so forth. It is was based on a metal box they found under his bed, which contained notes from his weekly seminars at Cambridge. Many people, including myself, consider it as the greatest book in the history of philosophy, and think of Wittgenstein as the man who killed, or ended, philosophy. According to Wikipedia, the famed British philosopher, Bertrand Russell, described Wittgenstein as "perhaps the most perfect example I have ever known of genius as traditionally conceived; passionate, profound, intense, and dominating." Although Wittgenstein did not focus emotional problems, his solution to all the problems of philosophy is very similar to cognitive therapy. Here is the parallel: You don’t try to solve the classic “free will” problem. Instead, you see through it and give it up as nonsensical, as language that's "out of gear," so to speak. Once you “see this,” and understand why it is true, it is incredibly liberating. But it can be a lonely experience, because you suddenly “see” something super-obvious that seems to be invisible to 99.9% of humans. It's as if you had a "third eye," and could see something incredible that people with only two eyes cannot see. By the same token, when you suddenly “see” that the idea that you have a “self” which could be “superior” or “inferior” is nonsensical, it is also incredibly liberating. This, in fact, is the cognitive therapy version of spiritual “enlightenment.” And that's also one of the goals of the TEAM-CBT that my collegues and I have created. Jill, Rhonda, and David

Noam Chomsky in his only Ask Me Anything in years. Video version here: https://youtu.be/pUWmTXkpHjE Links to what's been mentioned in the video are below (scroll).00:00:00 Introduction00:02:03 What do Gödel's incompleteness theorems say about mathematical realism / linguistics? (Prof. Rebecca Goldstein)00:04:25 Progress on the science of consciousness? (Prof. Anil Seth)00:09:52 Modern Ptolemaic models in science00:11:29 Analyzing infinitival phrases (Prof. Daniel Bonevac)00:14:38 Are there units of culture, like memes? (Prof. Joseph Velikovsky)00:21:55 Extralinguistic experiences being fathomed only through linguistics? (Andres Zuleta)00:25:16 Can you perceive a thought even if you don't verbally express it? (Rivulet)00:27:37 Is there a Chomskyan pre-grammar for religion like Eric Weinstein suggests? (Aro Own)00:33:52 On Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations and its influence on Chomsky (Jack McGreevy)00:39:51 Conscious volition vs. unconscious "wiring" in relation to free will (Joel Suro)00:44:51 Is mathematics itself the domain of all languages? (Boris Costello)00:46:33 Is language created from the top down (enforcement from authorities) or bottom up ("the people")?00:49:47 Social constructionism vs. Chomsky00:51:47 Jung's archetypes' relationship to Chomskyan grammar00:54:02 Bakunin, freedom, language, and human nature00:57:51 What revolutionary words / phrases have we forgotten that we should re-learn?00:58:39 How has Chomsky's views on universal grammar changed since he conceived it?01:08:13 Change vs. Evolution (variation, replication, selection)01:15:12 The invention of terms like LatinX and BIPOC, etc. Is there something different about them?01:17:14 The Sapir Whorf hypothesisPatreon for conversations on Theories of Everything, Consciousness, Free Will, and God: https://patreon.com/curtjaimungalHelp support conversations like this via PayPal: https://bit.ly/2EOR0M4Twitter: https://twitter.com/TOEwithCurtiTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/better-left-unsaid-with-curt-jaimungal/id1521758802Pandora: https://pdora.co/33b9lfPSpotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b92xAErofYQA7bU4eGoogle Podcasts: https://play.google.com/music/listen?u=0#/ps/Id3k7k7mfzahfx2fjqmw3vufb44iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/better-left-unsaid-with-curt-jaimungal/id1521758802* * *Rebecca Goldstein's interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkL3BcKEB6YAnil Seth's interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hUEqXhDbVsAnil Seth's twitter: https://twitter.com/anilksethDaniel Bonevac's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/PhiloofAlexandriaEric Weinstein interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KElq_MLO1kw* * *Subscribe if you want more conversations on Theories of Everything, Consciousness, Free Will, God, and the mathematics / physics of each.* * *I'm producing an imminent documentary Better Left Unsaid http://betterleftunsaidfilm.com on the topic of "when does the left go too far?" Visit that site if you'd like to contribute to getting the film distributed (early-2021).

In today’s podcast, we discuss a few of the many differences between Feeling Good, my first book, and my new book, Feeling Great, which was just released. We also discuss some of the differences between the cognitive therapy that I launched in Feeling Good, and the powerful new TEAM therapy that I feature in Feeling Great. I wrote Feeling Great because there’s been a radical and enormous evolution of the treatment methods and theories in the 40 years that have elapsed since I first published Feeling Good in 1980. I now have many more techniques than I had then, and there’s been with a radical development in my understanding of the causes of depression. I also have new ideas about the most effective treatment techniques, based on my clinical experience since I wrote Feeling Good (more than 40,000 hours treating individuals with severe depression and anxiety), as well as fresh insights about what's important, and what's not, based on four decades of my research on how psychotherapy really works. Rhonda asks many questions about the unique features of TEAM including the new T = Testing techniques, the new E = Empathy techniques, the A = Assessment of Resistance techniques, as well as the M = Methods. Rhonda is particularly curious about the four “Great Deaths” of the therapist’s ego in TEAM therapy, which correspond to the four TEAM components of TEAM, as well as the four “Great Deaths” of the patient’s ego, which correspond to recovery from depression, anxiety, relationship problems, and habits and addictions. One of the goals of TEAM is not simply the complete and rapid elimination of the symptoms of depression and anxiety, but the development of personal enlightenment and the experience of great joy and a deeper appreciation of life. Toward the end of the podcast, David tearfully talks about the life of his hero, Ludwig Wittgenstein, who is viewed by many as the greatest philosopher of all time, and David, a philosophy major when he was a student at Amherst College, would definitely agree with this assessment. But Wittgenstein was very lonely, and prone to depression, because very few people understood his ground-breaking contributions when he was still alive. In fact, it was thought that only five or six people in the world “got it.” Part of the problem is that what he was saying was so basic and obvious that most people just could grasp it, or the extraordinarily profound implications of his work. His depression and loneliness, sadly, perhaps also resulted from the fact that he was gay, and living at a time when this was far less acceptable than it is today. He never published anything when he was alive, because when he was depressed, he thought he'd made no meaningful or enduring contributions. However, his remarkable book, Philosophical Investigations was published in 1950, following his death, and was soon regarded as the greatest book in the history of philosophy. Because of that book, David gave up his goal of a career in philosophy, since Wittgenstein wanted all of his students to give up philosophy and do something practical instead. So that’s what I did! My only regret is never having the chance to meet Wittgenstein and tell him, “I got it!” and thank him for his incredible contributions. If you want to learn more, check out the short read by his favorite student, Norman Malcolm, who wrote “Ludwig Wittgenstein: A Memoir.” I cry like a baby every time I read the book, and tears come to my eyes when I even look at the book, which is proudly displayed in my office. If you ever visit me at home, make sure you check out the  book. I feel so fortunate to be able to work with Rhonda and bring my message to so many of you every week. Thank you for your support!  [Note from Rhonda:  I feel extremely honored to work with David and be a part of bringing David's message, and the TEAM therapy model to our listeners!] David and Rhonda

Austrian-born British philosopher, regarded by many as the greatest philosopher of the 20th century. Wittgenstein’s two major works, Logisch-philosophische Abhandlung (1921; Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 1922) and Philosophische Untersuchungen (published posthumously in 1953; Philosophical Investigations), have inspired a vast secondary literature and have done much to shape subsequent developments in philosophy, especially within the analytic tradition. His charismatic personality has, in addition, exerted a powerful fascination upon artists, playwrights, poets, novelists, musicians, and even filmmakers, so that his fame has spread far beyond the confines of academic life.

This week, Jim and Aaron discuss: 3:10 - What did we miss with Joe Biden's conversation with Trevor Noah 16:00 - How can you be oppressed and the oppressor? 25:00 - BIPOC 32:50 - What is Latinx? 47:10 - Trump's Speech at Mt. Rushmore 1:00:00 - What do these confederate statues represent? From this episode: Philosophical Investigations (3rd edition) (Ludwig Wittgenstein) - https://www.amazon.com/Philosophical-Investigations-3rd-Ludwig-Wittgenstein/dp/0024288101#ace-g2093936695 Assata Shakur "Women in Prison" - https://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/shakurwip.html All Amendments to the US Constitution: http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/education/all_amendments_usconst.htm 13th (full movie) "Ava DuVernay's examination of the U.S. prison system looks at how the country's history of racial inequality drives the high rate of incarceration in America" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krfcq5pF8u8 Be sure to rate, share, and subscribe

Professor Kozlowski closes out the semester by discussing excerpts from Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations.

https://ia601401.us.archive.org/5/items/episode74.philosophicalinvestigationsofprecrimethanksgiving112619/Episode%2074.mp3 Alberotle, Steveocrates and Paulato put on their mind-altering thinking caps and investigate the philosophical implications of Precrime as depicted by Philip K. Dick in his... [[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

Columbia University press has just released a new translation of a work by philosopher Alexandre Kojève, simply titled Atheism, translated by Professor Jeff Love. Considered to be one of the twentieth century's most brilliant and unconventional thinkers, Kojève was a Russian émigré to France whose lectures on Hegel in the 1930s galvanized a generation of French intellectuals. Although Kojève wrote a great deal, he published very little in his lifetime, and so the ongoing rediscovery of his work continues to present new challenges to philosophy and political theory. Written in 1931 but left unfinished, Atheism is an erudite and open-ended exploration of profound questions of estrangement, death, suicide, and the infinite that demonstrates the range and the provocative power of Kojève's thought. Ranging across Heidegger, Buddhism, Christianity, German idealism, Russian literature, and mathematics, Kojève advances a novel argument about freedom and authority. He investigates the possibility that there is not any vantage point or source of authority—including philosophy, science, or God—that is outside or beyond politics and the world as we experience it. The question becomes whether atheism—or theism—is even a meaningful position since both affirmation and denial of God's existence imply a knowledge that seems clearly outside our capacities. Masterfully translated by Jeff Love, this book offers a striking new perspective on Kojève's work and its implications for theism, atheism, politics, and freedom. Jeff Love is Research Professor of German and Russian at Clemson University in South Carolina. His publications include books on Tolstoy, Heidegger, Nietzsche, and Dostoevsky, as well as a translation of Friedrich Schelling's Philosophical Investigations into the Essence of Human Freedom. Carrie Lynn Evans is a PhD student at Université Laval in Quebec City.

Columbia University press has just released a new translation of a work by philosopher Alexandre Kojève, simply titled Atheism, translated by Professor Jeff Love. Considered to be one of the twentieth century’s most brilliant and unconventional thinkers, Kojève was a Russian émigré to France whose lectures on Hegel in the 1930s galvanized a generation of French intellectuals. Although Kojève wrote a great deal, he published very little in his lifetime, and so the ongoing rediscovery of his work continues to present new challenges to philosophy and political theory. Written in 1931 but left unfinished, Atheism is an erudite and open-ended exploration of profound questions of estrangement, death, suicide, and the infinite that demonstrates the range and the provocative power of Kojève’s thought. Ranging across Heidegger, Buddhism, Christianity, German idealism, Russian literature, and mathematics, Kojève advances a novel argument about freedom and authority. He investigates the possibility that there is not any vantage point or source of authority—including philosophy, science, or God—that is outside or beyond politics and the world as we experience it. The question becomes whether atheism—or theism—is even a meaningful position since both affirmation and denial of God’s existence imply a knowledge that seems clearly outside our capacities. Masterfully translated by Jeff Love, this book offers a striking new perspective on Kojève’s work and its implications for theism, atheism, politics, and freedom. Jeff Love is Research Professor of German and Russian at Clemson University in South Carolina. His publications include books on Tolstoy, Heidegger, Nietzsche, and Dostoevsky, as well as a translation of Friedrich Schelling’s Philosophical Investigations into the Essence of Human Freedom. Carrie Lynn Evans is a PhD student at Université Laval in Quebec City. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Columbia University press has just released a new translation of a work by philosopher Alexandre Kojève, simply titled Atheism, translated by Professor Jeff Love. Considered to be one of the twentieth century’s most brilliant and unconventional thinkers, Kojève was a Russian émigré to France whose lectures on Hegel in the 1930s galvanized a generation of French intellectuals. Although Kojève wrote a great deal, he published very little in his lifetime, and so the ongoing rediscovery of his work continues to present new challenges to philosophy and political theory. Written in 1931 but left unfinished, Atheism is an erudite and open-ended exploration of profound questions of estrangement, death, suicide, and the infinite that demonstrates the range and the provocative power of Kojève’s thought. Ranging across Heidegger, Buddhism, Christianity, German idealism, Russian literature, and mathematics, Kojève advances a novel argument about freedom and authority. He investigates the possibility that there is not any vantage point or source of authority—including philosophy, science, or God—that is outside or beyond politics and the world as we experience it. The question becomes whether atheism—or theism—is even a meaningful position since both affirmation and denial of God’s existence imply a knowledge that seems clearly outside our capacities. Masterfully translated by Jeff Love, this book offers a striking new perspective on Kojève’s work and its implications for theism, atheism, politics, and freedom. Jeff Love is Research Professor of German and Russian at Clemson University in South Carolina. His publications include books on Tolstoy, Heidegger, Nietzsche, and Dostoevsky, as well as a translation of Friedrich Schelling’s Philosophical Investigations into the Essence of Human Freedom. Carrie Lynn Evans is a PhD student at Université Laval in Quebec City. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Columbia University press has just released a new translation of a work by philosopher Alexandre Kojève, simply titled Atheism, translated by Professor Jeff Love. Considered to be one of the twentieth century’s most brilliant and unconventional thinkers, Kojève was a Russian émigré to France whose lectures on Hegel in the 1930s galvanized a generation of French intellectuals. Although Kojève wrote a great deal, he published very little in his lifetime, and so the ongoing rediscovery of his work continues to present new challenges to philosophy and political theory. Written in 1931 but left unfinished, Atheism is an erudite and open-ended exploration of profound questions of estrangement, death, suicide, and the infinite that demonstrates the range and the provocative power of Kojève’s thought. Ranging across Heidegger, Buddhism, Christianity, German idealism, Russian literature, and mathematics, Kojève advances a novel argument about freedom and authority. He investigates the possibility that there is not any vantage point or source of authority—including philosophy, science, or God—that is outside or beyond politics and the world as we experience it. The question becomes whether atheism—or theism—is even a meaningful position since both affirmation and denial of God’s existence imply a knowledge that seems clearly outside our capacities. Masterfully translated by Jeff Love, this book offers a striking new perspective on Kojève’s work and its implications for theism, atheism, politics, and freedom. Jeff Love is Research Professor of German and Russian at Clemson University in South Carolina. His publications include books on Tolstoy, Heidegger, Nietzsche, and Dostoevsky, as well as a translation of Friedrich Schelling’s Philosophical Investigations into the Essence of Human Freedom. Carrie Lynn Evans is a PhD student at Université Laval in Quebec City. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Columbia University press has just released a new translation of a work by philosopher Alexandre Kojève, simply titled Atheism, translated by Professor Jeff Love. Considered to be one of the twentieth century’s most brilliant and unconventional thinkers, Kojève was a Russian émigré to France whose lectures on Hegel in the 1930s galvanized a generation of French intellectuals. Although Kojève wrote a great deal, he published very little in his lifetime, and so the ongoing rediscovery of his work continues to present new challenges to philosophy and political theory. Written in 1931 but left unfinished, Atheism is an erudite and open-ended exploration of profound questions of estrangement, death, suicide, and the infinite that demonstrates the range and the provocative power of Kojève’s thought. Ranging across Heidegger, Buddhism, Christianity, German idealism, Russian literature, and mathematics, Kojève advances a novel argument about freedom and authority. He investigates the possibility that there is not any vantage point or source of authority—including philosophy, science, or God—that is outside or beyond politics and the world as we experience it. The question becomes whether atheism—or theism—is even a meaningful position since both affirmation and denial of God’s existence imply a knowledge that seems clearly outside our capacities. Masterfully translated by Jeff Love, this book offers a striking new perspective on Kojève’s work and its implications for theism, atheism, politics, and freedom. Jeff Love is Research Professor of German and Russian at Clemson University in South Carolina. His publications include books on Tolstoy, Heidegger, Nietzsche, and Dostoevsky, as well as a translation of Friedrich Schelling’s Philosophical Investigations into the Essence of Human Freedom. Carrie Lynn Evans is a PhD student at Université Laval in Quebec City. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Columbia University press has just released a new translation of a work by philosopher Alexandre Kojève, simply titled Atheism, translated by Professor Jeff Love. Considered to be one of the twentieth century’s most brilliant and unconventional thinkers, Kojève was a Russian émigré to France whose lectures on Hegel in the 1930s galvanized a generation of French intellectuals. Although Kojève wrote a great deal, he published very little in his lifetime, and so the ongoing rediscovery of his work continues to present new challenges to philosophy and political theory. Written in 1931 but left unfinished, Atheism is an erudite and open-ended exploration of profound questions of estrangement, death, suicide, and the infinite that demonstrates the range and the provocative power of Kojève’s thought. Ranging across Heidegger, Buddhism, Christianity, German idealism, Russian literature, and mathematics, Kojève advances a novel argument about freedom and authority. He investigates the possibility that there is not any vantage point or source of authority—including philosophy, science, or God—that is outside or beyond politics and the world as we experience it. The question becomes whether atheism—or theism—is even a meaningful position since both affirmation and denial of God’s existence imply a knowledge that seems clearly outside our capacities. Masterfully translated by Jeff Love, this book offers a striking new perspective on Kojève’s work and its implications for theism, atheism, politics, and freedom. Jeff Love is Research Professor of German and Russian at Clemson University in South Carolina. His publications include books on Tolstoy, Heidegger, Nietzsche, and Dostoevsky, as well as a translation of Friedrich Schelling’s Philosophical Investigations into the Essence of Human Freedom. Carrie Lynn Evans is a PhD student at Université Laval in Quebec City. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Columbia University press has just released a new translation of a work by philosopher Alexandre Kojève, simply titled Atheism, translated by Professor Jeff Love. Considered to be one of the twentieth century’s most brilliant and unconventional thinkers, Kojève was a Russian émigré to France whose lectures on Hegel in the 1930s galvanized a generation of French intellectuals. Although Kojève wrote a great deal, he published very little in his lifetime, and so the ongoing rediscovery of his work continues to present new challenges to philosophy and political theory. Written in 1931 but left unfinished, Atheism is an erudite and open-ended exploration of profound questions of estrangement, death, suicide, and the infinite that demonstrates the range and the provocative power of Kojève’s thought. Ranging across Heidegger, Buddhism, Christianity, German idealism, Russian literature, and mathematics, Kojève advances a novel argument about freedom and authority. He investigates the possibility that there is not any vantage point or source of authority—including philosophy, science, or God—that is outside or beyond politics and the world as we experience it. The question becomes whether atheism—or theism—is even a meaningful position since both affirmation and denial of God’s existence imply a knowledge that seems clearly outside our capacities. Masterfully translated by Jeff Love, this book offers a striking new perspective on Kojève’s work and its implications for theism, atheism, politics, and freedom. Jeff Love is Research Professor of German and Russian at Clemson University in South Carolina. His publications include books on Tolstoy, Heidegger, Nietzsche, and Dostoevsky, as well as a translation of Friedrich Schelling’s Philosophical Investigations into the Essence of Human Freedom. Carrie Lynn Evans is a PhD student at Université Laval in Quebec City. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week I am talking to Olli Lagerspetz about his recent book A Philosophy of Dirt (Reaktion, 2018). This book is a fascinating exploration of what we mean by dirt, how we can use Philosophy to examine it, and whether dirt is an objective or subjective phenomenon. We talked about how dirt is conceived in science, art, politics, anthropology and how we might think of dirt in the context of the environment. As usual in a philosophy conversation, we ended up talking about Plato. Olli Lagerspetz (b. 1963) is  a Senior Lecturer and Adjunct Professor at the Philosophy department at Åbo Akademi University, and Adjunct Professor of the History of Ideas at Oulu University. He is Associate Editor of the Journal of Philosophical Investigations. Lagerspetz studied  at Åbo and, with Peter Winch, at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. In 1992-1998 he was Lecturer of philosophy at the University of Wales, Swansea. Lagerspetz has written extensively on the philosophy of the humanities and the social sciences and on the history of social anthropology. His   most recent books include A Philosophy of Dirt (2018), Trust, Ethics and Human Reason (2015) and Intellectual Networks,Philosophy and Social Anthropology (2014) with Kirsti Suolinna and Edward Westermarck. In his research, Lagerspetz has often liked to focus on issues that breach the fact/value divide.  He is interested in looking for alternatives to reductionist accounts of the world we live in. His  main intellectual influences (besides his parents and family members) are Ludwig Wittgenstein and Egon Friedell, plus people who have taught him or worked with him: Lars Hertzberg, Peter Winch, Richard Beardsmore, Ullica Segerstrale, Kirsti Suolinna, Göran Torrkulla, and Hans Rosing.Olli is married with two children and two cats. In his free time, he plays music (tuba and piano). His book was recently reviewed in The Guardian. You can find out about the book here. You can listen to more free back content from the Thales' Well podcast on TuneIn Radio, Player Fm, Stitcher and Podbean. You can also download their apps to your smart phone and listen via there. You can also subscribe for free on iTunes. Please leave a nice review. You can follow me on Twitter: @drphilocity

Stephen Riley, a lecturer in the Law School of the University of Leicester in Britain, has written a philosophical work examining the concept of dignity and its role in legal theory and, to a degree, the application of law.  In Human Dignity and Law: Legal and Philosophical Investigations (Routledge, 2018), Riley argues that the role of human dignity should be recognized by courts and all of society, but he is wary of such a concept becoming a trump card in a court’s decision-making process.  He notes that the concerns of justice and equality need to be recognized by courts but court must be aware of the infrequent instances when the demands of dignity are in conflict with the demands of justice.  In this podcast we discuss the definition of human dignity, the author’s philosophical orientation, and the applications of the concept of dignity has been applied by courts in different settings. Ian J. Drake is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Law at Montclair State University. His scholarly interests include American legal and constitutional history and political theory. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Stephen Riley, a lecturer in the Law School of the University of Leicester in Britain, has written a philosophical work examining the concept of dignity and its role in legal theory and, to a degree, the application of law.  In Human Dignity and Law: Legal and Philosophical Investigations (Routledge, 2018), Riley argues that the role of human dignity should be recognized by courts and all of society, but he is wary of such a concept becoming a trump card in a court’s decision-making process.  He notes that the concerns of justice and equality need to be recognized by courts but court must be aware of the infrequent instances when the demands of dignity are in conflict with the demands of justice.  In this podcast we discuss the definition of human dignity, the author’s philosophical orientation, and the applications of the concept of dignity has been applied by courts in different settings. Ian J. Drake is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Law at Montclair State University. His scholarly interests include American legal and constitutional history and political theory. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Stephen Riley, a lecturer in the Law School of the University of Leicester in Britain, has written a philosophical work examining the concept of dignity and its role in legal theory and, to a degree, the application of law.  In Human Dignity and Law: Legal and Philosophical Investigations (Routledge, 2018), Riley argues that the role of human dignity should be recognized by courts and all of society, but he is wary of such a concept becoming a trump card in a court’s decision-making process.  He notes that the concerns of justice and equality need to be recognized by courts but court must be aware of the infrequent instances when the demands of dignity are in conflict with the demands of justice.  In this podcast we discuss the definition of human dignity, the author’s philosophical orientation, and the applications of the concept of dignity has been applied by courts in different settings. Ian J. Drake is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Law at Montclair State University. His scholarly interests include American legal and constitutional history and political theory. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dave during the chat with Dan In this episode Dan Palmer from Making Permaculture Stronger enjoys another high-energy, cut to the chase dialogue with Dave Jacke from Edible Forest Gardens. The first episode/instalment can be found here. This second instalment of an energy-rich conversation that is far from done includes: Dan sharing his recent feeling that in framing permaculture design processes using linear-sequence-implying flow charts a (kind of big) mistake is being made Dave putting flow charts and other things in a successional (but non-linear!) framing where they have their role in the learning journey Dave sharing his cutting edge, hot-off-the-press, so far unwritten about approach to framing design processes as ecosystems The relation between what he calls the four ecosystem ps: properties principles patterns processes Why Dave avoids using the name permaculture Much, much else! Dave Jacke's work has been referenced many times in previous posts, and was the sole focus of this one and this one. Oh yes, the Ludwig Wittgenstein quote Dan mentions was: One thinks that one is tracing the outline of the thing's nature over and over again, and one is merely tracing around the frame through which we look at (Philosophical Investigations) and the quote Dave shared was: Ecological communities are not as tightly linked as organisms, but neither are they simply collections of individuals. Rather, the community is a unique form of biological system in which the individuality of the parts (i.e., species and individuals) acts paradoxically to bind the system together. —DAVID PERRY, Forest Ecosystems Finally, you can organise yourself a copy of David Holmgren's amazing new book Retrosuburbia (which Dan quotes from at the start) right here. We really hope you enjoy the episode, and please do leave a comment sharing any feedback or reflections below… Dan during the chat with Dave

Dave during the chat with Dan In this episode Dan Palmer from Making Permaculture Stronger enjoys another high-energy, cut to the chase dialogue with Dave Jacke from Edible Forest Gardens. The first episode/instalment can be found here. This second instalment of an energy-rich conversation that is far from done includes: Dan sharing his recent feeling that in framing permaculture design processes using linear-sequence-implying flow charts a (kind of big) mistake is being made Dave putting flow charts and other things in a successional (but non-linear!) framing where they have their role in the learning journey Dave sharing his cutting edge, hot-off-the-press, so far unwritten about approach to framing design processes as ecosystems The relation between what he calls the four ecosystem ps: properties principles patterns processes Why Dave avoids using the name permaculture Much, much else! Dave Jacke’s work has been referenced many times in previous posts, and was the sole focus of this one and this one. Oh yes, the Ludwig Wittgenstein quote Dan mentions was: One thinks that one is tracing the outline of the thing's nature over and over again, and one is merely tracing around the frame through which we look at (Philosophical Investigations) and the quote Dave shared was: Ecological communities are not as tightly linked as organisms, but neither are they simply collections of individuals. Rather, the community is a unique form of biological system in which the individuality of the parts (i.e., species and individuals) acts paradoxically to bind the system together. —DAVID PERRY, Forest Ecosystems Finally, you can organise yourself a copy of David Holmgren's amazing new book Retrosuburbia (which Dan quotes from at the start) right here. We really hope you enjoy the episode, and please do leave a comment sharing any feedback or reflections below… Dan during the chat with Dave

This episode is proudly supported by the New College of the Humanities. To find out more about the college and their philosophy programmes, please visit www.nchlondon.ac.uk/panpsycast. Everything you could need is on www.thepanpsycast.com! Please tweet us your thoughts at www.twitter.com/thepanpsycast. Ludwig Wittgenstein was an Austrian-British philosopher whose work focused on the philosophy of mathematics, logic, the philosophy of mind, and most notably, the philosophy of language. Wittgenstein’s influence on the world of philosophy has been phenomenal. The study of philosophy was immensely important to Wittgenstein, not only as an academic discipline but as a form of therapy. In Ludwig’s own words, he describes philosophy as, "the only work that gives me real satisfaction". Wittgenstein’s work can be divided into an early period, exemplified by the Tractatus (our focus for Part I), and a later period, articulated in the Philosophical Investigations (which is our focus for Part II). Early Wittgenstein was concerned with the logical relationship between propositions and the world. He thought that by providing an account of this relationship, he had solved every philosophical problem. The later Wittgenstein rejected many of the assumptions of the Tractatus, arguing that the meaning of words is best understood as their use within a given language-game. Wittgenstein’s life and work are astonishing. His mentor, Bertrand Russell, described him as "the most perfect example I have ever known of genius as traditionally conceived; passionate, profound, intense, and dominating". Part I. The Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (08:00 in Part I), Part II. The Philosophical Investigations (start of Part II), Part III. Further Analysis and Discussion (45:45 in Part II).

This episode is proudly supported by the New College of the Humanities. To find out more about the college and their philosophy programmes, please visit www.nchlondon.ac.uk/panpsycast. Everything you could need is on www.thepanpsycast.com! Please tweet us your thoughts at www.twitter.com/thepanpsycast. Ludwig Wittgenstein was an Austrian-British philosopher whose work focused on the philosophy of mathematics, logic, the philosophy of mind, and most notably, the philosophy of language. Wittgenstein’s influence on the world of philosophy has been phenomenal. The study of philosophy was immensely important to Wittgenstein, not only as an academic discipline but as a form of therapy. In Ludwig’s own words, he describes philosophy as, "the only work that gives me real satisfaction". Wittgenstein’s work can be divided into an early period, exemplified by the Tractatus (our focus for Part I), and a later period, articulated in the Philosophical Investigations (which is our focus for Part II). Early Wittgenstein was concerned with the logical relationship between propositions and the world. He thought that by providing an account of this relationship, he had solved every philosophical problem. The later Wittgenstein rejected many of the assumptions of the Tractatus, arguing that the meaning of words is best understood as their use within a given language-game. Wittgenstein’s life and work are astonishing. His mentor, Bertrand Russell, described him as "the most perfect example I have ever known of genius as traditionally conceived; passionate, profound, intense, and dominating". Part I. The Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (08:00 in Part I), Part II. The Philosophical Investigations (start of Part II), Part III. What can Nietzsche teach us? (45:45 in Part II).

Thanks to his groundbreaking work in logic, the philosophy of mind, mathematics, and language, as well as two published works, Tractatus and Philosophical Investigations, Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951) played a leading role in the 20th-century analytic philosophy. Jaakko Hintikka was Professor of Philosophy at Boston University. Author of over 30 books, he was the main architect of game-theoretical semantics and of the interrogative approach to inquiry, and also one of the architects of distributive normal forms, possible-worlds semantics, tree methods, infinitely deep logics, and the present-day theory of inductive generalization. He joins us on Culture Insight to share his insight into the life and work of Ludwig Wittgenstein.

Harry Collins discusses "The Search for Gravitational Waves: Sociological and Philosophical Investigations". Collins is Professor, School of Social Sciences at Cardiff University.

In 1953, a posthumous work by the Austrian thinker, Ludwig Wittgenstein, revolutionised philosophy. Written in a unique, sometimes poetic style, Philosophical Investigations contained new thinking about the nature of language. Simon Watts brings together BBC archive recordings of Wittgenstein's friends and colleagues, and hears from the philosopher's biographer, Ray Monk. (Image: Ludwig Wittgenstein. Credit: Hulton Archive/Getty Images)

To mark the 60th anniversary of Ludwig Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations, Rana Mitter is joined by philosophers Rupert Read and Barry Smith, and Wittgenstein's biographer Ray Monk, to examine his legacy in Western philosophical tradition. Graham Stewart talks about his new book which details the influence and paradoxes of the 1980s. And Aidan Foster-Carter and Shakuntala Banaji discuss the ‘soft' power that K-Pop and Bollywood have generated for their respective countries.