Podcasts about rousseau

John Luke's attempt to turn a four-foot rat snake into a calm teaching moment for campers goes sideways fast, leaving the kids panicked and John Luke woozy at the sight of his own blood. Al, Zach, John Luke, and Christian use Augustine's story to dig into why modern people are so restless, why getting what we want still doesn't satisfy us, and how our appetites quietly train our hearts. The guys contrast Augustine's confession of sin with today's culture of self-worship. Al points to history's examples of Christianity's tendency to bring order, healing, and hope out of cultural chaos. In this episode: Romans 7, verses 21–25; Romans 8; 1 Corinthians 9, verses 24–27; Philippians 2, verses 5–11; Genesis 1, verse 31 Today's conversation is about Lesson 11 of Ancient Christianity taught by visiting Hillsdale Professor of History Kenneth Calvert. Take the course with us at no cost to you! Sign up at http://unashamedforhillsdale.com/. More about Ancient Christianity: Christ entered the world during the reign of Caesar Augustus. The tensions between Christianity and the Roman Empire shaped the daily practice of the Christian faith and led many Romans to distrust and persecute the early Christians. But Christianity also benefitted from the Roman world. And when Rome collapsed in the West, Christianity provided the hope for preserving civilization. In this free, eleven-lecture course, Professor Kenneth Calvert will explore: How the Jewish, Greek, and Roman cultures all contributed to preparing the world to hear the Gospel. Why many Romans distrusted and persecuted the early Christians. The inspiring stories of Christ, His apostles, and faithful ones throughout the first four centuries of Christianity. The arguments of key early Christian apologists—Ignatius, Irenaeus, Justin, Athanasius, and more—who defended and defined the Christian faith amidst the animosity of the Roman world. The conversion of Constantine and how he brought stability to Rome, and how the rivalry between his sons almost returned Rome to paganism. How Augustine's writings helped preserve the message of Christianity during the collapse of the Roman Empire in the West. You will discover the uncertainties, trials, and triumphs of the earliest Christians as they confronted controversies within the faith and persecutions from outside it. Join us today to discover the improbable and miraculous story of Christianity. Sign up at ⁠http://unashamedforhillsdale.com/ Check out At Home with Phil Robertson, nearly 800 episodes of Phil's unfiltered wisdom, humor, and biblical truth, available for free for the first time! Get it on Apple, Spotify, Amazon, and anywhere you listen to podcasts! https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/at-home-with-phil-robertson/id1835224621 Listen to Not Yet Now with Zach Dasher on Apple, Spotify, iHeart, or anywhere you get podcasts. Chapters 00:00 Summer Camp Chaos & ER Trips 05:54 Everyone Wants a Beach Photo 10:43 Augustine's Influence on the Church 16:10 Augustine's Wild Past and Conversion 22:23 The Beach Ball Picture of Human Design 29:11 Appetite, Discipline & Reordered Desires 35:05 Augustine vs. Rousseau on Human Nature 43:10 Christianity Brings Order to Chaos — Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

POUR COMMANDER MON LIVRE :https://www.editions-larousse.fr/livre/la-philosophie-cest-pour-vous-aussi-9782036070325/POUR COMMANDER MA BANDE DESSINÉE PHILORAMA : https://www.editions-larousse.fr/livre/philorama-9782036082434/Disponible aussi dans toutes les bonnes librairies !

POUR COMMANDER MON LIVRE :https://www.editions-larousse.fr/livre/la-philosophie-cest-pour-vous-aussi-9782036070325/POUR COMMANDER MA BANDE DESSINÉE PHILORAMA : https://www.editions-larousse.fr/livre/philorama-9782036082434/Disponible aussi dans toutes les bonnes librairies !

Vous aimez notre peau de caste ? Soutenez-nous ! https://www.lenouvelespritpublic.fr/abonnementUne émission de Philippe Meyer, enregistrée au studio l'Arrière-boutique le 19 juin 2026.Avec cette semaine :Jean-Louis Bourlanges, essayiste, ancien président de la Commission des Affaires étrangères de l'Assemblée nationale.Marc-Olivier Padis, directeur des études de la fondation Terra Nova.MARC BLOCHC'est en 2006, il y a donc 20 ans qu'une tribune d'historiens publiée par Le Figaro réclama l'entrée au panthéon de Marc Bloch. Elle aura donc lieu avec son épouse, Simonne Vidal, 20 ans plus tard. On peut regretter cette attente. Etienne Bloch fils aîné Marc et son interlocuteur privilégié, lui-même résistant à Lyon avant de s'engager dans les FFI puis de rejoindre la 2ème Division Blindée était encore de ce monde qu'il n'a quitté que trois ans plus tard.Résistant, historien, rationaliste républicain, critique des mythologies nationales et profondément patriote : Marc Bloch échappe aux catégories trop simples. Grand médiéviste, auteur des Rois thaumaturges (1924), des Caractères originaux de l'histoire rurale (1931), de La Société féodale (1939) et aussi d'une réflexion posthume sur son « métier d'historien », Apologie pour l'histoire, Marc Bloch a ouvert l'histoire aux apports de la sociologie et de l'ethnologie dans une démarche interdisciplinaire novatrice. En 1920, il noue amitié avec son collègue historien Lucien Febvre. Leur complicité intellectuelle les conduit à fonder ensemble les Annales d'histoire économique et sociale, dont le premier numéro paraît en janvier 1929. La revue exercera une influence considérable sur plusieurs générations d'historiens.Républicain convaincu il partageait les idéaux socialistes : il adhéra à la SFIO, sans pour autant se signaler ni par son militantisme ni par ses prises de position publiques. En 1934, il signe avec Lucien Febvre le manifeste du Comité de vigilance des intellectuels antifascistes, mais juge le texte indigent. En 1936, il soutient le Front populaire contre la bourgeoisie d'argent, mais critique Blum et les syndicats, et n'aime pas les communistes. Homme d'action et de responsabilité, Marc Bloch s'est battu en 1914 et s'est réengagé en 1939. En 1940, à chaud, il écrit Témoignage, qui deviendra L'Étrange Défaite. Une analyse au scalpel du désastre de 1940 où il montre que le pays a été battu parce qu'il s'était déjà défait à l'intérieur. L'ouvrage paraîtra à titre posthume en 1946. Ce « procès-verbal » implacable se décompose en trois chapitres : « Présentation du témoin », « La déposition d'un vaincu » et « Examen de conscience d'un Français ». Dans cet ouvrage, l'historien de 53 ans ausculte la société de l'entre-deux-guerres, sa course vers l'abîme, et en appelle à une responsabilité autant individuelle que collective. Il y fustige des stratèges dépassés qui, comme en 1914, lorsqu'ils se référaient aux guerres napoléoniennes, n'ont rien compris à la guerre de mouvement en 1939. Il assemble les pièces d'un puzzle, en historien du contemporain, et procède à la mise en perspective des événements. Pointant notamment la bureaucratie, il n'épargnait personne, ni l'armée, ni les civils, ni la droite, ni la gauche, ni la bourgeoisie, ni ses contempteurs marxistes : « Les défaillances du syndicalisme ouvrier n'ont pas été, dans cette guerre-ci, plus niables que celles des états-majors », affirmait-il, déplorant le fait qu'« on n'a pas assez travaillé, dans les fabrications de guerre ». Il relevait aussi les failles de l'éducation, de l'instruction, de l'esprit de curiosité en général.Après avoir écrit L'Étrange Défaite, persécuté parce que juif, insoumis parce que patriote, le vieux Sorbonnard est entré en 1943 dans la Résistance. Arrêté en mars 1944 par la Gestapo, torturé à la prison Montluc à Lyon, il a été fusillé le 16 juin 1944, à l'âge de 57 ans.LA RÉPUBLIQUEAlors qu'il était entré dans la clandestinité en 1943, Marc Bloch écrivit dans « Pourquoi je suis républicain » : « La République est le régime du peuple ». Cette forme de gouvernement conçu dans l'antiquité connait des interprétations variées. Alors qu'il était admis jusqu'au XVIIIe siècle que la République puisse être aussi bien monarchique, aristocratique ou démocratique, pourvu que soit pris en compte le bien commun, la vision française après Rousseau considère qu'une République bien comprise ne peut être qu'une démocratie. C'est ce que deux historiens du droit, Jacques de Saint-Victor, et Thomas Branthôme, dans leur Histoire de la République en France nomment l'« exclusivisme républicain » français. Les auteurs observent qu'à rebours de ce projet, on voit, depuis quelques années, sous l'influence du modèle anglo-saxon, s'installer des conceptions communautaristes de la démocratie. Dans cette évolution, l'idée laïque, par exemple, qui marque si profondément la tradition républicaine française, est subvertie. Il ne s'agit plus, selon eux, de protéger l'État contre les religions mais, à l'inverse de protéger les religions contre l'État.Formalisée en 1790, la devise de la République française « Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité » évolua également. Le ternaire s'effaça sous le Consulat et le Premier Empire, dont la devise officielle fut « Liberté, Ordre public ». Le maréchal de Mac‑Mahon, en 1879, instaura brièvement l'« Ordre moral ». En 1940, Philippe Pétain lui substitua la devise « Travail, Famille, Patrie ». Si 83 % des Français, en 2023 se déclarèrent attachés à la devise, 54 % d'entre eux donnaient la priorité à la Liberté, devant l'Égalité (29 %) et la Fraternité (17 %). Mais nombre d'entre eux jugèrent sa mise en œuvre défaillante : la Liberté n'existerait pleinement que pour 54 % d'entre eux, la Fraternité pour 35 % et l'Égalité pour 31 %.Tandis que, depuis le 16 juin, le projet de loi constitutionnelle pour une Corse autonome est examiné à l'Assemblée, le juriste Benjamin Morel et le politologue Patrick Weil demandent à ce qu'il soit retiré au nom des valeurs historiques de la France. Ce projet de loi propose de reconnaître des droits particuliers en raison d'une « communauté historique, linguistique, culturelle, ayant développé un lien singulier à sa terre ». Il crée ainsi, font valoir le juriste et le politologue une hiérarchie entre Français : ceux qui se rattacheront à une communauté corse reconnue, privilégiée, et les autres. Ce serait en rupture radicale et fondamentale avec « les grands principes universalistes qui fondent la République, tout particulièrement le principe d'égalité de tous les citoyens devant la loi sans distinction d'origine, de race ou de religion énoncé à l'article Ier de la Constitution ». Hiérarchiser les citoyens au regard d'une appartenance culturelle et y attacher des droits différenciés, c'est la définition juridique du racisme, font-ils valoir. La République encore et toujours à l'épreuve de l'histoire.Chaque semaine, Philippe Meyer anime une conversation d'analyse politique, argumentée et courtoise, sur des thèmes nationaux et internationaux liés à l'actualité. Pour en savoir plus : www.lenouvelespritpublic.frHébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

Le luxe n'a jamais été aussi visible, tapageur. Il s'affiche sur les réseaux sociaux, s'expose dans les vitrines, il s'invite dans les séries et les clips. Mais derrière les paillettes, que raconte-t-il vraiment ?     Dans son livre intitulé Une autre histoire du luxe (Passés composés), Emma Carenini montre que le luxe n'est pas seulement un marché : c'est une façon de dire le pouvoir, le désir, l'identité.   « Le luxe est le moteur de l'histoire humaine », écrit-elle.   Elle en parle avec conviction au micro de Pierre-Édouard Deldique dans ce nouveau numéro du magazine Idées.  Emma Carenini n'est pas une spécialiste du luxe à proprement parler mais le sujet lui tient à cœur. Elle en a fait en quelque sorte la généalogie. Elle revient, par exemple, sur la querelle du luxe au XVIIIè siècle. Le luxe, chose nécessaire selon Voltaire. Le luxe, corrupteur selon Rousseau. Elle en donne quatre attributs, la perfection sensible, l'abolition des frictions (des matières), le lien avec l'artisanat et la rupture de l'espace-temps avec la surprise et le dépaysement qu'offre un bel objet.  « Cette agrégée de philosophie a notamment publié Soleil. Mythes, histoire, sociétés (Pommier, 2022). En abordant cette fois la notion multiforme de luxe, elle s'attache à la dégager d'une épaisse gangue de préjugés, d'erreurs et d'oublis », note Roger-Pol Droit dans « Le Monde ».   Ajoutons qu'elle dénonce aussi dans son ouvrage La vulgarité d'une richesse sans élégance.  Dans cette conversation dans Idées, il apparaît que le luxe est pour elle, davantage synonyme de beauté mais « écrit-elle, la beauté est devenue un sujet impossible ». Il n'empêche que ses quelque 200 pages prouvent qu'elle a relevé le défi.   Au cœur de ses chapitres, il est beaucoup question de l'ornement, de ce qui pourrait faire de l'espace public un lieu de beauté. Il en est beaucoup question dans l'émission. Elle va même plus loin en affirmant que « la République du luxe n'est ni une lubie des temps passés, ni un rêve impossible »…  Le livre d'Emma Carenini parle au fond de désir, de rêve, de distinction. L'idéalisme n'est pas loin. Ne souhaite-t-elle pas « l'égalité dans l'excellence et la beauté » ?    Programmation musicale :  Secret Jardin - Hugues Le Bars Le Rat De Ville Et Le Rat Des Champs (Instrumental) - Fred Pallem Et Le Sacre Du tympan Tout Suite (No. 1 for saxophone ensemble & drum in F major; 3. Mov.) - London saxophonic/Compositeur : Moondog.

Le luxe n'a jamais été aussi visible, tapageur. Il s'affiche sur les réseaux sociaux, s'expose dans les vitrines, il s'invite dans les séries et les clips. Mais derrière les paillettes, que raconte-t-il vraiment ?     Dans son livre intitulé Une autre histoire du luxe (Passés composés), Emma Carenini montre que le luxe n'est pas seulement un marché : c'est une façon de dire le pouvoir, le désir, l'identité.   « Le luxe est le moteur de l'histoire humaine », écrit-elle.   Elle en parle avec conviction au micro de Pierre-Édouard Deldique dans ce nouveau numéro du magazine Idées.  Emma Carenini n'est pas une spécialiste du luxe à proprement parler mais le sujet lui tient à cœur. Elle en a fait en quelque sorte la généalogie. Elle revient, par exemple, sur la querelle du luxe au XVIIIè siècle. Le luxe, chose nécessaire selon Voltaire. Le luxe, corrupteur selon Rousseau. Elle en donne quatre attributs, la perfection sensible, l'abolition des frictions (des matières), le lien avec l'artisanat et la rupture de l'espace-temps avec la surprise et le dépaysement qu'offre un bel objet.  « Cette agrégée de philosophie a notamment publié Soleil. Mythes, histoire, sociétés (Pommier, 2022). En abordant cette fois la notion multiforme de luxe, elle s'attache à la dégager d'une épaisse gangue de préjugés, d'erreurs et d'oublis », note Roger-Pol Droit dans « Le Monde ».   Ajoutons qu'elle dénonce aussi dans son ouvrage La vulgarité d'une richesse sans élégance.  Dans cette conversation dans Idées, il apparaît que le luxe est pour elle, davantage synonyme de beauté mais « écrit-elle, la beauté est devenue un sujet impossible ». Il n'empêche que ses quelque 200 pages prouvent qu'elle a relevé le défi.   Au cœur de ses chapitres, il est beaucoup question de l'ornement, de ce qui pourrait faire de l'espace public un lieu de beauté. Il en est beaucoup question dans l'émission. Elle va même plus loin en affirmant que « la République du luxe n'est ni une lubie des temps passés, ni un rêve impossible »…  Le livre d'Emma Carenini parle au fond de désir, de rêve, de distinction. L'idéalisme n'est pas loin. Ne souhaite-t-elle pas « l'égalité dans l'excellence et la beauté » ?    Programmation musicale :  Secret Jardin - Hugues Le Bars Le Rat De Ville Et Le Rat Des Champs (Instrumental) - Fred Pallem Et Le Sacre Du tympan Tout Suite (No. 1 for saxophone ensemble & drum in F major; 3. Mov.) - London saxophonic/Compositeur : Moondog.

Nous sommes en 1913. C'est chez Figuier, à Paris, que paraît un ouvrage intitulé « Les peintres cubistes - Méditations esthétiques », il est signé Guillaume Apollinaire. On peut y lire : « Comme artiste, on peut placer Melle Laurencin entre Picasso et le douanier Rousseau. Ce n'est pas là une simple indication hiérarchique mais une simple constatation de parenté. Son art danse comme Salomé entre celui de Picasso, nouveau Jean-Baptiste qui lave les Arts dans le baptême de la lumière, et celui de Rousseau, Hérode sentimental, vieillard somptueux et puéril que l'amour amena sur les confins de l'intellectualisme, c'est là que les anges vinrent distraire sa douleur, ils l'empêchèrent de pénétrer dans l'affreux royaume dont il était devenu le Douanier et ce vieillard, finalement, ils l'admirent dans leur troupe et lui vint de lourdes ailes. » Marie Laurencin entretint une liaison, pour le moins, orageuse avec le poète. Il ne fut pas le seul. En 1914, Picasso dira « Laurencin n'a plus de talent ». Il ne lui pardonne pas d'avoir quitté Apollinaire pour un Allemand. En 1937, Michel Leiris, poète et critique d'art, amant de l'écrivain Marcel Jouhandeau, lui-même intime de Marie Laurencin, persifflera sur le travail de l'artiste : « (…) pas trop désagréables comme œuvres de troisième zone. » Un autre dira : « Elle a fait de la peinture au féminin un art majeur. On ne trouve pas de mots pour bien définir la grâce toute française de Mademoiselle Marie Laurencin, sa personnalité vibre d'allégresse ». Et c'est une vie bien remplie que celle de Marie Laurencin, bien plus qu'une aquarelle d'été indien, avec ses ombres et ses déliés. Pionnière, transgressive, compromise, revenons sur ses pas … Avec Anne Hustache, historienne de l'art. Merci pour votre écoute Un Jour dans l'Histoire, c'est également en direct tous les jours de la semaine de 13h15 à 14h30 sur www.rtbf.be/lapremiere Retrouvez tous les épisodes d'Un Jour dans l'Histoire sur notre plateforme Auvio.be :https://auvio.rtbf.be/emission/5936 Intéressés par l'histoire ? Vous pourriez également aimer nos autres podcasts : L'Histoire Continue: https://audmns.com/kSbpELwL'heure H : https://audmns.com/YagLLiKEt sa version à écouter en famille : La Mini Heure H https://audmns.com/YagLLiKAinsi que nos séries historiques :Chili, le Pays de mes Histoires : https://audmns.com/XHbnevhD-Day : https://audmns.com/JWRdPYIJoséphine Baker : https://audmns.com/wCfhoEwLa folle histoire de l'aviation : https://audmns.com/xAWjyWCLes Jeux Olympiques, l'étonnant miroir de notre Histoire : https://audmns.com/ZEIihzZMarguerite, la Voix d'une Résistante : https://audmns.com/zFDehnENapoléon, le crépuscule de l'Aigle : https://audmns.com/DcdnIUnUn Jour dans le Sport : https://audmns.com/xXlkHMHSous le sable des Pyramides : https://audmns.com/rXfVppvN'oubliez pas de vous y abonner pour ne rien manquer.Et si vous avez apprécié ce podcast, n'hésitez pas à nous donner des étoiles ou des commentaires, cela nous aide à le faire connaître plus largement. Hébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comTiffany is a cultural historian, writer, and broadcaster. She has been a critic and presenter on BBC Radio 4 and now serves as a trustee of the British Museum. Her latest book is Strangers and Intimates: The Rise and Fall of Private Life. It's a fascinating book of history and political insight: how privacy is deeply connected to liberal values, and why its abeyance matters.For two clips of the episode — on the first sexual revolution in England, and when privacy strengthened patriarchy — head to our YouTube page.Other topics: growing up in an Anglo-American household; losing and keeping accents; privacy a rare thing in history; the Greeks and Romans; the human tendency to gossip; the Reformation and private faith; Thomas More against Martin Luther; Cromwell banning Christmas; Hobbes and the right of conscience; Locke and natural rights; Marie Antoinette; Rousseau and self-creation; spying; the emergence of the back stairs; the Romantics and subjectivity; Wollstonecraft and women's equality; the Sodomites' Walk; the rise of coffee shops; John Stuart Mill; child abuse; marital rape; Betty Friedan; defending homosexuality based on privacy; outings; Lewinsky and the Starr Report; consent and policing sex; hook-up culture on campus; Obama's private life; Hunter's laptop; reality TV and Trump; Harry and Meghan's worldwide privacy tour; OnlyFans; and a defense of hypocrisy.Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy. Coming up: Bob Wright on the evolutionary force of AI, John Gray on Trump's new world, Stephen Grosz on the struggles of love, David Thomson on cinema history, John O'Sullivan on conservatism, Robby George on all our disagreements, and Megan McArdle on everything. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

La face sombre de Mitterrand, Chanel, Picasso, Victor Hugo, Ghandi, Marx, Rousseau, Che Guevara...

durée : 00:03:32 - Avec philosophie - par : Laurence Devillairs - Et si le bonheur consistait simplement à ne rien faire ? Le concept de "ne rien faire" inspiré par Jean-Jacques Rousseau dans "Les Rêveries du promeneur solitaire" dépasse la simple paresse pour devenir une véritable quête métaphysique. Une réflexion sur l'art de l'existence. - réalisation : Camille Renard, Virginie Le Duault, Emily Vallat Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France

POUR COMMANDER MON LIVRE :https://www.editions-larousse.fr/livre/la-philosophie-cest-pour-vous-aussi-9782036070325/POUR COMMANDER MA BANDE DESSINÉE PHILORAMA : https://www.editions-larousse.fr/livre/philorama-9782036082434/Disponible aussi dans toutes les bonnes librairies !

Philippe Eudeline, président de NAE (Normandie AeroEspace), Marin David, directeur commercial de Drone XTR, et Georges Lamy au Rousseau, fondateur et directeur général de STARNAV, étaient les invités de François Sorel dans Tech & Co, la quotidienne, ce mardi 16 juin. Ils se sont penchés sur la présentation de la NAE ou Normandie AeroEspace, l'entreprise française Drone XTR en tant que spécialiste de la détection et neutralisation des drones, ainsi que Starnav et le fonctionnement de son pari dans la navigation sans GPS, sur BFM Business. Retrouvez l'émission du lundi au jeudi et réécoutez-la en podcast.

Mardi 16 juin, François Sorel a reçu Philippe Eudeline, président de NAE (Normandie AeroEspace), Marin David, directeur commercial de Drone XTR, et Georges Lamy au Rousseau, fondateur et directeur général de STARNAV, Pierre Costes, directeur commercial d'ATMOS Space Cargo, Mickael Brossard, vice-président de CortAIx, Bastien Mancini, président et fondateur de Delair, Antonin Étienne, CEO de RayXagon et ancien militaire de l'armée de l'Air, et Florian Fournier, cofondateur et CEO d'Orasio, dans l'émission Tech & Co, la quotidienne sur BFM Business. Retrouvez l'émission du lundi au jeudi et réécoutez la en podcast.

My guest in this week's Book Club podcast is Andrea Wulf, talking about her fascinating new book, The Traveller: George Forster and the Search for Humanity. Andrea tells me about the now-forgotten adventurer who sailed with Captain Cook, toured Europe as an intellectual celebrity and sparred with Kant and Rousseau over race and human civilisation – before throwing his lot in with the French Revolution. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

John Dewey is among history's most celebrated thinkers on democracy and education, yet he has often been underappreciated and misunderstood as a philosopher. This book paints a fresh portrait of Dewey as not only a reformer of schooling but also a profound theorist of human development, whose vision of the centrality of education to democracy, philosophy, and flourishing can still inspire us today. What can we learn from this great thinker as we face challenges such as widespread drudgery and disaffection, estrangement among individuals and groups, and a crisis of democracy? This book supplies the answers, offering a bold new account of Dewey as an educational theorist who is essential for our troubled times. Revealing the true scope of Dewey's educational vision, this book provides a new perspective on a neglected aspect of the philosophical tradition. Natalia Rogach Alexander's Growing People: The Enduring Legacy of John Dewey (Columbia University Press, 2025) presents an alternative canon—running from Plato to Rousseau to Du Bois—that recasts philosophy in terms of education and, in so doing, opens new pathways for social critique and the liberation of human potential. Natalia Rogach Alexander is a lecturer in philosophy at Columbia University. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. 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

My guest in this week's Book Club podcast is Andrea Wulf, talking about her fascinating new book, The Traveller: George Forster and the Search for Humanity. Andrea tells me about the now-forgotten adventurer who sailed with Captain Cook, toured Europe as an intellectual celebrity and sparred with Kant and Rousseau over race and human civilisation – before throwing his lot in with the French Revolution.Become a Spectator subscriber today to access this podcast without adverts. Go to spectator.co.uk/adfree to find out more.For more Spectator podcasts, go to spectator.co.uk/podcastsContact us: podcast@spectator.co.uk Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

06-10 Greg Rousseau full 24 Wed, 10 Jun 2026 20:00:00 +0000 psVgDL9MCIHsqslsbZDXKtkpv8TCHZrT nfl,football,buffalo bills,greg rousseau,sports Buffalo Football nfl,football,buffalo bills,greg rousseau,sports 06-10 Greg Rousseau WGR 550 Sports Radio is the voice of Buffalo football fans everywhere, presented by Northwest Bank, For What's Next. © 2026 Audacy, Inc. Sports https://player.amperwavepodcasting.com?feed-link=https%3A%2F%2Frss.amperwav

John Dewey is among history's most celebrated thinkers on democracy and education, yet he has often been underappreciated and misunderstood as a philosopher. This book paints a fresh portrait of Dewey as not only a reformer of schooling but also a profound theorist of human development, whose vision of the centrality of education to democracy, philosophy, and flourishing can still inspire us today. What can we learn from this great thinker as we face challenges such as widespread drudgery and disaffection, estrangement among individuals and groups, and a crisis of democracy? This book supplies the answers, offering a bold new account of Dewey as an educational theorist who is essential for our troubled times. Revealing the true scope of Dewey's educational vision, this book provides a new perspective on a neglected aspect of the philosophical tradition. Natalia Rogach Alexander's Growing People: The Enduring Legacy of John Dewey (Columbia University Press, 2025) presents an alternative canon—running from Plato to Rousseau to Du Bois—that recasts philosophy in terms of education and, in so doing, opens new pathways for social critique and the liberation of human potential. Natalia Rogach Alexander is a lecturer in philosophy at Columbia University. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory

John Dewey is among history's most celebrated thinkers on democracy and education, yet he has often been underappreciated and misunderstood as a philosopher. This book paints a fresh portrait of Dewey as not only a reformer of schooling but also a profound theorist of human development, whose vision of the centrality of education to democracy, philosophy, and flourishing can still inspire us today. What can we learn from this great thinker as we face challenges such as widespread drudgery and disaffection, estrangement among individuals and groups, and a crisis of democracy? This book supplies the answers, offering a bold new account of Dewey as an educational theorist who is essential for our troubled times. Revealing the true scope of Dewey's educational vision, this book provides a new perspective on a neglected aspect of the philosophical tradition. Natalia Rogach Alexander's Growing People: The Enduring Legacy of John Dewey (Columbia University Press, 2025) presents an alternative canon—running from Plato to Rousseau to Du Bois—that recasts philosophy in terms of education and, in so doing, opens new pathways for social critique and the liberation of human potential. Natalia Rogach Alexander is a lecturer in philosophy at Columbia University. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/biography

John Dewey is among history's most celebrated thinkers on democracy and education, yet he has often been underappreciated and misunderstood as a philosopher. This book paints a fresh portrait of Dewey as not only a reformer of schooling but also a profound theorist of human development, whose vision of the centrality of education to democracy, philosophy, and flourishing can still inspire us today. What can we learn from this great thinker as we face challenges such as widespread drudgery and disaffection, estrangement among individuals and groups, and a crisis of democracy? This book supplies the answers, offering a bold new account of Dewey as an educational theorist who is essential for our troubled times. Revealing the true scope of Dewey's educational vision, this book provides a new perspective on a neglected aspect of the philosophical tradition. Natalia Rogach Alexander's Growing People: The Enduring Legacy of John Dewey (Columbia University Press, 2025) presents an alternative canon—running from Plato to Rousseau to Du Bois—that recasts philosophy in terms of education and, in so doing, opens new pathways for social critique and the liberation of human potential. Natalia Rogach Alexander is a lecturer in philosophy at Columbia University. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

John Dewey is among history's most celebrated thinkers on democracy and education, yet he has often been underappreciated and misunderstood as a philosopher. This book paints a fresh portrait of Dewey as not only a reformer of schooling but also a profound theorist of human development, whose vision of the centrality of education to democracy, philosophy, and flourishing can still inspire us today. What can we learn from this great thinker as we face challenges such as widespread drudgery and disaffection, estrangement among individuals and groups, and a crisis of democracy? This book supplies the answers, offering a bold new account of Dewey as an educational theorist who is essential for our troubled times. Revealing the true scope of Dewey's educational vision, this book provides a new perspective on a neglected aspect of the philosophical tradition. Natalia Rogach Alexander's Growing People: The Enduring Legacy of John Dewey (Columbia University Press, 2025) presents an alternative canon—running from Plato to Rousseau to Du Bois—that recasts philosophy in terms of education and, in so doing, opens new pathways for social critique and the liberation of human potential. Natalia Rogach Alexander is a lecturer in philosophy at Columbia University. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/education

John Dewey is among history's most celebrated thinkers on democracy and education, yet he has often been underappreciated and misunderstood as a philosopher. This book paints a fresh portrait of Dewey as not only a reformer of schooling but also a profound theorist of human development, whose vision of the centrality of education to democracy, philosophy, and flourishing can still inspire us today. What can we learn from this great thinker as we face challenges such as widespread drudgery and disaffection, estrangement among individuals and groups, and a crisis of democracy? This book supplies the answers, offering a bold new account of Dewey as an educational theorist who is essential for our troubled times. Revealing the true scope of Dewey's educational vision, this book provides a new perspective on a neglected aspect of the philosophical tradition. Natalia Rogach Alexander's Growing People: The Enduring Legacy of John Dewey (Columbia University Press, 2025) presents an alternative canon—running from Plato to Rousseau to Du Bois—that recasts philosophy in terms of education and, in so doing, opens new pathways for social critique and the liberation of human potential. Natalia Rogach Alexander is a lecturer in philosophy at Columbia University. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature.

Jeremy and Joe discuss the need for Greg Rousseau to increase his quick pressure numbers to match elite NFL edge rushers. They also evaluate how the addition of DJ Moore might shift the Buffalo Bills' offensive scheme under Joe Brady, specifically focusing on James Cook's rushing workload. 01:00 - NHL Playoff Update 01:31 - Greg Rousseau Discussion 04:44 - Quick Pressure Analysis 10:12 - Bills Offensive Outlook

Joe Marino joins Jeremy and Joe to discuss why Greg Rousseau's impact on the Buffalo Bills' defense goes beyond simple sack totals. They evaluate the roster's future cornerstone players following the addition of D.J. Moore and react to significant trades involving Myles Garrett and A.J. Brown. 02:14 - Evaluating Greg Rousseau 10:14 - Myles Garrett Trade Reaction 17:45 - Bills Future Player Rankings 23:01 - A.J. Brown Joins Patriots

Megan Brouillard parle de son périple au Nouveau-Brunswick et en Gaspésie Stéphane Rousseau parle de péchés capitaux Pierre Hébert révèle des potins sur des personnalités publiques que vous aimez… Bonne écoute !

www.aufonddelaclasse.comCet épisode s'intéresse à la dimension de récit de voyage des Lettres d'une Péruvienne — un voyage particulier, subi et non choisi, mais qui aboutit à une révélation inattendue.À la lettre XII, pendant le trajet en carrosse vers Paris, Zilia découvre pour la première fois la beauté du monde. Elle n'a aucune référence, aucune comparaison : « tout ce que je vois me ravit et m'enchante. » La description des campagnes et des forêts est une rêverie sensualiste où les sens se mêlent et se répondent — on croit voir la fraîcheur avant de la sentir. Ce passage anticipe quelque chose qu'on trouvera chez Rousseau et les romantiques : l'idée que la nature parle directement à l'âme, sans intermédiaire. Il dit une chose essentielle pour le parcours : le nouvel univers qui s'offre aux yeux de Zilia n'est pas seulement celui de la société française — c'est aussi celui de la beauté du monde.La lettre XXXV décrit l'aboutissement de ce voyage : la révélation de la petite maison. Déterville a converti les ornements d'or du temple du Soleil en propriété foncière. L'espace qu'il a créé est une synthèse — Pérou et France, mémoire et avenir — où Zilia peut installer son identité sans avoir à choisir entre ce qu'elle était et ce qu'elle est devenue. Et après la trahison d'Aza, c'est dans cet espace que Zilia trouve sa ressource : les livres, la lecture, « les maladies de l'âme ne souffrent pas les remèdes violents. » La petite maison est le terme du voyage — non pas un retour, mais une arrivée.Hébergé par Ausha. Visitez ausha.co/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

POUR COMMANDER MON LIVRE :https://www.editions-larousse.fr/livre/la-philosophie-cest-pour-vous-aussi-9782036070325/POUR COMMANDER MA BANDE DESSINÉE PHILORAMA : https://www.editions-larousse.fr/livre/philorama-9782036082434/Disponible aussi dans toutes les bonnes librairies !L'appel à la nature est un sophisme qui consiste à présupposer que si une chose est naturelle, elle est forcément bonne. D'où vient cette idée ? Est-elle pertinente ? Et surtout, en quoi nous permet-elle de réfléchir sur le rapport qu'entretient l'homme au monde et à lui-même ?---Envie d'aller plus loin ? Rejoignez-moi sur Patreon pour accéder à tout mon contenu supplémentaire.

Sal Capaccio joins Schopp and Bulldog to discuss the evolution of the Buffalo Bills' defense under new coordinator Jim Leonhard. They analyze the linebacker competition between Terrell Bernard and Dorian Williams while speculating on potential landing spots for former Bills star Stefon Diggs. 01:00 - Bills Free Agency Outlook 06:44 - Fixing Edge Run Defense 11:15 - Linebacker Competition Analysis 15:59 - Rousseau and Blackjack Story 19:05 - Stefon Diggs Landing Spots

What does it mean to be human in an age that celebrates the destruction of the sacred? In this timely episode, Ed Stetzer sits down with renowned historian and author Carl Trueman to discuss his latest work, The Desecration of Man. Following the success of The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, Trueman explores how the rejection of external authority and the ascent of "expressive individualism" have led us to a point where we no longer just ignore meaning—we actively delight in smashing it.From the pervasive influence of technology and AI to the complex ethical landscapes of IVF and surrogacy, Trueman traces the roots of our modern malaise back to thinkers like Rousseau, Freud, and Nietzsche. Together, Ed and Carl wrestle with how the church can offer a "consecrated" alternative, pointing to the Imago Dei as the only stable foundation for human dignity. This is a vital conversation for leaders seeking to navigate a culture that is rapidly reconfiguring the very definition of humanity.ABOUT OUR GUESTCarl Trueman is a theologian, historian, and author known for his work on church history, theology, culture, and the modern self. He serves as a professor at Grove City College and previously taught at Westminster Theological Seminary and the University of Nottingham.Trueman is widely recognized for his thoughtful analysis of contemporary culture through the lens of historic Christianity. His bestselling book The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self has significantly shaped evangelical discussions about identity, expressive individualism, and cultural change. A frequent conference speaker and commentator, Trueman combines scholarly depth and cultural insight as he helps Christians think carefully about faithfulness and truth in a rapidly changing world.

Rediffusion. Il y a 10 ans, en 2016, dans la cité universitaire de Besançon, la jeune étudiante japonaise Narumi Kurosaki, alors âgée de 21 ans, disparaît. Son corps n'a jamais été retrouvé. Et tout pense à croire que son ex petit-ami, le Chilien Nicolas Zepeda est le meurtrier. Son procès s'est tenu au début du printemps 2022 à Besançon. Des cris dans la nuit Besançon, dans l'est de la France, près de la frontière suisse. Les hivers y sont rudes, froids et gris. Cette nuit du 4 décembre 2016 n'échappe pas à la règle. Dans le bâtiment Rousseau de la résidence universitaire, tout est calme. Les étudiants sont endormis jusqu'à ce que des cris terrifiants et un bruit sourd les réveillent. Apeurés, ils se terrent dans leur lit sans oser bouger. Un podcast Bababam Originals Ecriture et voix : Caroline Nogueras Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

durée : 00:54:53 - Les interviews d'Inter - par : Alexandra Bensaid - La députée écologiste Sandrine Rousseau est l'invitée de Questions politiques ce dimanche sur France Inter. Au programme cette semaine : la guerre au Proche et au Moyen-Orient, l'affaire Patrick Bruel, la crise du carburant en France et l'élection présidentielle de 2027 qui approche. - réalisation : Amaury Bocher, Fabienne Le Moal - invités : Sandrine Rousseau Économiste et femme politique française Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France

durée : 00:54:53 - Questions politiques - par : Alexandra Bensaid - La députée écologiste Sandrine Rousseau est l'invitée de Questions politiques ce dimanche sur France Inter. Au programme cette semaine : la guerre au Proche et au Moyen-Orient, l'affaire Patrick Bruel, la crise du carburant en France et l'élection présidentielle de 2027 qui approche. - réalisation : Amaury Bocher, Fabienne Le Moal - invités : Sandrine Rousseau Économiste et femme politique française Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France

You can listen wherever you get your podcasts or check out the fully edited transcript of our interview at the bottom of this post.In this episode of The Peaceful Parenting Podcast, my guest is Dr. Justin Coulson, an Australian parenting expert and father of 6 who has his PhD in psychology and is the author of 10 books on parenting and the co-host of the Happy Families podcast with his wife, Kylie. We discuss the psychology behind peaceful parenting, including how self-determination theory explains kids' challenging behavior. Dr. Justin also shared his three E's of discipline.Know someone who might appreciate this episode? Share it with them!And if you love the podcast, FREE ways to help us out:1- Rate and review the podcast in your podcast player app2- “Like” this post by tapping the heart icon ♥️3- Share this with a friend. THANK YOU!We talk about:* 1:45 – Introduction to Dr. Justin Coulson and his personal parenting turning pointHow struggles with anger and discipline led him to rethink everything and study psychology.* 08:20 – Learning to regulate ourselves, practicing repair, and growing over time.* 15:50 – Why peaceful parenting starts with the parent's self-awareness and regulation.* 19:50 – Understanding behavior through compassion and curiosity.* 20:50 – The HALTS frameworkHow hunger, anger, loneliness, tiredness, and stress impact children's behavior.* 23:00 – Self-determination theory and parenting* 33:00 – The 3 E's of Effective Discipline* 41:50 – How to use the 3 E's in everyday parenting moments.Real-life examples: screens, sibling conflict & collaboration* 49:00 – Building trust and the “goodwill bank” with kidsWhy collaborative parenting pays off when tough limits are needed.* 53:30 – Advice to his younger parenting self: “soft eyes”A powerful reflection on kindness, connection, and showing up with compassion.* 56:30 – Where to find Dr. Justin CoulsonHis podcast, books, and upcoming work on boys and healthy masculinity.Resources mentioned in this episode:* Dr. Justin's website and podcast* Yoto Screen Free Audio Book Player* The Peaceful Parenting Membership* Evelyn & Bobbie brasConnect with Sarah Rosensweet:* Instagram* Facebook Group* YouTube* Website* Join us on Substack* Newsletter* Book a short consult or coaching session callxx Sarah and CoreyYour peaceful parenting team- click here for a free short consult or a coaching sessionVisit our website for free resources, podcast, coaching, membership and more!>> Please support us!!! Please consider becoming a supporter to help support our free content, including The Peaceful Parenting Podcast, our free parenting support Facebook group, and our weekly parenting emails, “Weekend Reflections” and “Weekend Support” - plus our Flourish With Your Complex Child Summit (coming back in the summer for the 3rd year!) All of this free support for you takes a lot of time and energy from me and my team. If it has been helpful or meaningful for you, your support would help us to continue to provide support for free, for you and for others.In addition to knowing you are supporting our mission to support parents and children, you get the podcast ad free and access to a monthly ‘ask me anything' session.Our sponsors:YOTO: YOTO is a screen free audio book player that lets your kids listen to audiobooks, music, podcasts and more without screens, and without being connected to the internet. No one listening or watching and they can't go where you don't want them to go and they aren't watching screens. BUT they are being entertained or kept company with audio that you can buy from YOTO or create yourself on one of their blank cards. Check them out HEREEvelyn & Bobbie bras: If underwires make you want to rip your bra off by noon, Evelyn & Bobbie is for you. These bras are wire-free, ultra-soft, and seriously supportive—designed to hold you comfortably all day without pinching, poking, or constant adjusting. Check them out HERESarah: Hey, everyone. Welcome back to another episode of the Peaceful Parenting Podcast. Today's guest is Dr. Justin Coulson. He's an Australian parenting expert with a PhD in psychology, the author of 10 books on parenting, the co-host of the Happy Families podcast with his wife, Kylie, the father of six children, and, last but not least, grandfather of one.We discuss the psychology behind peaceful parenting, including how self-determination theory explains kids' challenging behavior. Dr. Justin also shared his three E's of discipline, which I just loved.If you like this episode, please share it with a friend so more parents can learn about peaceful parenting. If you're a fan of the podcast, you can help us out not only by sharing it, but by leaving a review and a five-star rating in your podcast player app. While you're there, don't forget to follow the show so you don't miss an episode.If you'd like to support us even more, you can become a supporter on Substack to help us offset the cost of making the show. We'll put a link in the show notes.Let's meet Dr. Justin. I hope you enjoy this conversation and get as much out of his insights as I did.Sarah: Hello, Dr. Justin, and welcome to the podcast.Dr. Justin: Sarah, I'm so glad to be with you. Thanks for having me on.Sarah: Yeah, and it's morning for you, evening for me—nice—and I'm just glad that we could make this time to talk to each other. I really appreciate it. Thank you. So, could you just tell us a little bit about who you are and what you do?Dr. Justin: Sure. I grew up on the east coast of Australia, about an hour north of Sydney. Geographically, that kind of locates where I was. I was the teenage boy that every parent hopes they will not have. I don't think I was a particularly bad kid, but I certainly wasn't a good kid.My parents were spending a small fortune—I'm a 1975 baby, I turned 50 last year—but this was in the late '80s and early '90s. My parents were spending so much money to send me to a private school. Because we were on the coast—a very quintessentially Australian thing—I was wagging school.Do you say “wagging school” in Canada? Is that a term Canadians use?Sarah: No, but I think we get the context. I think it means not going to school.Dr. Justin: Yeah, I was truant. They thought I was there, but I wasn't.Sarah: We say skipping.Dr. Justin: I was skipping school. Okay, yeah. We call it a school wag.So I would go to school in the morning and get my name marked off in roll call. Then I would sneak out of the school. Across the road from the school, there were bushes—kind of a forest, or whatever you might call it in Canada and America. I would get changed out of my tie, long pants, and black school shoes, throw on some board shorts and a T-shirt.My surfboard was stashed in the bush, and I'd grab it from the hiding place. Then I'd jump on a bus, go to the beach, and surf all day. Afterward, I'd get a bus back to school in the afternoon, change back into my uniform, and race into the school just in time to get my name marked off, looking like I'd been at school all day.This was in the days before schools communicated with parents via email and text, because none of that existed. I was able to get away with it.So I finished high school. I scored in the bottom 15%—Sarah: Goodness.Dr. Justin: Not just my class, but of the entire state of New South Wales. My parents were devastated.I didn't care. I wanted to have a media career. I wanted to be a radio announcer. So I got into radio. If you've ever listened to the radio—and no offense to radio people—you know you don't have to do well at school to be good at radio. You just have to be able to sit on the microphone and say things that make sense.I knew I could do that, so school didn't matter to me. I didn't care about it. That's what I did.But this is where it intersects with parenting.About 10 years into my radio career, my wife and I were having some challenges, particularly around my parenting. We had a threenager and a newborn baby.That three-year-old—I had always held the opinion that my children would do as they were told, and if they didn't, I would make sure they understood that I was the father and that their job was to do as I said.So I was very punitive. I basically made all of the parenting mistakes you can imagine when I would get angry, frustrated, and ill-tempered. It's not that I was a bad father—I spent a lot of high-quality time loving my kids—but I was also really short-fused and highly aggressive.Frankly, I went from threatening to hitting really fast. You call it spanking; we would call it smacking. I was very, very quick to smack or spank my three-year-old, and it wasn't working.After one particularly bad incident where things escalated, I really did lose control. I didn't just spank her once. There were multiple spankings. This was like a 10-minute escalation session where it just got worse and worse and worse.My wife was out at the time. When she came home, I said to Kylie, “I'm a bad father. I'm not doing this well. I'm making a lot of mistakes, and here's what happened while you were out.”Full confession: Kylie has always been this wonderfully supportive wife—very kind, gentle, compassionate, soft-spoken, thoughtful, considerate, empathic—all of those beautiful attributes that I prize and treasure in my good wife.She was none of those things that day.She had fire in her eyes and said, “You are not living up to the father that I hoped you would be, and you're also not living up to the husband I need you to be.”And it took me back, because I was already feeling downcast. I felt like I was failing anyway, and she just—it was like she picked up a great big lump of wood and whacked me over the head with it and said, “No.”Of course, she didn't actually do that, but that's how it felt. It felt physical. Visceral. Like, Ow. This is serious.I left my radio career shortly thereafter.I was working at one of the biggest radio stations in Australia at the time, and I gave up all the backstage passes with global superstars and hanging out with record company executives at the best restaurants, eating their food so they could bribe me to play their music on the radio station. I went back to school.I became a full-time student. I worked part-time at three different jobs while studying full-time. I'd sleep under the desk at university so I could do the study and the work—Sarah: No surfing this time?Dr. Justin: No surfing this time, no. I was just so committed to it.After eight and a half years of full-time study, I graduated with a doctorate. I had to do a couple of other qualifications first, including a psychological science degree. I graduated with a doctorate in psychology and became a university lecturer.Along the way, Sarah, we went from having our two kids at that point to having our third child in my first year of study, our fourth child in my fifth year of study, and our fifth child while I was doing my doctorate. Shortly after I left the university setting, stopped lecturing, and started writing books and giving talks, we had our sixth child.So we're the parents—Sarah: Amazing.Dr. Justin: —of six daughters. Today, they range in age from 12—the youngest—to the oldest, who is in her mid-to-late 20s. She and her husband have a baby now. They've been married for a few years.Sarah: Wow. You're a grandpa.Dr. Justin: A grand—I'm a grandpa. We have a two-and-a-half-year-old grandbaby, four adult children, one in her teens, and a 12-year-old.So that's kind of my very short version of the journey.Along the way, I've written a bunch of books. We've got a TV show in Australia called Parental Guidance. We've had three seasons of that show on primetime TV. I've got a website and all the things that you'd expect—a podcast and so on.Sarah: What did you do when you had that aha moment—that realization that you weren't being the kind of dad you wanted to be, and your wife also agreed that you weren't being the kind of dad she wanted you to be? What did you change?Because you just mentioned that you spent eight and a half years going back to school. I imagine that you made some changes before you had six kids. So what did you do right away, maybe for anyone listening who can relate to those feelings of rage and feeling triggered by your child?Dr. Justin: Sarah, the first thing I'd say is that there was no linear change, and there were no immediate changes, because I didn't know what to do.I was unskilled. I was uneducated. I didn't know anything about psychology, and I clearly didn't know anything about parenting.But I found a mentor. I have a faith background, and there was a writer who wrote eloquently and compassionately. I just felt like he understood me, and he became a mentor to me.I also discovered a guy called Alfie Kohn. You might be familiar with Alfie Kohn.Sarah: Oh, Alfie Kohn was the first thing I ever read about parenting—Dr. Justin: Oh, great.Sarah: —before I even had kids. And he was on the podcast last year, which felt like a full-circle moment between how influential—I told him on the podcast, “You have probably had the biggest influence on me—not only in my parenting, but in my life's direction—of any single person out there.”So, sorry, fan-girl moment. I'm right there with you with Alfie Kohn.Dr. Justin: Yeah. I've gotten to know Alfie over the years as my academic career advanced and I began to understand where he took his research from.I read his book Punished by Rewards—I think it was a 1993—Sarah: That was my first one too.Dr. Justin: Yeah, it's a 1993 publication or something.Sarah, it was just so influential.What happened was, I was doing my university degree and learning things, and honestly, I'd be sitting there thinking, Hang on, the things they're teaching me in these university courses seem to clash with what Alfie Kohn taught me in Punished by Rewards.So I spent a lot of time in the notes section at the back—you know, all the references nobody ever reads?Sarah: Mm-hmm.Dr. Justin: As I went through them, I discovered researchers named Edward Deci and Richard Ryan from the University of Rochester in upstate New York.They had developed a theory known as self-determination theory.A large portion of Alfie Kohn's work is based on self-determination theory.So I really dug deep into that. I still love Alfie, but I moved very much into the academic side because I became a university lecturer and really got into the nitty-gritty of understanding the deepest depths of what self-determination theory is all about. That has become the foundation of the work that I do.And to your question: nothing is linear when you are trying to make improvements.Whether you're trying to change your diet, exercise, get your finances in order, or improve your relationships, you have insights. You have moments where you think, Oh my goodness, this is what I need to do. I need to show up with warmth on my face and soft eyes.And then three hours later, one of your children does something, and you forget what soft eyes look and feel like. You look at them with hard eyes, frustration in your voice, and short, clipped sentences.Then half an hour later, you think, Oh, self-awareness. I missed that.So it's this gradual process: two steps forward, one step back. Three steps forward, one step back. Four steps forward, three steps back. Eight steps forward, no steps back.Over the years, I had this beautiful experience—and maybe you've had a similar experience in your family as you've raised your kids.We were maybe in my third or fourth year of study. My wife has an early childhood background. She knows child development. She knows what kids need.She was a little skeptical about a lot of the things I was starting to talk about and discover as I went through university and got into the depths of what the research meant—comparing and contrasting it with what was mainstream, but actually not always quite right.We had some tension around how we should respond to the children. I was moving away from that authoritarian bent and developing ideas around exploring their world more.One night, I came home from university a little late. It was probably around 9:00 p.m. Our three children were still awake.As I drove into the driveway, all the lights in the house were on. The windows were open. Looking through the living room window, I could tell the house was—to put it politely—a mess.And as I stepped into the house, the kids—it was just awful.I walked over to Kylie and said, “Honey, it looks like it's been a pretty tough day.”I was trying to be compassionate and empathic. I was really trying to do what psychology says is the right thing to do.Kylie looked at me without hesitation and said, “Don't give me any of that psychology crap. I've had the worst day in the world.”Then she stormed out and said, “You fix it,” and walked into the bedroom and closed the door.Again, this is not how my wife usually is, but it had been a really rough day. The kids were feral. The house was a mess.I looked at my priorities. I sat down with the child who was struggling the most and worked with her for two or three minutes. She calmed down, I gave her a little food, and put her to bed.Within about 20 minutes, I had all three kids in bed, and I was so proud of myself.I stepped into the kitchen and started tidying up. I thought, I'll just give Kylie some space.After another 30 or 40 minutes of tidying, I stepped into the living room and said, “Honey, I know you're really upset. It's been a pretty tough day. I wasn't trying to be judgy or anything.”And she said, “It's fine for you. You're not dealing with it all day. You walk in and think you can just snap your fingers and everything's fine.”Then she looked at me and said, “But tonight, you walked in and it feels like you snapped your fingers and everything's fine.”And we had this beautiful conversation where she said, “I've been resenting the things you've been trying to tell me because it felt like you were telling me I was wrong.“But I've been watching, and I'm actually seeing that the things you're doing are working, and our family is feeling better.”It took four or five years to get there, Sarah.It's not like I had this epiphany—I'm a bad father, I need to change—and suddenly I was a good dad.There were many embarrassing, shameful moments after that epiphany where I still made terrible decisions and treated the children badly.Even today, I still lose my temper, say things I shouldn't, and get frustrated, because kids are kids and we're fallible humans.But we call parenting parenting because it's about us. If it were about children, we'd call it childrening.Which sounds silly, right?Dr. Justin: But what I've really discovered is that if I can learn how to regulate myself—high emotions equal low intelligence—then I can regulate my emotions, turn them up or down appropriately for the context, and keep them in harmony with my long-term goals, which are to have loving, kind relationships with my children.If I can do that, I'm going to approach them with a tremendously different focus than I will if I'm looking for a short-term fix.And that is something—Anger is a habit. Yelling is a habit. Time-out is a habit. Reward charts are a habit.We can create other habits. We just have to understand the processes and principles behind those habits and then practice them, like we practice a song on the piano, until we finally get it right.Sarah: I love that.So you and Kylie really had a journey—a back-and-forth dance of your own processes and your own development.I do love how you say it's really about us. Whenever I'm working with clients, after a couple of sessions they'll say, “You know what? This isn't even about my kid. This is just about me.”Dr. Justin: Yes. Yes.Sarah: Nobody wants to believe that at first, because it's so much easier to think, I've just got to change them and what they're doing.But it's really all about what we're bringing to the moment and what we're bringing to the relationship.Dr. Justin: I get in trouble sometimes for being overly provocative and saying things that are insensitive, so a quick warning:I want to say what I'm about to say with all the compassion in the world and all the tenderness and care in the world, because I work with people every single day who are dealing with exactly the struggles you're talking about.I want to step into the world of neurodiversity—ADHD, autism, trauma—those kinds of areas.What we're talking about applies there as well. It's just harder.Sarah: Mm-hmm.Dr. Justin: But ultimately, if I'm raising an ADHD child or a child who's been through a traumatic experience, once again, parenting is not about them. It's about how I show up for them.So I can say, “Well, my child's like that,” or, “I'm like this because of the diagnosis,” or because of the label, or because of the trauma, or because of the neural networks doing what they're doing.I can say all of those things, and many people do. It's understandable, and I have all the compassion in the world for them when they do.But the key thing I want to highlight is that in spite of all of those challenges your child might be facing—or even that you might be facing—today begins now.It begins with what you put on your face and what you think in your mind.If we can soften our features and go to our children with kindness and compassion while still holding appropriate limits—or working with them to develop appropriate limits—then what we can say is:“Yes, that bad thing happened,” or, “Yes, we are dealing with this difficulty, so what are we going to do about it?”We can fall into the I can't do anything way of thinking, which is really ineffective and doesn't help at all.Or we can step into I have this incredible thing psychologists call agency, or self-efficacy, where I can make a decision now, and if we work on it, we can actually improve things.It might be a longer, harder road. There may be more obstacles to climb over than a typical family without those challenging circumstances.It may be harder.But we can always improve.I never want to be the person who puts limits on what kids can do or what parents can do.If we change our language, change our focus, and recognize that this is a long game—Sarah: Mm-hmm.Dr. Justin: —which requires sustained effort every single day, it's extraordinary the progress we can make and the changes we can create in our home and our family.Sarah: For sure. Yeah.And unfortunately, it's a long game, right? Because I think today we always want quick answers and solutions.Really, it's just showing up every day as best you can and repairing when you don't show up the way you wish you had.And I think another really important part of it—which you were talking around a little bit—is trying to understand our child's experience and see things from their perspective.I was just talking to a client about that today:What's the most emotionally generous explanation you can come up with for their behavior?Because we don't actually know why anyone does anything, since we're not in their brain.But we often jump to, They're being rude on purpose, or They're trying to annoy me.Really, if we can think, Well, I don't know why they're doing this, but there's probably a reason, because kids want to be good. They want to be connected with us.And just reminding ourselves that they're not giving us a hard time—they're having a hard time.That actually makes it easier, I think, to show up as your best, most compassionate self—with, as you say, soft eyes and warm features.Dr. Justin: Yeah.No child wakes up in the morning thinking, Today's the day. I'm just going to ruin everything.This is the perfect opportunity. My parents are tired and frazzled. There's a cost-of-living crisis. There are all these challenges happening, and if ever there was a moment—it's now. I'm going to do it today.They don't wake up thinking that.Like you said—and you said it so perfectly—kids really do want to please us.I know some parents listening to me say that right now are thinking, No, no. My child does not want to please me.And so the question becomes: Why? Why are they struggling?And maybe this is a nice way for me to bring in some of the principles I learned as I went deeper into self-determination theory.There are a couple of times when children are almost guaranteed to be challenging, and this has nothing to do with self-determination theory. This is just general psychology and wellbeing.I always think of Germany. A police officer tells you to stop, but they don't say the word stop because they're German.In German, the word for stop is halt—H-A-L-T.So we add an S to the end, and the acronym becomes:Hungry, Angry, Lonely, Tired, or Stressed.Sarah: Mm-hmm.Dr. Justin: Those are the five times when you can all but guarantee your children are not going to be doing well.If they are hungry, get some food into them—ideally a little protein, because it's satiating and helps them feel full quickly.If they're angry, then we've got to remember: high emotions equal low intelligence.You can't think straight in a high emotional state.So our job is to get curious, not furious, because if we fight fire with fire, we end up with a scorched-earth policy and everything gets burned.Dr. Justin: Lonely.I could be sitting right next to you, Sarah, and feel disconnected and lonely—Sarah: Mm-hmm.Dr. Justin: —even if we were very close.Our children are sometimes literally sitting at our kitchen bench, and they feel alone. They feel a little lost. Because of the way we're responding to them—with hard commands, correction, and direction rather than connection—they feel lonely.Tired.I don't even need to explain that.Even as adults, I don't know any couple who, at the end of witching hour—or whatever you might call it in North America, that 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. stretch when the kids—Sarah: Yeah.Dr. Justin: —are just oof…It's the end of that period, and you're exhausted, the kids are exhausted, and you look at your husband or wife and say, “You know what? We are so tired. We're shattered. But boy, are we nailing it tonight.”Nobody ever says that when they're tired—Sarah: Yeah.Dr. Justin: —because you're not nailing it. You're just hanging in there.And it's the same with kids.Then the S is for stressed, and that includes sickness, because sickness is a stress on the body as well.Those five indicators are going to let you know when your child is likely to be challenging, and I think they're really good to watch out for.But if we go a little deeper and talk about self-determination theory, it says that each of us has these needs.You have them, Sarah, and I have them, and our children have them—even your mother-in-law has them.We have three basic psychological needs.When we're in environments where those needs are supported, oh my goodness, we thrive. These are environments we're drawn to and attracted to. We approach them with a smile on our face and can't wait to be there.But if the environment is what researchers call need-thwarting or need-frustrating—meaning it frustrates and thwarts those needs—then we avoid it.Sarah: Mm-hmm.Dr. Justin: Or, if we're in those environments, we act in ways that are challenging.So the basic psychological needs are:Number one: a sense of relationship, or relatedness. That's the technical term they use.Relatedness is a sense of mutual belonging.Sarah: So would it be similar to mattering? Like you feel like you matter to somebody?Dr. Justin: Yeah. There's been a lot of talk recently about mattering.But it's reciprocal mattering. It's not just one-way.It's I matter to you, but you matter to me.Sarah: Yeah.Dr. Justin: Let me use Mother's Day as an example.We just had Mother's Day in Australia at the start of May.If I've got a great relationship with my mother-in-law, and it's Mother's Day, I'm probably going to spend the morning with my wife and family while my children celebrate their mum. Then maybe at lunchtime, we head over to the in-laws to celebrate my wife's mum.If I feel like that relationship need is supported at my mother-in-law's—meaning there's mutual belonging, I matter to her, she matters to me, we enjoy one another's company, and it feels good—I'm going to say:“Great. Let's get in the car. Let's go. What do we need to do?”But if I'm going to a need-frustrating environment—if there's tension, antagonism, snide remarks, eye rolls, silence, defensiveness, or wounds from bad things that happened in the past—that environment doesn't feel good to me.So I'm going to say to Kylie:“Honey, why don't you take the kids to your mum's? Have a great lunch. We've made a big mess this morning, and I think the best thing I can do for your Mother's Day”—and I'll frame it nicely, of course—“is stay home, tidy the house, clean up the kitchen, get everything ready, and put dinner on for tonight so you can have your perfect Mother's Day dinner. I'll see you in four hours.”And then I send her out the door.Why?Because my in-laws' home has become a need-thwarting or need-frustrating environment. I just don't want to be there.And if I am there, I'm going to be sullen and sulky. I might try my best for half an hour and then say, “Oh, this is too hard,” and retreat—Sarah: Or text. The adult version of misbehavior.Dr. Justin: Yes, exactly. Exactly.But if I'm a child in a need-thwarting or need-frustrating environment, I'm going to get into fights with the kids I don't like.Or I'm going to say, “I don't want to go to school because everyone picks on me because I don't regulate my behavior properly because I've got ADHD.”Right?So school becomes a place I don't want to go.Or maybe you have a faith background and your child doesn't have any friends at church.Or you've signed them up for soccer, but they don't know anyone on the team.And they're saying, “Yeah, but I don't want to go.”It all comes down to relationship.Relationship is the basic psychological need that's being thwarted.Now, the second basic psychological need is competence.Competence, I would describe as feeling like I can do the thing I'm being asked to do.Sarah: Or that I want to do.Dr. Justin: Yeah. We'll get to want to in just a second, because want-to is the third basic psychological need—autonomy.So stay with me on competence for a second.Competence is capability. Capacity.It's not even necessarily about being able to do something—it's about feeling like you're making progress toward the goal.Let's say I'm joining acrobatics and trying to learn how to do a handstand.That's really tricky. It's a tough skill.If I show up every week to acrobatics, even if I've got great friends there—so my relationship need is supported—and I love my coach, but every time I try to do a handstand my shoulders buckle, my elbows aren't straight, my form is wrong, I fall over, or I can't stay up…After four or five or six weeks, I'm going to say:“I don't like this anymore. I'm out.”I had a daughter who wanted to come cycling with me.I'm a really keen cyclist. I ride on the road. I'm a middle-aged man in Lycra.But I also ride on the velodrome.You've seen those velodrome bikes at the Olympics—the indoor track where they go around and around and around.You might have noticed that after they finish the race, they keep pedaling and do another 10 laps.The reason is twofold.Number one: there are no brakes on those bikes.And second: they use what's called a fixed gear, meaning that when the wheels are spinning, the pedals are spinning.If you stop pedaling, you're going to get thrown over the handlebars because the wheels are still moving, which means the pedals are still moving, even if you try to stop them.So you just have to keep riding until the bike slows down.My daughter wanted to come to Friday night velodrome racing with me.We didn't have the money, but we spent all this cash on a bike, the Lycra, the helmet, the special shoes—it cost a lot, and I was a poor university student.But my daughter wanted to cycle with me, and I wasn't going to miss that opportunity. So we sacrificed and made it happen.Unfortunately, she was competing against girls who had been riding for four, five, or six years.For the first few weeks, she gave it a good go, but she was losing by several laps every race.After about a month, she said:“Dad, I don't want to do this anymore.”And my response was:“But I've spent all this money.”But what was really going on was that as much as she liked the girls and the atmosphere, she didn't feel competent—Sarah: Mm-hmm.Dr. Justin: —and she didn't see progress.She didn't feel like she was ever going to master the activity, so her motivation and wellbeing plummeted.Cycling became a need-thwarting environment for her.Whether it's piano, violin, rock climbing, cycling, swimming, math, PE class—it doesn't matter.If your kids don't feel like they can do the thing, they're going to push back.They're going to say:“This is too hard. I don't like it.”They won't use these exact words, but what they're really saying is:“This is a need-frustrating environment for me. I don't like it. I don't want to be there.”And then they start to act out.My mom got to the stage with me as a 13-year-old boy where she was physically holding me by the arm and dragging me into my piano lessons.Dr. Justin: Which brings me to my third and final basic psychological need, which is autonomy.A lot of people hear the word autonomy and think it means freedom—that kids can do whatever they want. They think it means independence.That's not what autonomy means, certainly not in the strict scientific form we're talking about within this theory.Rather, autonomy comes down to identifying the value of an activity and therefore endorsing the actions required to do the activity.See, if I, as a 12-year-old, looked at piano and thought:This is going to be a lifelong skill that will bring me joy, that I'll be able to share with others, that I can use in service of my family and community. If I can play piano or keyboard, I could be in a band. I could do all of these things.If I identified the value in the activity, then I would endorse the work required to learn it.So autonomy is not about freedom and independence. It's about choice based on values.That's a lot when you're thinking about three-, four-, and five-year-olds, but not necessarily—Sarah: No, I love that.We talk about that all the time in my communities—how important it is for kids to have autonomy.And I think you can have autonomy even when kids can't be independent, right?Because you can't have a four-year-old who's independent, but you can have a four-year-old who can make decisions that matter.Dr. Justin: Yes, yes.And that decision goes well beyond, Do you want to wear the blue suit or the green one?Sarah: I'll quote our friend Alfie Kohn. He says, “Kids should have the ability to make decisions that make adults gulp a little bit.”Dr. Justin: I love it. Yes. Beautiful.Let me give an adult version of this, and then I'll swing it back into childhood, because sometimes parents hear this and think, This isn't quite computing for me.In Canada, you drive on the right-hand side of the road.Sarah: Mm-hmm.Dr. Justin: And it's true that if you choose to drive on the left-hand side of the road, the authorities will probably get involved. You may cause harm to somebody. You could even end up in prison.But even in the middle of the night, when nobody's on the road, I can't imagine there are too many Canadians who get in the car and think:Tonight's the night. Nobody's watching. I'm gonna drive on the left.You are being absolutely controlled by the government and by the law. You're driving on the right-hand side of the road.But because you identify the value in driving on the right-hand side of the road, nobody has to compel you to do it.You just do it because you endorse the idea that driving on the right is safer. It's what you need to do.So our job with our children is twofold.First, when it comes to these basic psychological needs, we want to help them be in environments—or create environments—where those needs are supported.We want to send them to a school where they have good relationships, where somebody says, “Hey, come sit with us,” where teachers know them by name and smile when they see them and are excited to support them.A school where they're able to experience progress—which might mean less emphasis on grades and more emphasis on developing capability.And a school where they feel like they have some say in where they're going and what they're doing.Rather than being forced to attend a school like I was when I was a teenager, they get to say:“No, I want to go to that school because that's where my friends are.”Or:“That's where the teachers help me feel good.”Or:“That's where my interests lie.”That's the basic psychological-needs concept.Now let's bring that into discipline, which is what started this whole conversation.Based on this theory—and I guess it ties back to a lot of what Alfie Kohn has said as well—I developed a little model that's really easy to memorize and even easier to enact.I call it the Three E's of Effective Discipline.The Three E's of Effective Discipline are need-supportive.If you look at the root of the word discipline, it comes from the idea that we teach, guide, and instruct—that we show the way to follow.Sarah: Mm-hmm.Dr. Justin: But if you look at the modern definition of discipline, the modern definition is punish.Punish means exact retribution. It means hurt. It means make someone pay a price.Sarah: Make people feel bad on purpose.Dr. Justin: Yeah. That's exactly right.And I'm interested in disciplining our kids, not punishing our kids.Punishment is need-thwarting, right?If you make someone feel bad on purpose, there goes the relationship. They feel incompetent, and you've taken away their autonomy.So standard discipline strategies—whether it's time-out, spanking, yelling, withdrawing privileges, taking away the iPad, bribery—all of those standard discipline practices trample over basic psychological needs.We've got to come up with something better.So I developed the Three E's of Effective Discipline, which are basically this:On a beautiful bed of empathy, we explore, we explain, and we empower.Sarah: Ooh, I love that.Dr. Justin: Explore basically means I sit down with my child at an appropriate time.Because we always try to fix things right here, right now.Sometimes we need to, but often intervention simply to make sure people and property aren't hurt—that's all you need.Then you can say to your child:“We'll have a chat about this later when nobody's got a head full of steam.”Kick it down the road.You don't have to fix things right here, right now. Most of the time, it's just not necessary.So once everyone is calm, you explore.You say:“Hey, I've noticed there's been a lot of tension in our home lately between you and your brother.”Or:“Have you noticed that for the last few weeks we've had so much conflict about screens?”And your child says, “Yeah.”And you say:“I just want to listen because parenting's about parents, right? I must be getting something wrong here. Can you help me understand what I'm missing? Where am I going wrong? What's the real problem from your perspective?”Now, there are three things that make this better.Number one: never do it with an audience.Kids always want to save face. They don't feel competent when we start these conversations in front of other people.Number two: have some treats.Because once you're feeding them, they're like:“Oh, I'm not in trouble. We're just chatting, and there are cookies,” or a thick shake, or something like that.And number three: take notes.When you're trying to solve problems—and that's really what discipline is—The Three E's of Effective Discipline are about problem-solving.Discipline—meaning helping, teaching, guiding, instructing—is really about solving problems.So if I want to solve problems effectively in my home—if I want to discipline my children well—I'm trying to say:“Where are you coming from? What am I missing?”When you take notes on what your kids are saying, it's amazing how much information they give you because they realize:You're really listening to me.Sarah: Yeah. You're taking me seriously. You're writing down what I say.Dr. Justin: They're blown away by it.So they'll tell you a bunch of stuff.Now, every now and then they won't. Sometimes they'll shrug and say, “I don't know.”And you can say:“Well, if you don't know, that's fine. But if you did know…”This drives kids crazy, but it's my favorite sentence.“If you did know, what do you think the answer would be?”Sarah: Mm-hmm.Dr. Justin: And they roll their eyes.“Well, I don't know. That's what I said. If I knew, I'd tell you, but I don't know.”And I say:“I know you don't know, and I understand that if you did know, you would tell me. But if you did know, what would you tell me?”Sarah: I love that.Dr. Justin: They get this feeling—it's like this horrible psychological trick where:I don't know the answer, but if I had to come up with one, I guess I'd say this…And now the conversation starts.You get momentum.Sarah: You Jedi mind-trick them.Dr. Justin: Yeah. It's beautiful.And you write it down.At no point are you allowed to interrupt.At no point are you allowed to tell them they're wrong.At no point are you allowed to respond with your adult wisdom.You just listen.Sarah: Okay, and we're still on explore?Still on the first E?Dr. Justin: We're still on the first E.You make all these notes, and once it sounds like they've told you everything, you say:“All right. So what you're telling me is…”And then you read the notes back.This is the oldest psychological strategy in the book—I'm not saying anything new here.If they say, “Yes, that's what I'm saying,” you say:“All right. Great. I've got it.”If they say no, then you say:“Oh, what have I missed? How did I get this wrong? Clarify it for me.”And they give you more information.But there's a really valuable question at the end.When they say, “Yes, that's what I'm saying,” you ask:“Fantastic. Is there anything else?”Sarah: Mm-hmm.Dr. Justin: The power of asking that extra question is profound.It forces them to go deeper.Sometimes they'll say, “No, that's it.”But often, their first answers are shallow answers to get you off their back.They're thinking:I'm telling you what I think you want to hear.But when you say:“Got it. You're happy with this answer? Fantastic. Is there anything else going on?”That's when they look at you and think:Oh—you're actually serious about this. You really care.Sarah: And you're really listening to me.Dr. Justin: Yeah.And it's profound what children will give you after you ask, “Is there anything else?”Once you've got everything written down, confirmed, and you're clear, the next step is explain.Dr. Justin: Now, there are a couple of things around explain.Explain is basically the part where you tell them what they need to know. This is the parent bit.But all too often, we step into lecturing, and the kids fall asleep. They're like, “Oh, here we go again. I thought this was going to be different, but it's no different after all.”So there are a couple of things we need to get right here.Number one: if you're going to explain anything to your children, my recommendation is that you keep it to less than 20 seconds.Now, there's no science around this. This is just my experience in talking with parents and kids in my own family. I find that if you talk for more than 10 to 20 seconds, kids really do tune out, and it goes back to the way things have always been.The second thing is that I always ask permission.“Now that I've listened to you, Sarah, there are just one or two things I'd love to run by you about what's going on. Do you mind if I do that?”I want to make this absolutely clear: as a parent, you do not need your child's permission to tell them things. I really, absolutely, honestly believe that. As the parent, you have the right to tell them stuff they need to know.But this isn't about rights. This is about effectiveness.If I launch into, “Well, Sarah, now that I've listened to that, I get it, but I need to tell you these two things,” I'm already bringing defensiveness back into the relationship.Sarah: Mm-hmm.Dr. Justin: Barriers are coming up.Whereas if I say, “Sarah, this is so helpful. As I've listened to you, two things have come to mind. Do you mind if I share both of those with you?” Your instant response, even as I say it—I'm watching your face—Sarah: I'm nodding.Dr. Justin: And you're going—Sarah: Yeah.Dr. Justin: Yeah. I actually want to know.You're opening up your heart and mind to me, and we're just role-playing this.Sarah: Yeah, yeah. Mm-hmm.Dr. Justin: And that's what our kids do. They're like, “Oh, okay.” Because we've given them the courtesy of listening—Sarah: Well, and you're not trying to use your power over them.Dr. Justin: Exactly.This is a non-coercive, really supportive conversation.And I still haven't had this happen. A lot of parents will say, “Well, what happens if they say no?”And I'm like, “I've raised six kids, and they've never actually looked at me and said, ‘Now that I think about it, no, I don't need to know anything that you…'”They've just never done it.But even if they did—Sarah: Well, if they do, it's probably that they're—what did you say? When emotions are high, intelligence is low. Maybe it wasn't the right time to have the conversation.If they're saying no, then they're probably still angry and holding onto whatever was going on for them.Dr. Justin: Exactly.But if they're that angry, they're probably not going to have explored nicely with you anyway.Sarah: Yes, exactly. So pick—Dr. Justin: A different time.You're probably not even going to—Sarah: Get to that point. Yeah.Dr. Justin: So it's very much: keep it really short, ask permission, and then share.Sarah: Okay. So give me examples.You said, “We've been fighting about screens,” was one example. You also gave the example of, “You've been fighting a lot with your brother.”So in the explain—10 to 20 seconds—choose one of those scenarios. After hearing your child, what would you say in that 10 to 20 seconds?Dr. Justin: I did this just the other day with my 16-year-old daughter, Lily, who is on social media more than she should be. There's been some tension and conflict.I listened. She shared some ideas, and I said, “There are just a couple of things I want to run by you. Is that okay?”She said, “Sure, Dad.”I said, “Great. There are certain times when we're trying to connect or have family time, and there are certain contexts where you're on your device and we just can't reach you.”She looked at me and said, “Yeah, I know.”I said, “Okay. The second thing I want to highlight is that we've noticed you're sleeping in because, even though you're not supposed to, you've been taking your phone into your bedroom at night and staying up late scrolling. Unless I'm reading it wrong, I'm pretty sure that's what's been happening.”And she said, “No, I have been, Dad. You're right.”So it's just two really succinct sentences where I'm stating what I'm seeing. I'm sharing my experience.Sarah: Mm-hmm.Dr. Justin: If it were the sibling fighting, I'd say, “Yeah, your brother is really annoying. I get what's going on. Sometimes I wish he didn't live in our house as well.”I might have a joke with them about the challenge associated with that.And then I might say, “So when this happens, can I just share how it feels for me? It breaks my heart. I love both of you so very much, and my dream is for our family to enjoy being in one another's company and to look forward to conversations and jokes and doing the things we do. When this stuff is going on, it feels like that's a pipe dream.“And secondly, psychologically—you know I've got this PhD in psychology—I know that there's damage being done to the way your brother feels about himself. That's what I'm worried about.”So I've had both of those little conversations on two different topics, sharing two different things, and both were about 10 seconds each.Sarah: Mm-hmm.Dr. Justin: Again, it's conversational. It's not lecture-style.Sarah: And it's from the heart.I can feel it, even though this is just an example you're giving. I can feel that it's from your heart—that you're really being open and sharing with your child what your true concerns are.You're not trying to power over or control. You're really sharing a heartfelt sentiment.Dr. Justin: Yeah. Thank you. That's the goal.You won't always do that, but that's the goal.The reason there's a problem is because your values are not being upheld in the home, and you're trying to communicate that in a way that shows you honor them and that they've got a brain.Now, we've used two really grown-up versions—or teenage versions, I guess. But you can have the same conversations with three- and four-year-olds. It's just shorter. It's simpler.Usually, with those conversations, in a pretty tight timeframe—60 to 90 seconds—you've done the whole process.There is a higher-order—Sarah: Okay, so what's the third part?Dr. Justin: Just before I get to that one, if you really want to do the advanced version of explain, what I'll often do after I've explored with my child is say:“Okay, so this is the bit where I'd normally explain what's going on from my point of view. I wonder if you can tell me what you think I'm going to say here.”Sarah: Ah.Dr. Justin: And so I get them to explain the explain to me.The reason that's so effective is that whenever my mouth is the one that's moving, my brain is the one that's working.If I can get their mouth moving, their brain is doing the heavy lifting.Sarah: Love that.Dr. Justin: That's really, really effective.And then the last one—Sarah: Is empower.And you're also helping them see things and develop empathy, right? To see things from somebody else's perspective.Dr. Justin: Yes. Powerful.The last one is empower.That's literally as simple as saying, “Okay, so I get where you're coming from. We've had that conversation very thoroughly. You know what my challenge is here. What do you think we should do?”“Where do we go from here? How do we solve this in a way that we can both feel good about?”It's true that every now and then, your child will shrug their shoulders and say, “I don't know.”Or they'll shrug and say, “Well, we should just do what I want to do.”And as a parent, that's where you step in and say my favorite line:“Don't you just wish? Don't you just wish we could?”Sarah: Mm-hmm.Dr. Justin: Because—well, let me ask you, Sarah. When I say, “Don't you just wish,” or, “Wouldn't it be good if we could?”—same thing—what have I actually said?Sarah: Total empathy. Heaps of empathy.Dr. Justin: Total empathy.But I've also said something else really clearly.Sarah: That that's not going to work.Dr. Justin: Correct. The answer is no.But it's a no with so much love, kindness, empathy, and gentleness in it—Sarah: Mm-hmm.Dr. Justin: —that your child goes, “Oh, yeah. I know.”And then you say, “So let's see if we can come up with a solution that will work.”What else might work for you when it comes to your brother?What else might work for you when it comes to the party on Friday night that I'm not willing to let you go to?What else could work when it comes to our screen challenges? Because this is an ongoing issue for us, isn't it?Every now and then, you won't get an answer right away. You'll say, “Well, let's talk about it again tonight,” or, “Let's talk about it again tomorrow once you've had some time to think about it.”But I'm big on deadlines.“We need to have this worked out by the end of the weekend, okay? I don't want to go through another week of this. We've got to find a solution. If we haven't had another chat by tomorrow night, we're going to sit down and work it out then.”And I also don't have a problem at this point—Laura Walker is a researcher at BYU in Utah, and she did a study published in the Journal of Adolescence where she found that parents who use these kinds of strategies—she's not talking about the Three E's of Effective Discipline, because that's the thing I developed, but it's based on the same sort of theory that she researches—Parents who use these kinds of strategies, even when they do have to step in and say, “All right, well, we haven't come up with a solution, so it's going to be my way,” kids are much more likely to be responsive and compliant—Sarah: Mm-hmm.Dr. Justin: —because we've been through a process with them that is not autocratic. It's not authoritarian.They've felt like they had a voice. Their perspective has been seen and heard. They've had some input.And even though they don't get what they want all the time—because we're the parents, and sometimes the fact that we've climbed 47 rungs on the ladder of life and they've only climbed 13 is all we need.Sarah: That's what I call in my work the goodwill bank.When your kids experience you as collaborative, non-coercive, and not power-tripping—when they know, over the period of their childhood, that they can trust you to take their preferences into account and be respectful of them—then when you do have to say no about something, even if they don't like it, there's this goodwill bank behind you and this level of trust.When you mentioned, “You can't go to the party on Friday,” I never had that issue with my kids because everything was so collaborative.We'd have similar conversations. I didn't have—I'm not very good at thinking of things like the Three E's—but similar kinds of processes where they'd say why they wanted to go, I'd say what my concerns were, and then they'd invariably say, “Oh, yeah, you're probably right.”It was never, “You can't go.”It was, “These are my concerns. This is what I've been thinking about.”Because they experienced that whole process over years of parenting, you don't get the pushback because they don't feel like you're power-tripping them.Dr. Justin: Yeah.Sarah, I had an experience with one of my adult children who was still living at home. I think she was maybe 19 or 20 when this happened.She wanted to go and do something, and I said to her, “You're an adult. You do get to choose for yourself whether you will do this or not, but I've got some really big concerns about you doing it.“I actually think you're putting yourself into a dangerous situation. There's some history, some volatility, and some challenges if you go and involve yourself in this particular activity. Tell me why this is so important to you.”So she walked me through it, and I said, “Okay, I get it. How do my concerns stack up against your desire to be there?”And she said, “Dad, I get what you're saying, but I want to go.”And I said, “Okay, so…”You used that beautiful term, the goodwill bank. I can't remember exactly what my words were, but I'm going to use your term right now, because I essentially said:“I'm going to use the goodwill I've built up with you over the last however many years and step in really firmly and say you're making a mistake.“As your dad, even though you're an adult, I want to forbid you to go. That's how strongly I feel about this. To the degree that I can, I forbid it.“Ultimately, you will choose because you are an adult, but I don't want you there.”Sarah: I'm going on the record.Dr. Justin: Yeah, yeah.“I need you to trust that this is a bad idea. We can come up with any number of other activities you could do instead, with different people in a different location, but this is a bad idea, and you have none of my support should you go.“If you go and something goes wrong, you call me and I'll come rescue you. But it is a bad idea, and I forbid it.”And I couldn't believe I was saying those words. I've never said them in my life, and now I was saying them to an adult.But she looked at me and said, “Okay.”Sarah: Mm-hmm.Dr. Justin: She didn't fight me. She didn't say, “I can do what—”Sarah: No, because you built up the history with her of how she experienced you.Dr. Justin: Yeah. She was like, “Wow, this is serious. He's never said that before. If he feels that strongly, maybe he's right. Maybe I need to find an alternative.”So anyway, that's the Three E's of Effective Discipline.I feel like I've talked too much, Sarah. I wanted to be much more conversational, but I get carried away when we—Sarah: No, no. I love it.I feel like it's very complementary to the things that I teach, and you've given me some new things to teach parents as well.I love having sort of snappy—the Three E's of Discipline. I think that's great. I love it. I'll share it.Dr. Justin: Yeah, please. Absolutely.It's helped so many millions of parents.Sarah: Yeah.Well, I love that we've connected across the world—from the other side of the world to each other—and I look forward to hopefully talking to you again in March of 2027 when your book Boys comes out.I figured we were going to talk about that, but we had such a lovely conversation about peaceful parenting, discipline, and—oh my God, it's gone right out of my head—Dr. Justin: Self-determination theory.Sarah: Self-determination theory.I think it was a really great conversation, and I really appreciate you sharing all of your experience and wisdom.Dr. Justin: I loved the conversation.Like I said, it was too one-sided. I wish we'd been able to go backward and forward a bit more, but let's do it again.Let's chat again next year when the book comes out, and we'll talk about boys and how to help them.There's so much talk about toxic masculinity.Sarah: Mm-hmm.Dr. Justin: Wouldn't it be great if we could give them a view of healthy masculinity—a model of that to follow?That's what my book is all about: how we can guide boys into a healthy form of masculinity.Sarah: Well, for folks in Australia, your book is coming out in June 2026. For folks in North America, it's not coming out until spring 2027.So I will definitely be ringing you up and having you come back on to talk about the book when you've got your North American release. I know we're going to have a great conversation then.Before I let you go, though, I have a question that I ask all my podcast guests:If you had a time machine and you could go back and tell your younger parent self something, what advice would you give yourself?Dr. Justin: Jean-Jacques Rousseau said there is—I can't remember the quote exactly—but: What wisdom is there that is greater than kindness?I've paraphrased it. It's not perfect, but it's something along those lines.Interestingly, Rousseau had, I think, five children—maybe six—and he put them all into orphanages somewhere in the first 18 months of their lives so he could spend more time writing and focusing on how to be a good person, which I just find criminal. I can't believe it.So take it for what it's worth, but “What wisdom is there that's greater than kindness?” is what Rousseau said.I've mentioned this idea of soft eyes a couple of times. If I could go back, I would teach myself about kindness. I'd teach myself about many of the things we've talked about today.But I just want to quickly share the story of soft eyes.As an academic, I want everything I say to be evidence-based. There is no evidence that I'm aware of where people have done any kind of randomized controlled trial where parents are asked to interact with their children with soft eyes, neutral eyes, hard eyes, or anything like that.Soft eyes is this idea—I was giving a presentation at a public library one time, and an elderly lady stepped into the back of the room, sat down, and listened to the last 25 or 30 minutes of my presentation. She must have liked what she could hear from the corridor outside, and she stepped in to listen.After everybody had left, she walked over to me and said, “I really enjoyed what you shared. I'd love to tell you something my grandmother said to me.”So we're going back into the early 1900s.Her grandmother said, “Whenever you're talking to your children about matters of discipline, make sure you have soft eyes.”And I thought, I really like that.Because if you try to have a conversation with somebody and your eyes are soft, you just can't say mean things. You can't say harsh things. You can't have harsh thoughts.If you soften your eyes, your face softens and your heart softens. You have this beautiful compassion and kindness, this ability to see the best in them rather than the worst in them, to assume positive intent.There's something gorgeous about soft eyes.So I would go back and quote Rousseau better than I just quoted him to you, and I would tell my younger self that soft eyes will make a tremendous impact on all of my relationships.Sarah: Ah.There's an American—I don't know if you've heard of him in Australia—but he's a pretty well-known marriage counselor, Terry Real.Dr. Justin: Oh, yeah. I quote him in my book.Sarah: Yeah, yeah. He does a lot of work about—well, he says something like, “There's nothing that harshness can accomplish that kindness can't accomplish better.”Dr. Justin: That's so beautiful.Sarah: Mm-hmm.Dr. Justin: Thank you. That's inspiring. I'm so glad you shared that.Sarah: Yeah. I love it.It's hard to remember, but I think it is true. And I wish that—and I know the world needs a dose of that right now.Dr. Justin: Yeah. Yeah.Sarah: One hundred percent.Well, thank you so much.Where's the best place for folks to go and find out more about you and what you do?Dr. Justin: Probably my podcast, the Happy Families Podcast. My wife and I drop a 15-minute nugget of parenting wisdom every day, five days a week.Sarah: Oh, wow!Dr. Justin: Yeah. It's a lot of content, but it's bite-sized chunks, and it's entertaining. We're fun. We get to do it together.And the Happy Families Podcast. I've got a website called happyfamilies.com.au, but basically, if you like what we've talked about—Sarah: We'll link to all of that in the show notes. We'll link to your website and your podcast, and I'm sure it's easy to find you.Dr. Justin: That sounds great. Thanks, Sarah.Sarah: Thank you so much.Dr. Justin: What a great, great conversation. Lovely to be with you.Reimagine Peaceful Parenting with Sarah Rosensweet Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sarahrosensweet.substack.com/subscribe

Do you ever worry that you're not serious enough for academia? That you're constantly playing whack-a-mole with hiding your many frivolous and unimpressive traits as you try to convince everyone that you deserve your place at the table? That you're a big old fake because you need to curate yourself so much in order to seem like you belong? If so, you're not alone - and it's not because you're flawed. It's because you're yet to uncover academia's dirty little secret: that it's just a job. If you can get your head around that, life will be much less stressful.ReferencesGoffman, Erving. 1956: The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (University of Edinburgh Social Sciences Research Centre).Guignon, Charles. 2004: On Being Authentic (London: Routledge). (Bernard Williams quotation on page viii.)Hawley, Katherine. 2019: 'What is impostor syndrome?', Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 93/1: 203–226.Kelsky, Karen. 2021: 'Academia is a cult', TEDx Talks.Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. 1770: The Confessions of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Lester Crocker (ed.) (New York: Pocket Books, 1957).Sartre, Jean-Paul. 1943: Being and Nothingness (New York: Washington Square Press, 1992).

In this episode of The Podcast for Cultural Reformation, Dr. Joe Boot and Dr. Michael Thiessen think Christianly about Marxism — not as a political or economic theory, but as a religious worldview offering a counterfeit vision of salvation, history, and liberation. Joe traces Marx's roots in Hegel and Rousseau, unpacks dialectical materialism and conflict theory, and shows why Marxism is a fundamentally destructive project. Drawing on Marx's own writings and Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, Joe and Michael expose how Marxism parodies the Christian story — borrowing categories like alienation, reformation, justice, and freedom while emptying them of objective content. The result is a messianic vision driven by envy and resentment, with ordinary people serving as the cannon fodder of an undefined utopia. Against this counterfeit, Joe sets the true paradigm of liberation: the Exodus. From Passover blood to Sinai law, the biblical story is recapitulated in Christ — the greater Moses, the greater Joshua, the true Passover Lamb — who delivers his people not into lawless utopia but into a kingdom of righteousness, holiness, and dominion. Marxism offers a savior who covets your stuff. Christianity proclaims the Good Shepherd who laid down his life for the sheep.

In this episode of The Podcast for Cultural Reformation, Dr. Joe Boot and Dr. Michael Thiessen think Christianly about Marxism — not as a political or economic theory, but as a religious worldview offering a counterfeit vision of salvation, history, and liberation. Joe traces Marx's roots in Hegel and Rousseau, unpacks dialectical materialism and conflict theory, and shows why Marxism is a fundamentally destructive project. Drawing on Marx's own writings and Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, Joe and Michael expose how Marxism parodies the Christian story — borrowing categories like alienation, reformation, justice, and freedom while emptying them of objective content. The result is a messianic vision driven by envy and resentment, with ordinary people serving as the cannon fodder of an undefined utopia. Against this counterfeit, Joe sets the true paradigm of liberation: the Exodus. From Passover blood to Sinai law, the biblical story is recapitulated in Christ — the greater Moses, the greater Joshua, the true Passover Lamb — who delivers his people not into lawless utopia but into a kingdom of righteousness, holiness, and dominion. Marxism offers a savior who covets your stuff. Christianity proclaims the Good Shepherd who laid down his life for the sheep.

In this episode of The Podcast for Cultural Reformation, Dr. Joe Boot and Dr. Michael Thiessen think Christianly about Marxism — not as a political or economic theory, but as a religious worldview offering a counterfeit vision of salvation, history, and liberation. Joe traces Marx's roots in Hegel and Rousseau, unpacks dialectical materialism and conflict theory, and shows why Marxism is a fundamentally destructive project. Drawing on Marx's own writings and Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, Joe and Michael expose how Marxism parodies the Christian story — borrowing categories like alienation, reformation, justice, and freedom while emptying them of objective content. The result is a messianic vision driven by envy and resentment, with ordinary people serving as the cannon fodder of an undefined utopia. Against this counterfeit, Joe sets the true paradigm of liberation: the Exodus. From Passover blood to Sinai law, the biblical story is recapitulated in Christ — the greater Moses, the greater Joshua, the true Passover Lamb — who delivers his people not into lawless utopia but into a kingdom of righteousness, holiness, and dominion. Marxism offers a savior who covets your stuff. Christianity proclaims the Good Shepherd who laid down his life for the sheep.

Joanna Stalnaker is a professor of French at Columbia University and also the author of the books The Rest Is Silence: Enlightenment Philosophers Facing Death and The Unfinished Enlightenment: Description in the Age of the Encyclopedia. Greg and Joanna discuss how Enlightenment figures faced death amid disbelief or tempered religious belief. Joanna says scholars have emphasized 18th-century death rituals more than philosophers' personal end-of-life writings, and she links her interest to growing up with atheist philosopher parents to her earlier work on Enlightenment description, and Rousseau's late writings.  Their conversation covers models like Socrates and Montaigne's, public scrutiny of deaths, last rites, and burial, and tensions between posterity and accepting oblivion. They discuss Hume's death and ambivalence about his reception, Diderot's Seneca-inspired reflections and critique of Rousseau's self-presentation, Voltaire's editing of Meslier and correspondence with Madame du Deffand, Buffon's gradual “ossification” view of dying, salons and letters' role in Enlightenment networks and women's participation, posthumous publication, and the value of literary form for understanding embodied philosophy and equanimity toward death. *unSILOed Podcast is produced by University FM.* Episode Quotes: On publishing a book against transhumanism 07:19: I published the book [The Rest Is Silence] that, in a certain sense, it's kind of a book against transhumanism or all these attempts to sort of survive, whether it be through technology or whether it be through spreading one's genetic material by having as many babies as possible. There's this—I see, in our current moment, a kind of denial of death through those various phenomena. Sorates is a model of enlightened death  04:53: Socrates is a model in terms of how to die, what one might call an enlightened death; how to die a philosophical death; and how to face death in a courageous manner, in keeping with one's philosophy. And that was a preoccupation for both David Hume and Voltaire. They were very aware that the public was watching their deaths and that there was great interest in how they would die and whether they would recant their beliefs on their deathbeds. They were thinking back to this model of Socrates, I believe. Can you separate philosophy from the way it is written? 39:04: One of the things that I want to insist on in my work is the fact that we need to take literary form and genre and style into account because it's very difficult. The philosophical ideas cannot be extracted from their form, and I, in this particular book  [The Rest Is Silence], was interested in the question of embodiment because my book is really about them attempting, acknowledging their coming deaths but acknowledging that they lived as bodies, as mortal bodies, and attempting to find a way to express that in writing. Show Links: Recommended Resources: Stoicism Epicureanism Michel de Montaigne Jean-Jacques Rousseau The Heavenly City of the Eighteenth-Century Philosophers by Carl L. Becker Denis Diderot David Hume Madame du Deffand Voltaire Boredom Adam Smith Guest Profile: Faculty Profile at Columbia University Profile for the Society of Fellows and Heyman Center for the Humanities Guest Work: Amazon Author Page The Rest Is Silence: Enlightenment Philosophers Facing Death The Unfinished Enlightenment: Description in the Age of the Encyclopedia Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Full Hour 1 in The Sports Bar. Gene reacts to the Sabres bad loss in game 5. They trail the series 3-2. The Bills schedule is out. How many wins do you see? Buffalo Bills Greg Rousseau joins the show to give you all the details about his charity softball game at ESL Ballpark in June. Plus Timmy's hot take.

Full Show Broadcast. Buffalo Bills Greg Rousseau & Matthew Fairburn on the show. Gene reacts to the Sabres game 5 loss & the Bills 2026-27 schedule. Timmy has his take. Gene shares shots & last call.

Buffalo Bills Greg Rousseau joins the show to tell you all about his charity softball game at ESL Ballpark on Sunday June 7th. Greg also touches on the 2026 schedule, the offseason & New Highmark stadium.

La esclavitud fue una institución milenaria y universal. Existió en todas las civilizaciones a lo largo y ancho del mundo. Da igual donde y cuando miremos. La encontramos en Sumeria, en la antigua Roma, en el islam y en los imperios prehispánicos de América. Nadie la cuestionaba y parecía que iba a existir siempre. Pero entre finales del siglo XVIII y finales del XIX esa estructura se desmoronó. Las raíces del movimiento abolicionista se encuentran en el cristianismo, que aceptó la esclavitud, pero no entre cristianos. En la Edad Media la esclavitud se redujo mucho en Europa occidental, pero resurgió con fuerza tras la llegada de los portugueses al golfo de Guinea y de los españoles al continente americano. Isabel la Católica prohibió esclavizar a los indígenas, pero no a los africanos, lo que permitió que los españoles primero y luego las potencias europeas con intereses en América empezasen a llevar esclavos desde África dando origen a la trata atlántica. El abolicionismo en América surgió entre entre los cuáqueros. En el siglo XVIII se sumaron predicadores como John Newton, autor de Amazing Grace, y filósofos ilustrados como Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Voltaire y Kant, que ofrecieron a la causa de la abolición un fundamento racional y secular. El Reino Unido, curiosamente la mayor potencia esclavista de la época, fue quien más esfuerzos hizo por acabar con la esclavitud. El caso Somerset de 1772 liberó a los esclavos en suelo inglés. Años más tarde la Sociedad para la Abolición, fundada en 1787, creo la campaña política moderna con panfletos, medallones, boicots y peticiones al parlamento. Crearon también un nuevo género, el de los testimonios de antiguos esclavos. Algunos como los de Olaudah Equiano, Quobna Cugoano, Ignatius Sancho y Mary Prince conmovieron a la opinión pública y fueron de vital importancia para influir sobre la agenda legislativa. En el Parlamento un diputado llamado William Wilberforce fue quien se encargó de dar la batalla durante casi 20 años hasta lograr la prohibición de la trata en 1807. La Royal Navy comenzó a patrullar las costas africanas para capturar a los barcos negreros. La diplomacia británica, entretanto, presionaba a las potencias coloniales para que ilegalizasen la compra de esclavos. En 1833 el parlamento aprobó la Slavery Abolition Act que liberó a los 800.000 esclavos del imperio. Los dueños fueron indemnizados con una suma tan elevada que el Gobierno británico tuvo que pedir el dinero prestado. Francia abolió definitivamente la esclavitud en 1848, los Países Bajos en 1863, Portugal en 1869. Estados Unidos resolvió la cuestión en el campo de batalla con una una guerra civil que alumbró la Decimotercera Enmienda de 1865. En España la abolición llegó primero a Puerto Rico en 1873 y luego a Cuba en 1886, tras el sistema transitorio del patronato. Brasil hizo lo propio en 1888, pero aquello costó el trono a los Braganza. El proceso coincidió con la revolución industrial, pero las plantaciones en las Antillas eran rentables. Había algo más que empujó esta idea, el convencimiento íntimo de aquellos europeos de que la esclavitud era incompatible con la dignidad humana. Eso persuadió a las mismas sociedades que se beneficiaban de ella para que renunciaran voluntariamente a una institución milenaria en apenas cinco generaciones. En El Contrasello: 0:00 Introducción 3:50 Abolición de la esclavitud 1:15:16 La desamortización de Mendizábal Bibliografía: "Breve historia de la esclavitud” de James Walvin - https://amzn.to/42AhJUr “Slavery: A World History” de Milton Meltzer - https://amzn.to/439sSM8 “Slavery: A World History” de Milton Meltzer - https://amzn.to/439sSM8 “The slave trade” de Hugh Thomas - https://amzn.to/4wMgTlB “Esclavitud. Una historia de la humanidad” de Michael Zeuske - https://amzn.to/4d8n9w6 · Canal de Telegram: https://t.me/lacontracronica · “Contra el pesimismo”… https://amzn.to/4m1RX2R · “Hispanos. Breve historia de los pueblos de habla hispana”… https://amzn.to/428js1G · “La ContraHistoria del comunismo”… https://amzn.to/39QP2KE · “La ContraHistoria de España. Auge, caída y vuelta a empezar de un país en 28 episodios”… https://amzn.to/3kXcZ6i · “Contra la Revolución Francesa”… https://amzn.to/4aF0LpZ · “Lutero, Calvino y Trento, la Reforma que no fue”… https://amzn.to/3shKOlK Apoya La Contra en: · Patreon... https://www.patreon.com/diazvillanueva · iVoox... https://www.ivoox.com/podcast-contracronica_sq_f1267769_1.html · Paypal... https://www.paypal.me/diazvillanueva #FernandoDiazVillanueva #esclavitud #abolicion Escucha el episodio completo en la app de iVoox, o descubre todo el catálogo de iVoox Originals

Vous aimez notre peau de caste ? Soutenez-nous ! https://www.lenouvelespritpublic.fr/abonnementUne conversation entre Maryvonne de Saint-Pulgent et Philippe Meyer, enregistrée au studio l'Arrière-boutique le 7 novembre 2025.4 : Dans ce quatrième épisode, Maryvonne de Saint-Pulgent et Philippe Meyer continuent leur histoire des relations entre pouvoir et musique. Ils s'attardent sur l'époque de la Régence, où naissent les concerts publics et où les influences étrangères se confrontent dans les salons et les grandes querelles, comme celle de Rameau et Rousseau.Chaque semaine, Philippe Meyer anime une conversation d'analyse politique, argumentée et courtoise, sur des thèmes nationaux et internationaux liés à l'actualité. Pour en savoir plus : www.lenouvelespritpublic.frHébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

Agradece a este podcast tantas horas de entretenimiento y disfruta de episodios exclusivos como éste. ¡Apóyale en iVoox! Saludos, amigos de Antena Historia. Soy Antonio Cruz Medina. Hoy nos disponemos a realizar un viaje hacia uno de los rincones más oscuros, pero a la vez más fascinantes y silenciados de la modernidad. No vamos a hablar de los grandes salones de París ni de los discursos encendidos de la Convención. Hoy, nuestra mirada se dirige al oeste de Francia, a una región que se convertiría en el epicentro de una tragedia sin precedentes. -La atmósfera inicial: El fin del orden sagrado Sitúense conmigo en enero de 1793. El aire en Francia es gélido, pero lo que realmente hiela la sangre es el sonido metálico y seco que ha resonado en la Plaza de la Revolución: la caída de la cuchilla sobre el cuello de Luis XVI. Con la ejecución del rey, la Revolución ha quemado sus naves. Ya no hay vuelta atrás. Aquella "fiesta de la libertad" que comenzó en 1789 con la toma de la Bastilla ha mutado en algo mucho más sombrío. Francia ya no es el país de las luces, es un régimen de urgencia que sobrevive bajo la sombra perpetua de la guillotina. La euforia ha dado paso a la paranoia; el ciudadano ha dado paso al sospechoso. - El escenario: El laberinto del Bocage Para entender por qué la Vendée fue capaz de resistir lo que otras regiones no pudieron, debemos comprender su piel, su geografía. Los historiadores llamamos a este terreno el Bocage. Para que ustedes, nuestros oyentes en España, visualicen este lugar, dejen de pensar en las grandes llanuras francesas. Imaginen, en cambio, la Galicia interior o los valles del norte de Navarra. Es un paisaje fragmentado hasta el infinito: pequeños campos de cultivo cerrados por setos altísimos de espinos y robles, plantados sobre diques de tierra que llevan allí siglos. Entre estos campos no corren carreteras, sino "caminos huecos", senderos excavados por el paso del tiempo que quedan por debajo del nivel del suelo. Es un laberinto natural. Un lugar donde un ejército moderno de la época, acostumbrado a luchar en formación de línea en campo abierto, se volvía ciego y sordo. En el Bocage, el vecino conoce cada atajo y cada seto es una aspillera potencial. Es el escenario perfecto para la emboscada, para la guerra de guerrillas que tanto conocemos en nuestra propia historia. - El choque de dos mundos: París contra el surco Aquí reside el análisis crítico de este preámbulo: en 1793, Francia está partida en dos. Por un lado, tenemos el París revolucionario, urbano, ilustrado y profundamente ideologizado, que cree que la libertad debe imponerse por decreto desde la capital. Por otro, la Francia rural, profundamente católica, ligada al ciclo de las estaciones y a unas tradiciones seculares que no entienden de asambleas. Para el campesino de la Vendée, el mundo no se rige por el "Contrato Social" de Rousseau, sino por el respeto a sus antepasados, a su tierra y a su fe. - Los Detonantes: ¿Por qué estalla la guerra? ¿Cómo pasa un campesino de trabajar la tierra a empuñar una guadaña contra el ejército más poderoso de Europa? No fue un plan maestro de la aristocracia, fue el resultado de una presión insoportable sobre los pilares de su existencia. - La Constitución Civil del Clero: Tocar el alma El primer gran error de París fue la Constitución Civil del Clero. La Revolución intentó convertir a los curas en funcionarios del Estado, exigiéndoles un juramento de fidelidad a la nación por encima de Roma. En la Vendée, esto fue visto como una profanación. Deben entender que en estas aldeas, el cura no es solo un guía espiritual. Es el centro de la vida social, el que bautiza a los hijos, el que consuela en la muerte, el que sabe quién pasa hambre. Cuando París persiguió a los curas "no juramentados" (los que se negaron a firmar), el pueblo sintió que le arrancaban el corazón. Tocar al párroco era, literalmente, atacar a la familia. - La Leva de los 300.000: El punto de no retorno Pero la pólvora terminó de prenderse con la Levée en masse. En marzo de 1793, la República, asediada por las potencias europeas, decretó el reclutamiento forzoso de 300.000 hombres. Imaginen la escena: emisarios de París llegan a las aldeas exigiendo que los jóvenes abandonen sus cosechas para ir a morir a fronteras lejanas defendiendo a un gobierno que les ha quitado a sus curas y les ha subido los impuestos. Para colmo, los funcionarios de la República y los burgueses de las ciudades estaban exentos del sorteo. La respuesta del campesino fue tan lógica como feroz: "Si tenemos que morir, moriremos aquí, defendiendo lo nuestro". - El primer grito: De la protesta a la milicia Los disturbios de marzo de 1793 no empezaron como una guerra organizada, sino como una explosión de rabia primaria. En Machecoul y Saint-Florent-le-Vieil, los jóvenes se negaron al sorteo y se enfrentaron a la Guardia Nacional. Lo que comenzó como una revuelta de "zuecos contra bayonetas" pronto encontró líderes entre los propios humildes —como el carretero Cathelineau— y llamó a las puertas de la pequeña nobleza local para que pusieran su experiencia militar al servicio de la fe. Se había formado el Ejército Católico y Real. La Vendée ya no era una región; era una declaración de guerra contra la modernidad impuesta por el Terror. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 🎧 Antena Historia te regala 30 días PREMIUM Disfruta de todo el contenido sin interrupciones y con ventajas exclusivas en iVoox: 👉 https://www.ivoox.com/premium?affiliate-code=b4688a50868967db9ca413741a54cea5 📻 Producción y realización: Antonio Cruz 🎙️ Edición: Antena Historia 📡 Antena Historia forma parte del sello iVoox Originals 🌐 Visita nuestra web: https://antenahistoria.com 📺 YouTube: Podcast Antena Historia 📧 Correo: antenahistoria@gmail.com 📘 Facebook: Antena Historia Podcast 🐦 Twitter: @AntenaHistoria 💬 Telegram: https://t.me/foroantenahistoria 💰 Apoya el proyecto: Donaciones en PayPal 📢 ¿Quieres anunciarte en Antena Historia? Ofrecemos menciones, cuñas personalizadas y programas a medida. Más información en 👉 Antena Historia – AdVoices Escucha el episodio completo en la app de iVoox, o descubre todo el catálogo de iVoox Originals

So what exactly is an asshole? Is it a settled character type, or just a way of behaving that anyone might fall into on a bad day? Why does asshole behavior provoke us as it does, and why does it seem so much harder to resist now than it once was? If assholes are produced by social conditions (and they appear to be), what conditions produce them, and which ones might produce fewer?This episode takes Aaron James's 2012 bestseller, Assholes: A Theory, as its central provocation. James defines the asshole as someone (almost always a man) who "systematically allows himself to enjoy special advantages in interpersonal relations out of an entrenched sense of entitlement that immunizes him against the complaints of other people." The HBS co-hosts work with this definition and push on it where it falls short. Bob makes the case that contemporary capitalism, supercharged by the compare-and-contrast machinery of social media, has transfigured a vice into a virtue: in our current moment, assholery is increasingly mistaken for strength. Jen draws on Rousseau's distinction between amour de soi and amour-propre to ask what social conditions cultivate the asshole disposition. And Leigh asks what we can do, practically, in our classrooms and in our daily encounters, to make environments less hospitable to assholes in the first place.Grab a drink and join us as we try to figure out what makes an asshole an asshole — and what, if anything, can be done about the apparent abundance of them in our current moment.Full episode notes available at this link:https://hotelbarpodcast.com/podcast/aholes---------------------SUBSCRIBE to the podcast now to automatically download new episodes!SUPPORT Hotel Bar Sessions podcast on Patreon here! (Or by contributing one-time donations here!)BOOKMARK the Hotel Bar Sessions website here for detailed show notes and reading lists, and contact any of our co-hosts here.Hotel Bar Sessions is also on Facebook, YouTube, BlueSky, Instagram, and TikTok. Like, follow, share, duet, whatever... just make sure your friends know about us! ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Keegan Kjeldsen hosts The Nietzsche Podcast and the Untimely Reflections (essentialsalts) YouTube channel — a deep four-year project working through Nietzsche, his forerunners back to the ancient world, and his afterlives in 20th- and 21st-century thought. He's also a doom metal guitarist with Destroyer of Light and Slumbering Sun, and the author of The Ritual Madness of Rock & Roll, a memoir-meets-aesthetics inquiry written on the road through Europe.________________I sat down with Keegan to work through his concept of übermodernism — what's “over and above” modernism, in the same Nietzschean spirit as the Übermensch is over and above man. We trace the history of “the modern” all the way back to Petrarch in the 14th century, work through Nietzsche's perspectivism and his critique of the genealogical fallacy, and ask where the next modernism is meant to come from. A conversation for anyone tired of fighting over whether Nietzsche belongs to the right, the left, or the postmodernists.

[REDIFFUSION] Au XIXème siècle, un peintre autodidacte se met à peindre des paysages de jungle… Sans avoir mis un seul pied hors de France. Son nom : Henri Rousseau dit Le Douanier Rousseau. Une production Bababam Originals Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

People quote Marx.People quote Rousseau.People quote Engels.But do they know who these men actually were?In this Throwback Thursday episode of Common Sense with Chad Law, we go beyond theory and put the men behind utopia on trial.From Rousseau's abandoned children…to Marx's failed life and dangerous ideology…to Engels — the original “luxury revolutionary”…And what happens when those ideas move from books into real life?History has answers.And they aren't pretty.This episode breaks down:The real lives of Marx, Rousseau, and EngelsThe False Prophet TestHow these ideas shaped modern institutionsWhy utopian thinking keeps ending in disasterAnd the better philosophical tradition that built AmericaIf you want to understand the modern world —you have to understand the ideas behind it.#Politics #History #Communism #Capitalism #Conservative #Philosophy #CurrentEvents #NewsAnalysis #Culture #FreedomCall or text the show: 252-CHAD-LAWWatch full episodes on Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/CommonsenseChadLaw

A 60 ans, le peintre Henri Rousseau, ancien commis d'octroi et flâneur en banlieue parisienne, se fait connaitre pour ses jungles aussi sauvages qu'imaginaires. Il invente un style encore inconnu, le primitivisme.Découvrez la fascinante histoire du Douanier Rousseau, ce peintre autodidacte qui a su conquérir le monde de l'art malgré les railleries de ses contemporains.

Spencer Leonard follows up on Monday's livestream on Bonpartism with a conversation about the concept of society, the significance of modernity, and the question of Rousseau's anarchism. Support Sublation Mediahttps://patreon.com/dietsoap