Podcasts about wittgenstein

🎙️ Estimados oyentes y mecenas: En este episodio concluimos nuestro recorrido por el pensamiento de Bertrand Russell, una de las figuras más influyentes de la filosofía del siglo XX. Analizaremos su teoría de las descripciones, clave en el desarrollo de la lógica moderna, su debate intelectual con el segundo Wittgenstein, donde se evidencian dos visiones opuestas del lenguaje y la realidad, y finalmente, su crítica al cristianismo, reflejo de su visión de una razón libre de dogmas religiosos. Gracias por seguir acompañándome en este ciclo dedicado a la filosofía del lenguaje. Vuestro interés y apoyo hacen posible que sigamos pensando juntos. 📗ÍNDICE Introducción a la Filosofía del Lenguaje. 0. Resúmenes iniciales. 1. VIDA Y OBRAS. 2. ATOMISMO LÓGICO. >>> https://go.ivoox.com/rf/159444007 3. TEORÍA DE LAS DESCRIPCIONES. 4. CONTRA EL SEGUNDO WITTGENSTEIN Y LA FILOSOFÍA ANALÍTICA. 5. PACIFISMO Y CRÍTICA DEL CRISTIANISMO. (AUDIO DE HOY) 🎼Música de la época: Sinfonía Nº8 de Miloslav Kabeláč escrita en 1970, año del fallecimiento de nuestro filósofo. 🎨Imagen: Bertrand Arthur William Russell (Monmouthshire; 18 de mayo de 1872-Gwynedd, 2 de febrero de 1970) fue un filósofo, matemático, lógico y escritor británico, ganador del Premio Nobel de Literatura. 👍Pulsen un Me Gusta y colaboren a partir de 2,99 €/mes si se lo pueden permitir para asegurar la permanencia del programa ¡Muchas gracias a todos!

Annemieke Bosman in gesprek met Bo Tarenskeen, theatermaker. Zijn voorstelling Wittgenstein 2. Aan de taal ligt het niet, is deze weken in het theater te zien. De voorstelling toont hoe taal, retoriek en existentiële angst ingezet – en misbruikt – worden in tijden van ontwrichting en politiek geweld. Het stuk, dat zich afspeelt tegen de achtergrond van de ondergang van de Weimar Republiek, werd lovend ontvangen en sleepte in 2024 twee Theo d'Or-nominaties in de wacht: zowel voor Lowie van Oers (meest indrukwekkende dragende rol) als voor Tarenskeen zelf, in de categorie ‘Meest grensverleggende podiumprestatie'. Met alles wat er nu in de wereld speelt heeft de voorstelling alleen maar aan urgentie ingeboet. Wittgenstein 2 maakt deel uit van HET WITTGENSTEIN PROJECT, een reeks van elf voorstellingen die Tarenskeen wijdt aan het leven en werk van filosoof Ludwig Wittgenstein.

Gerade ist die zweite Staffel der Erfolgsserie Oktoberfest 1905 gestartet und wir werfen einen Blick in die historische Realität eines Volksfestes im Umbruch. Exemplarisch dafür steht die erste riesige Bierburg des legendären Wiesnwirts Georg "Schorschl" Lang mit eigener Blaskapelle und Platz für Tausende von Menschen. Doch während das Geschäft mit dem Bier boomt, kursieren auch auf den Wiesn Gerüchte über absichtlich nicht voll eingeschenkte Krüge. Wir gehen dem auf die Spur und besuchen zusätzlich völlig neue Fahrgeschäfte und die diskriminierenden "Menschenschauen", die damals Teil der Wiesn waren. Mit dabei ist auch Filmproduzent Alexis von Wittgenstein, mit dem wir darüber sprechen, was in seiner Serie Oktoberfest 1905 Fiktion ist und was Wirklichkeit.

In Folge 6 vertiefen Fritz Simon und Andreas Kollar das Thema Sprache im Kontext von Erkenntnisprozessen. Was unterscheidet Beschreibung, Bewertung und Erklärung? Wie entstehen Bedeutungen im Gebrauch? Und warum braucht man für manche Worte eigentlich einen Waffenschein? Zwischen Paradoxie-Maschine, Busunfall und Wittgenstein geht es um die Frage, wie Sprache Realitäten erschafft, begrenzt – oder verflüssigt. Inhalte der Episode • Widerstand als Paketbegriff Wie Begriffe in der Beratung Bedeutung verdichten: Beschreibung, Bewertung, Erklärung werden oft vermischt. • Dreifache Unterscheidung Wirklichkeitskonstruktionen lassen sich differenzieren: Beschreiben (Was geschieht?), Erklären (Warum?), Bewerten (Wie ist das?). • Wirkung durch Wortwahl Worte tragen implizite Bedeutungen. Die Zuschreibung von Kausalität beeinflusst Entscheidungen (Medikamente vs. neuer Job). • Sprache schafft Wirklichkeit Begriffe sind Rorschach-Tests. Bedeutung ist weder festgelegt noch beliebig – sie entsteht im Gebrauch. • Konfliktebene Sprache In Konflikten weiß man oft nicht, worauf der andere reagiert: auf das Gesagte, das Gemeinte oder das Gehörte? • Die Logik der Sprache vs. die Logik des Lebens Sprachliche Paradoxien führen zu Oszillationen. Prozesse verlaufen anders als Aussagen. • Paradoxie-Maschine Eine selbstgebaute Lampe mit Lichtsensor erzeugt eine technische Paradoxie: an-aus-an-aus. Wie viele Konflikte auch. • Weiche vs. harte Realitäten Psychische Realität ist veränderbarer als physische, aber nicht beliebig formbar. Veränderung braucht Kontext. • Geschichten vs. Theorien Theorien objektivieren. Geschichten erzeugen Identifikation. Beratung verändert oft die erzählte Dramaturgie. • Sprachverkehr als Beziehungsgeschehen Worte sind nie neutral. Sie treffen, verletzen, bewegen. Bedeutung entsteht relational, nicht lexikalisch. Takeaways • Sprache transportiert immer auch Bewertungen und Erklärungen – oft unbewusst. • Beschreibung, Erklärung, Bewertung müssen unterschieden werden, um gezielt intervenieren zu können. • Sprachlogik erzeugt Realitäten - auch paradoxe. • Geschichten wirken länger als Theorien. • Worte haben Wirkung: "Ein falsches Wort kann eine Beziehung beenden." Markante Zitate • "Begriffe sind wie Pakete. Man muss sie manchmal entwirren, bevor man sie verstehen kann." • "Wenn ich meine Kinder positiver bewerte, erkläre ich ihr Verhalten anders." • "Die Logik der Sprache erlaubt Paradoxien – die Logik der Zeit nicht." • "Ein falsches Wort kann eine Beziehung beenden." • "Der Gebrauch bestimmt die Bedeutung der Worte." (Wittgenstein) Literatur / Erwähnte Bezugspunkte Fritz B. Simon (2025): Formen. Zur Kopplung von Psyche, Organismus und sozialen Systemen. Carl-Auer. Ludwig Wittgenstein (1953): Philosophische Untersuchungen. Suhrkamp. Berghaus, B. (2020): Luhmann leicht gemacht. Eine Einführung in die Systemtheorie. UTB. _____________ Folgt auch den anderen Podcasts von Carl-Auer: autobahnuniversität https://www.carl-auer.de/magazin/autobahnuniversitat Blackout, Bauchweh und kein` Bock https://www.carl-auer.de/magazin/blackout-bauchweh-und-kein-bock Cybernetics of Cybernetics https://www.carl-auer.de/magazin/cybernetics-of-cybernetics Genau Geschaut: https://www.carl-auer.de/magazin/genau-geschaut Frauen führen besser https://www.carl-auer.de/magazin/frauen-fuhren-besser Formen (reloaded) Podcast https://www.carl-auer.de/magazin/formen-reloaded-podcast Heidelberger Systemische Interviews https://www.carl-auer.de/magazin/heidelberger-systemische-interviews Zum Wachstum inspirieren https://www.carl-auer.de/magazin/zum-wachstum-inspirieren Zusammen entscheiden https://www.carl-auer.de/magazin/zusammen-entscheiden-2

Philosophy passage got you spiraling? In this CARS Reading Skills Workshop, Molly and Jack unpack the “Wittgenstein and Mathematics” daily passage (Sept 17) and show you exactly how to read dense, abstract prose without panicking.- How to anchor yourself on clear sentences (and ignore the “interesting nonsense” that isn't testable)- The core claim: mathematics = a kind of logic built on rules — and why that repeats (so it's the main idea)- Early vs. later Wittgenstein: from one monolithic language → many language games (each with its own rules)- How to track shifts between language, logic, and math without getting lost- When to slow down, when to move on, and how to extract the main idea fastPro tips covered:-Use contrast/qualifiers (“in fact,” “later,” “still”) to spot high-yield sentences-Treat ultra-dense lines as support, not the thesisBefore you watch:Read the Sept 17 daily passage: https://jackwestin.com/daily/mcat-practice-passages/cars-practice-passages/wittgenstein-and-mathematics⁠Want to learn more? Shoot us a text at 415-855-4435 or email us at podcast@jackwestin.com!

Matt Greene discusses with Ivan six things which should be better known. Matt Greene is an author, teacher, former screenwriter, and stay-at-home dad. His first novel, Ostrich, won a Betty Trask Award and his memoir Jew(ish) was described by Booker-shortlisted author Nadifa Mohamed as ‘wonderful' and ‘acerbically funny'. He teaches critical and creative writing in South London, where he lives with his partner and two sons. His new book is The Definitions, which is at https://evewhite.co.uk/books/the-definitions/. Purple Mountains https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-album-reviews/review-purple-mountains-858339/ What killed the studio sitcom https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2021/oct/26/the-last-laugh-is-the-television-sitcom-really-dead A Village After Dark https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2001/05/21/a-village-after-dark Speech Act Theory https://www.thoughtco.com/speech-act-theory-1691986 Two Jews, Three Opinions https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/one-jew-two-opinions/ Wierzbicka vs Wittgenstein https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Wierzbicka This podcast is powered by ZenCast.fm

Imagine this: You're walking past a shallow pond and spot a toddler thrashing around in the water, in obvious danger of drowning. You look around for her parents, but nobody is there. You're the only person who can save her and you must act immediately. But as you approach the pond you remember that you're wearing your most expensive shoes. Wading into the water will ruin them—and might make you late for a meeting. Should you let the child drown? The philosopher Peter Singer published this thought experiment in 1972, arguing that allowing people in the developing world to die, when we could easily help them by giving money to charity, is as morally reprehensible as saving our shoes instead of the drowning child. Can this possibly be true? In Death in a Shallow Pond, David Edmonds tells the remarkable story of Singer and his controversial idea, tracing how it radically changed the way many think about poverty—but also how it has provoked scathing criticisms.Death in a Shallow Pond describes the experiences and world events that led Singer to make his radical case and how it moved some young philosophers to establish the Effective Altruism movement, which tries to optimize philanthropy. The book also explores the reactions of critics who argue that the Shallow Pond and Effective Altruism are unrealistic, misguided, and counterproductive, neglecting the causes of—and therefore perpetuating—poverty. Ultimately, however, Edmonds argues that the Shallow Pond retains the power to shape how we live in a world in which terrible and unnecessary suffering persists. David Edmonds is the bestselling author of many critically acclaimed and popular books on philosophy, including Wittgenstein's Poker (with John Eidinow). His other books include Parfit, The Murder of Professor Schlick, and Would You Kill the Fat Man? (all Princeton). A Distinguished Research Fellow at the University of Oxford's Uehiro Oxford Institute and a former BBC radio journalist, Edmonds hosts, with Nigel Warburton, the Philosophy Bites podcast, which has been downloaded nearly 50 million times. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. 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

Imagine this: You're walking past a shallow pond and spot a toddler thrashing around in the water, in obvious danger of drowning. You look around for her parents, but nobody is there. You're the only person who can save her and you must act immediately. But as you approach the pond you remember that you're wearing your most expensive shoes. Wading into the water will ruin them—and might make you late for a meeting. Should you let the child drown? The philosopher Peter Singer published this thought experiment in 1972, arguing that allowing people in the developing world to die, when we could easily help them by giving money to charity, is as morally reprehensible as saving our shoes instead of the drowning child. Can this possibly be true? In Death in a Shallow Pond, David Edmonds tells the remarkable story of Singer and his controversial idea, tracing how it radically changed the way many think about poverty—but also how it has provoked scathing criticisms.Death in a Shallow Pond describes the experiences and world events that led Singer to make his radical case and how it moved some young philosophers to establish the Effective Altruism movement, which tries to optimize philanthropy. The book also explores the reactions of critics who argue that the Shallow Pond and Effective Altruism are unrealistic, misguided, and counterproductive, neglecting the causes of—and therefore perpetuating—poverty. Ultimately, however, Edmonds argues that the Shallow Pond retains the power to shape how we live in a world in which terrible and unnecessary suffering persists. David Edmonds is the bestselling author of many critically acclaimed and popular books on philosophy, including Wittgenstein's Poker (with John Eidinow). His other books include Parfit, The Murder of Professor Schlick, and Would You Kill the Fat Man? (all Princeton). A Distinguished Research Fellow at the University of Oxford's Uehiro Oxford Institute and a former BBC radio journalist, Edmonds hosts, with Nigel Warburton, the Philosophy Bites podcast, which has been downloaded nearly 50 million times. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory

Imagine this: You're walking past a shallow pond and spot a toddler thrashing around in the water, in obvious danger of drowning. You look around for her parents, but nobody is there. You're the only person who can save her and you must act immediately. But as you approach the pond you remember that you're wearing your most expensive shoes. Wading into the water will ruin them—and might make you late for a meeting. Should you let the child drown? The philosopher Peter Singer published this thought experiment in 1972, arguing that allowing people in the developing world to die, when we could easily help them by giving money to charity, is as morally reprehensible as saving our shoes instead of the drowning child. Can this possibly be true? In Death in a Shallow Pond, David Edmonds tells the remarkable story of Singer and his controversial idea, tracing how it radically changed the way many think about poverty—but also how it has provoked scathing criticisms.Death in a Shallow Pond describes the experiences and world events that led Singer to make his radical case and how it moved some young philosophers to establish the Effective Altruism movement, which tries to optimize philanthropy. The book also explores the reactions of critics who argue that the Shallow Pond and Effective Altruism are unrealistic, misguided, and counterproductive, neglecting the causes of—and therefore perpetuating—poverty. Ultimately, however, Edmonds argues that the Shallow Pond retains the power to shape how we live in a world in which terrible and unnecessary suffering persists. David Edmonds is the bestselling author of many critically acclaimed and popular books on philosophy, including Wittgenstein's Poker (with John Eidinow). His other books include Parfit, The Murder of Professor Schlick, and Would You Kill the Fat Man? (all Princeton). A Distinguished Research Fellow at the University of Oxford's Uehiro Oxford Institute and a former BBC radio journalist, Edmonds hosts, with Nigel Warburton, the Philosophy Bites podcast, which has been downloaded nearly 50 million times. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

Imagine this: You're walking past a shallow pond and spot a toddler thrashing around in the water, in obvious danger of drowning. You look around for her parents, but nobody is there. You're the only person who can save her and you must act immediately. But as you approach the pond you remember that you're wearing your most expensive shoes. Wading into the water will ruin them—and might make you late for a meeting. Should you let the child drown? The philosopher Peter Singer published this thought experiment in 1972, arguing that allowing people in the developing world to die, when we could easily help them by giving money to charity, is as morally reprehensible as saving our shoes instead of the drowning child. Can this possibly be true? In Death in a Shallow Pond, David Edmonds tells the remarkable story of Singer and his controversial idea, tracing how it radically changed the way many think about poverty—but also how it has provoked scathing criticisms.Death in a Shallow Pond describes the experiences and world events that led Singer to make his radical case and how it moved some young philosophers to establish the Effective Altruism movement, which tries to optimize philanthropy. The book also explores the reactions of critics who argue that the Shallow Pond and Effective Altruism are unrealistic, misguided, and counterproductive, neglecting the causes of—and therefore perpetuating—poverty. Ultimately, however, Edmonds argues that the Shallow Pond retains the power to shape how we live in a world in which terrible and unnecessary suffering persists. David Edmonds is the bestselling author of many critically acclaimed and popular books on philosophy, including Wittgenstein's Poker (with John Eidinow). His other books include Parfit, The Murder of Professor Schlick, and Would You Kill the Fat Man? (all Princeton). A Distinguished Research Fellow at the University of Oxford's Uehiro Oxford Institute and a former BBC radio journalist, Edmonds hosts, with Nigel Warburton, the Philosophy Bites podcast, which has been downloaded nearly 50 million times. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/public-policy

Imagine this: You're walking past a shallow pond and spot a toddler thrashing around in the water, in obvious danger of drowning. You look around for her parents, but nobody is there. You're the only person who can save her and you must act immediately. But as you approach the pond you remember that you're wearing your most expensive shoes. Wading into the water will ruin them—and might make you late for a meeting. Should you let the child drown? The philosopher Peter Singer published this thought experiment in 1972, arguing that allowing people in the developing world to die, when we could easily help them by giving money to charity, is as morally reprehensible as saving our shoes instead of the drowning child. Can this possibly be true? In Death in a Shallow Pond, David Edmonds tells the remarkable story of Singer and his controversial idea, tracing how it radically changed the way many think about poverty—but also how it has provoked scathing criticisms.Death in a Shallow Pond describes the experiences and world events that led Singer to make his radical case and how it moved some young philosophers to establish the Effective Altruism movement, which tries to optimize philanthropy. The book also explores the reactions of critics who argue that the Shallow Pond and Effective Altruism are unrealistic, misguided, and counterproductive, neglecting the causes of—and therefore perpetuating—poverty. Ultimately, however, Edmonds argues that the Shallow Pond retains the power to shape how we live in a world in which terrible and unnecessary suffering persists. David Edmonds is the bestselling author of many critically acclaimed and popular books on philosophy, including Wittgenstein's Poker (with John Eidinow). His other books include Parfit, The Murder of Professor Schlick, and Would You Kill the Fat Man? (all Princeton). A Distinguished Research Fellow at the University of Oxford's Uehiro Oxford Institute and a former BBC radio journalist, Edmonds hosts, with Nigel Warburton, the Philosophy Bites podcast, which has been downloaded nearly 50 million times. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

Episode 112: It's not fun to be in a YMC, eh? Apply to join us as a co-host! https://astrosoundbites.com/recruiting-2025 In today's episode, Cormac, Shashank and Lucia come together to crack open the craziness inside Young Massive (Stellar) Clusters - some of the most exciting neighbourhoods in our Universe. They're a very hot topic at the moment, and not just because of their intense radiation - they host the majority of massive stars, and ancient YMCs might be the ancestors of the globular clusters that orbit our own Milky Way today. Shashank shares a recipe for cooking up YMCs through a computational collision, and Lucia takes a peek at YMCs emerging from their dust-embedded embryonic environs. We round off with a casual discussion of whether simulationists are taking Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus a bit too literally and chat about our favourite star clusters. Astrobites: https://astrobites.org/2025/07/23/ymc_formation/ https://astrobites.org/2025/07/09/gmc-dispersal/

I vårt mest kodknäckande avsnitt hittills går vi – på vår arbetsgivare Eric Sjöblads begäran – igenom … Alan Turing? Ja, det blev så. Per är den som sätter på sig matematikerhatten den här gången och går igenom mannen, myten, legenden och hur löjligt jävla viktig han var för den allierade krigsinsatsen under andra världskriget. Mattis roll är den här gången att inte känna igen matematiska principer och försöka komma ihåg fun facts om Wittgenstein.Stort tack till Eric! Det här är hans personliga expressavsnitt.Vill du också ha ett personligt expressavsnitt? Bli då vår patreon på tier Gustav II Adolfs livvaktsstyrka. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What if the ideas that linger in the back of your mind — the ones you can't quite explain — are the ones you most need to pay attention to?Episode SummaryIn this episode, I explore that question with Dr Nuno Reis, a former physicist and investment banker turned thinker and guide in uncovering what he calls rare dots — those unique, pre-verbal insights that feel deeply resonant but don't yet fit into our existing models of the world.Our conversation begins with Nuno's unusual career path, from string theory and theoretical physics into financial modelling and risk management, before moving into transparency roles in finance. From there, we trace the thread of his enduring curiosity: how crises drive paradigm shifts, why models are useful but limited, and what happens when we acknowledge that not everything fits into neat rational frameworks.Nuno then introduces the concept of rare dots and explains how he's harnessing AI in a novel, deeply human way: not to replace thought, but to help us surface the preverbal ideas that shape our uniqueness. Together, we explore how rare dots can guide creativity, meaning, and innovation in our work and lives — and why paying attention to the things that don't quite make sense may be the most sensible thing we can do.Guest BiographyDr Nuno Reis describes himself as a physicist turned banker turned explorer of human thinking. After completing a PhD in theoretical physics with a focus on string theory, he transitioned into investment banking at UBS and later into financial engineering and transparency initiatives at Bloomberg.Over 18 years in finance, he applied scientific methods to risk modelling, hedging, and complex derivatives, all while maintaining a deep curiosity about the limits of logic and models.Today, Nuno is the creator of the Rare Dots framework, which helps individuals and organisations uncover the pre-verbal insights that drive creativity and meaning. He combines philosophy, history of thought, and cutting-edge uses of AI to build environments where people can explore their deepest intuitions.Through workshops, cohorts, and his own practice, he guides others in turning those rare dots into pathways for innovation, purpose, and contribution.AI-Generated Timestamped Summary[00:00:00] Introduction and framing of rare dots as preverbal insights[00:01:00] Nuno's background: from physics to banking and financial modelling[00:06:00] Applying scientific methods to markets and the 2008 crisis[00:12:00] Replication crisis and paradigm shifts in science[00:18:00] Early story of curiosity and existential questions[00:21:00] Introduction of rare dots as deeply resonant insights[00:26:00] How resonance and intuition shape meaning[00:30:00] Creating environments to surface rare dots[00:35:00] History of thinking vs history of ideas[00:40:00] Using AI as a tool for rare dots and Wittgenstein's ladder[00:46:00] How AI can surface pre-verbal thinking[00:52:00] AI as a prompt for deeper human thinking[00:56:00] Rare dots exploration as an infinite game[01:02:00] Rare dots as a guide for careers and human valueLinksNuno on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/nuno-reis/Nuno's Substack - https://nunobreis.substack.com/

To the Success of Our Hopeless Cause: The Many Lives of the Soviet Dissident Movement — the Pulitzer Prize-winning book by Professor Ben Nathans — is perhaps the sharpest, richest, and funniest account of the Soviet dissident movement ever written. Today, we'll interview Nathans alongside the legendary Ian Johnson, whose recent book Sparks explores the Chinese dissident ecosystem. We discuss… The central enigma of the Soviet dissident movement — their boldness in the face of hopeless odds, How cybernetics, Wittgenstein, and one absent-minded professor shaped the intellectual backbone of post-Stalinist dissent, Why the Soviet Union was such fertile ground for dark humor, and why humor played a vital role for Soviet resistance movements, How the architect of Stalin's show trials laid the groundwork for, ironically, a more professional legal system known as “socialist legality,” Similarities and differences between post-Stalinist and post-Maoist systems in dealing with opposition, Plus: Why Brezhnev read The Baltimore Sun, how onion-skin paper became a tool of rebellion, and why China's leaders study the Soviet collapse more seriously than anyone else. Today's episode is sponsored by Alaya Tea, cofounded by ChinaTalk listener Smita Satiani. Alaya Tea ships Indian teas straight from the source, and their products are 100% plastic-free. My favorite is their Assam black tea, which I've been using to make a fantastic milk tea. Go to ⁠alayatea.co⁠ and use the code CHINATALKTEA for free shipping. Outro music: Владимир Высоцкий - Охота на волков (YouTube Link) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

To the Success of Our Hopeless Cause: The Many Lives of the Soviet Dissident Movement — the Pulitzer Prize-winning book by Professor Ben Nathans — is perhaps the sharpest, richest, and funniest account of the Soviet dissident movement ever written. Today, we'll interview Nathans alongside the legendary Ian Johnson, whose recent book Sparks explores the Chinese dissident ecosystem. We discuss… The central enigma of the Soviet dissident movement — their boldness in the face of hopeless odds, How cybernetics, Wittgenstein, and one absent-minded professor shaped the intellectual backbone of post-Stalinist dissent, Why the Soviet Union was such fertile ground for dark humor, and why humor played a vital role for Soviet resistance movements, How the architect of Stalin's show trials laid the groundwork for, ironically, a more professional legal system known as “socialist legality,” Similarities and differences between post-Stalinist and post-Maoist systems in dealing with opposition, Plus: Why Brezhnev read The Baltimore Sun, how onion-skin paper became a tool of rebellion, and why China's leaders study the Soviet collapse more seriously than anyone else. Today's episode is sponsored by Alaya Tea, cofounded by ChinaTalk listener Smita Satiani. Alaya Tea ships Indian teas straight from the source, and their products are 100% plastic-free. My favorite is their Assam black tea, which I've been using to make a fantastic milk tea. Go to ⁠alayatea.co⁠ and use the code CHINATALKTEA for free shipping. Outro music: Владимир Высоцкий - Охота на волков (YouTube Link) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

durée : 00:59:08 - Avec philosophie - par : Géraldine Mosna-Savoye, Antoine Ravon - En 1970, Iris Murdoch publie "La souveraineté du Bien", ouvrage marqué par ses lectures de Platon, de Wittgenstein ou encore de Simone Weil. Comment la conception du Bien d'Iris Murdoch nous donne-t-elle les clés afin de nous rendre (moralement) meilleurs ? - réalisation : Nicolas Berger - invités : Emmanuel Halais Philosophe français

durée : 00:59:44 - Avec philosophie - par : Géraldine Mosna-Savoye, Antoine Ravon - L'itinéraire philosophique d'Iris Murdoch (1919-1999) est marqué par les enseignements de Wittgenstein sur le langage, ainsi que par l'existentialisme sartrien. Comment découvrir la vérité si le langage peut mentir ? Peut-on percer le mystère de la vie humaine, en dépit de son opacité ? - réalisation : Nicolas Berger - invités : Frédéric Worms Philosophe, directeur de l'Ecole Normale Supérieure de Pari

Concluding our treatment of The Sources of Normativity. We give Korsgaard's tweaks to Kant, including her distinction between the categorical imperative and the moral law. We then explain her reference to Wittgenstein's private language argument in her argument that reason-giving, and hence morality, can't be merely self-referential. Get more at partiallyexaminedlife.com. Visit partiallyexaminedlife.com/support to get ad-free episodes and tons of bonus discussion, including a supporter-exclusive Nightcap comparing Korsgaard to Foot. Sponsors: Visit functionhealth.com/PEL to get the data you need to take action for your health. Get a $1/month e-commerce trial at shopify.com/pel. Learn about Mark's online political philosophy class at partiallyexaminedlife.com/class.

Guy Stagg is an award-winning British writer interested in travel, religion, mental health and the places where they meet. In 2013 he walked from Canterbury to Jerusalem. His first book, The Crossway (Picador, 2018), was an account of this journey. It was a BBC Book of the Week and shortlisted for several prizes. His second, The World Within (Simon and Schuster, 2025), looks at the role of retreat in creative lives.Stagg's site: https://www.guystagg.co.uk/Book link: https://www.simonandschuster.co.uk/books/The-World-Within/Guy-Stagg/9781398533509---Become part of the Hermitix community:Hermitix Twitter - ⁠⁠ / hermitixpodcast⁠⁠ Hermitix Discord - ⁠⁠ / discord Support Hermitix:Hermitix Subscription - ⁠⁠https://hermitix.net/subscribe/⁠⁠ Patreon - ⁠⁠ www.patreon.com/hermitix⁠⁠ Donations: - ⁠⁠https://www.paypal.me/hermitixpod⁠⁠Hermitix Merchandise - ⁠⁠http://teespring.com/stores/hermitix-2⁠⁠Bitcoin Donation Address: 3LAGEKBXEuE2pgc4oubExGTWtrKPuXDDLKEthereum Donation Address: 0xfd2bbe86d6070004b9Cbf682aB2F25170046A996

Send us a textIn this engaging conversation with Dr. Genia Schönbaumsfeld, we explore the radical philosophical journey of Ludwig Wittgenstein—from the tightly structured propositions of the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus to the later insights of Philosophical Investigations. Dr. Schönbaumsfeld unpacks the deep shifts in Wittgenstein's view of language, logic, and meaning, and how these changes shaped the development of analytic philosophy. Whether you're a student of philosophy, a fan of Wittgenstein, or simply curious about how language shapes thought, this video offers an accessible yet rigorous overview of one of the most influential thinkers of the 20th century.Support the show--------------------------If you would want to support the channel and what I am doing, please follow me on Patreon: www.patreon.com/christianityforall Where else to find Josh Yen: Philosophy YT: https://bit.ly/philforallEducation: https://bit.ly/joshyenBuisness: https://bit.ly/logoseduMy Website: https://joshuajwyen.com/

Up now on Patreon (3hr20h)3 months in the making, we get into a century of Dropping Out, DIY, and the conditions of self-preservation featuring mathematician Alexander Groethendieck, artist Lee Lozano, Cormac McCarthy, Shelly Duvall, and Sarah Records. As public life become further cauterized some will declout, some join the Santa Fe institute, and some refuse to speak to other woman for 27 years. Time to find out why Groethendieck's reasons for leaving the mathematics community, abstract financial systems and their influence on human creativity, ‘healthy disillusionment', the hollowing out of Pax Americana, Applied Quantum Mechanics, Cindy Lee album, reason's obscure other, ‘comparing yourself to old stories', Kazemir Malevich: Suprematism, from Shakespeare's Othello, King Leer, Macbeth, Industry Plant Aktion, refusing the art-world, semiotic superficially, ‘High-Energy Scattering', Dictator to Oneself, Wim Wender's “Perfect Days”, the infamous Shelly Duvall Dr. Phil episode, Alex Bienstock, what people learn from Wittgenstein, Bristol's Sarah Records and the politics of C86 jangle pop, micro-science and more.

In 1897, Gustav Klimt led a group of radical artists to break free from the cultural establishment of Vienna and found a movement that became known as the Vienna Secession. In the vibrant atmosphere of coffee houses, Freudian psychoanalysis and the music of Wagner and Mahler, the Secession sought to bring together fine art and music with applied arts such as architecture and design. The movement was characterized by Klimt's stylised paintings, richly decorated with gold leaf, and the art nouveau buildings that began to appear in the city, most notably the Secession Building, which housed influential exhibitions of avant-garde art and was a prototype of the modern art gallery. The Secessionists themselves were pioneers in their philosophy and way of life, aiming to immerse audiences in unified artistic experiences that brought together visual arts, design, and architecture. With:Mark Berry, Professor of Music and Intellectual History at Royal Holloway, University of LondonLeslie Topp, Professor Emerita in History of Architecture at Birkbeck, University of LondonAndDiane Silverthorne, art historian and 'Vienna 1900' scholarProducer: Eliane GlaserReading list:Mark Berry, Arnold Schoenberg: Critical Lives (Reaktion Books, 2018)Gemma Blackshaw, Facing the Modern: The Portrait in Vienna 1900 (National Gallery Company, 2013)Elizabeth Clegg, Art, Design and Architecture in Central Europe, 1890-1920 (Yale University Press, 2006)Richard Cockett, Vienna: How the City of Ideas Created the Modern World (Yale University Press, 2023)Stephen Downes, Gustav Mahler (Reaktion Books, 2025)Peter Gay, Freud, Jews, and Other Germans: Masters and Victims in Modernist Culture (Oxford University Press, 1979)Tag Gronberg, Vienna: City of Modernity, 1890-1914 (Peter Lang, 2007)Allan S. Janik and Hans Veigl, Wittgenstein in Vienna: A Biographical Excursion Through the City and its History (Springer/Wien, 1998)Jill Lloyd and Christian Witt-Dörring (eds.), Vienna 1900: Style and Identity (Hirmer Verlag, 2011)William J. McGrath, Dionysian Art and Populist Politics in Austria (Yale University Press, 1974)Tobias Natter and Christoph Grunenberg (eds.), Gustav Klimt: Painting, Design and Modern Life (Tate, 2008)Carl E. Schorske, Fin-de-siècle Vienna: Politics and Culture (Vintage, 1979)Elana Shapira, Style and Seduction: Jewish Patrons, Architecture and Design in Fin-de-Siècle Vienna (Brandeis University Press, 2016)Diane V Silverthorne, Dan Reynolds and Megan Brandow-Faller, Die Fläche: Design and Lettering of the Vienna Secession, 1902-1911 (Letterform Archive, 2023)Edward Timms, Karl Kraus: Apocalyptic Satirist: Culture & Catastrophe in Habsburg Vienna (Yale University Press, 1989)Leslie Topp, Architecture and Truth in Fin-de-Siècle Vienna (Cambridge University Press, 2004)Peter Vergo, Art in Vienna, 1898-1918: Klimt, Kokoschka, Schiele and Their Contemporaries (4th ed., Phaidon, 2015)Hans-Peter Wipplinger (ed.), Vienna 1900: Birth of Modernism (Walther & Franz König, 2019)Hans-Peter Wipplinger (ed.), Masterpieces from the Leopold Museum (Walther & Franz König)Stefan Zweig, The World of Yesterday: An Autobiography (University of Nebraska Press, 1964)In Our Time is a BBC Studios Audio ProductionSpanning history, religion, culture, science and philosophy, In Our Time from BBC Radio 4 is essential listening for the intellectually curious. In each episode, host Melvyn Bragg and expert guests explore the characters, events and discoveries that have shaped our world.

Vita, libri e pensiero di Ludwig Wittgenstein, filosofo e ingegnere austriaco considerato uno dei massimi pensatori del XX secolo e autore, tra gli altri, di libri come Della certezza.

Today we talk about the late work of Wittgenstein in Philosophical Investigations. We talk about the meaning of words. Augustine's theory. Forms of life. Rules and practices. Grammar. Geometry. Family resemblance. And the role of a philosopher on the other side of accepting this view of language. Hope you love it. :) Sponsors: ZocDoc: https://www.ZocDoc.com/PHILO Quince: https://www.QUINCE.com/pt Better Help: https://www.BetterHelp.com/PHILTHIS Thank you so much for listening! Could never do this without your help.  Website: https://www.philosophizethis.org/ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/philosophizethis  Social: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/philosophizethispodcast X: https://twitter.com/iamstephenwest Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/philosophizethisshow Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In the first of a three-part series on Richard Rorty's Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity (1989), Let Us Think About It delves into the concept of contingency. Host Ryder Richards guides listeners through Rorty's radical argument that language, selfhood, and liberal communities are not grounded in universal truths but are crafted through historical chance, like tools in a dynamic toolkit. Drawing on Chapter 1, Ryder explores how language, far from mirroring reality, builds truths through evolving vocabularies, with examples like the French Revolution and Donald Davidson's “passing theories.” Chapter 2 reveals the self as a contingent construction, sculpted through redescriptions, as seen in Freud and Proust. Chapter 3 examines liberal societies as experimental creations, sustained by imaginative solidarity rather than fixed foundations, referencing Isaiah Berlin and Judith Shklar. While admiring Rorty's vivid metaphors and provocative ideas, Ryder critiques his potentially reductive view, questioning whether freedom alone can ensure moral progress. Packed with direct quotes and punchy insights, this episode sets the stage for upcoming discussions on irony and solidarity. Tune in to rethink how we create our world with the tools of language!

The journey in search of the destinationDoes life have a purpose? Is that what gives life meaning? Or is it the journey that matters the most?Join our four speakers - Nietzschean philosopher Babette Babich, clinical psychologist Frank Tallis, existentialist philosopher Jonathan Webber, and linguist philosopher Sandra Laugier - as they explore the different facets of this question. Setting ourselves goals in life seems both inevitable and necessary for the good life, yet achieving them might render living life meaningless. The balance between having a sense of purpose and experiencing things as they come is a hard one to set.Do you think life must have a purpose? Email us at podcast@iai.tv with your thoughts or questions on the episode!To witness such topics discussed live buy tickets for our upcoming festival: https://howthelightgetsin.org/festivals/And visit our website for many more articles, videos, and podcasts like this one: https://iai.tv/You can find everything we referenced here: https://linktr.ee/philosophyforourtimesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Nelle venti puntate di Vite da logico, andate in onda su Radio2 tra l'11 ottobre e il 5 novembre 2004 per il ciclo Alle otto della sera,  Odifreddi racconta la storia della logica attraverso le vite, le morti e  i miracoli dei suoi principali protagonisti, dai greci ai nostri  giorni. In questo terzo episodio vi proponiamo le seguenti puntate: 11. ⁠L'algebra della logica di Boole⁠ 12. ⁠Gli infiniti di Cantor⁠ 13. ⁠Il logicismo di Frege e Russell⁠ 14. ⁠Il Tractatus di Wittgenstein⁠ 15. ⁠Il programma di Hilbert⁠

18Forty is celebrating its fifth year LIVE in NYC on June 9. Reserve your seats today!In this episode of the 18Forty Podcast, David Bashevkin moderates a dialogue between Aryeh Englander—the ex-Orthodox Jew known as “Philo Judeas,” who is a moderator of the ambitious Frum/OTD Dialogue Facebook group—and Daniel Hagler, a frum surgeon and a moderator of the Facebook group Respectfully Debating Judaism.  Together, we talk about seeking meaning, uncovering religious truths, and making the most of the precious gift we call “life.” In this episode we discuss: How do we know if Judaism is “real” and true? How is a religious commitment like a romantic one? Which is more important: Judaism being true or Judaism being useful?Tune in to hear a conversation about the ways in which we chase truth and determine how we ought to live our lives. Interview begins at 19:29.Follow-up Hagler interview begins at 1:19:04. References:18Forty Podcast: “Philo Judaeus: Is There a Room for Dialogue?”Judaism on Trial: Jewish-Christian Disputations in the Middle Ages by Hyam MaccobyReality+: Virtual Worlds and the Problems of Philosophy by David J. ChalmersTzidkat HaTzadik 4118Forty Podcast: “Rav Moshe Weinberger: Can Mysticism Become a Community?”“Worlds Together” in MishpachaJewish Philosophy as a Guide to Life: Rosenzweig, Buber, Levinas, Wittgenstein by Hilary PutnamNo Country for Old Men (2007)Slate Star CodexEruvin 13bHow Judaism Became a Religion: An Introduction to Modern Jewish Thought by Leora Batnitzky18Forty Podcast: “Malka Simkovich: The Mystery of the Jewish People”A Letter in the Scroll: Understanding Our Jewish Identity and Exploring the Legacy of the World's Oldest Religion by Rabbi Jonathan SacksNotes from Underground by Fyodor DostoevskyKiddushin 30aLeviticus 10:16For more 18Forty:NEWSLETTER: 18forty.org/joinCALL: (212) 582-1840EMAIL: info@18forty.orgWEBSITE: 18forty.orgIG: @18fortyX: @18_fortyWhatsApp: join hereBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/18forty-podcast--4344730/support.

durée : 00:03:35 - Le Pourquoi du comment : philo - par : Frédéric Worms - Qu'est-ce que l'intériorité ? Comment s'exprime-t-elle ? Est-ce un mythe ? Et si elle était moins une réalité cachée qu'une manière de nous raconter ? Contestée par Wittgenstein et Sartre, la notion d'intériorité résiste pourtant aux critiques. - réalisation : Rafik Zénine

"I live on the Danish island of Bornholm, which is in the western end of the Baltic Sea. People here share a long, rich history with the Baltic countries, so choosing a field-recording from Tallinn felt natural. The dastardly Russian war feels really close here at the moment, and many of us here are more conscious about our cultural heritage and friendship across the sea now than we used to be. "This is, however, not a work about war, but more about celebrating the fact that we're still able to take a silly walk through the old historical part of Tallinn, not being at war, walking through a town that isn't in ruins - and simply exploring and enjoying what that's like.  "As you can probably hear, all sounds heard throughout the piece are from the original field-recording. I've used samplers and various sampling effects (like delays and reverbs), and a ton of manual edits (literally thousands of manual edits made over a two week period). The tonal sounds were made with "frozen reverbs". All this editing mainly serves to enhance the original recording, which is kept mostly intact (the enhanced version follows the original recording closely - and therefore also ahas the same duration). "The effect is a sort of personal interpretation of micro-events along the way, as I responded to them while slowly working my way through the piece. "The idea of doing it this way was partly inspired by reading Wittgenstein's "Philosphische Untersuchungen". At one point the philosopher asks about thought-images: "How does one point twice at the same image?" (PU 382), - and, in a way, this way of working with field recordings is a possible answer to this - presenting the same image twice in two different versions at the same time." Tallinn old town walkthrough reimagined by Samatha Dubs (Karsten Høegh).

In this season-opening episode of Hotel Bar Sessions, Rick Lee and Leigh Johnson welcome new co-host Talia Mae Bettcher, a leading voice in trans philosophy and feminist theory, to dive into the deceptively simple but persistently perplexing question: What is philosophy?This wide-ranging conversation explores whether philosophy is defined by its methods (argument, critique, concept creation), its outcomes (or lack thereof), or the scenes and communities in which it takes place. Along the way, the hosts discuss credentialism in academia, gatekeeping in the discipline, and how philosophy might survive outside the university.Drawing on thinkers like Graham Priest, Gilles Deleuze, Wittgenstein, Richard Rorty, Kristie Dotson, and Pierre Hadot, the trio refuse to close the question. Instead, they ask: Can philosophy remain meaningful in a world that demands clear outcomes and fixed definitions? Is staying with the question itself the real task?Whether you're a seasoned philosopher or new to the field, this episode invites you into an ongoing, unfinished conversation—over drinks, at the bar, where the real philosophy happens.Full episode notes available at this link:https://hotelbarpodcast.com/podcast/what-is-philosophy-------------------If you enjoy Hotel Bar Sessions podcast, please be sure to subscribe and submit a rating/review! Better yet, you can support this podcast by signing up to be one of our Patrons at patreon.com/hotelbarsessions!Follow us on Blue Sky @hotelbarpodcast.bsky.social, on Facebook, on TikTok, and subscribe to our YouTube channel!  ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Paul Axton preaches: Wittgenstein, Hegel, and Moltmann unite in describing the resurrection as opening up the life of Christ as the story of God, and the central interpretive key of faith. If you enjoyed this podcast, please consider donating to support our work. Become a Patron!

This sponsored episode features mathematician Ohad Asor discussing logical approaches to AI, focusing on the limitations of machine learning and introducing the Tau language for software development and blockchain tech. Asor argues that machine learning cannot guarantee correctness. Tau allows logical specification of software requirements, automatically creating provably correct implementations with potential to revolutionize distributed systems. The discussion highlights program synthesis, software updates, and applications in finance and governance.SPONSOR MESSAGES:***Tufa AI Labs is a brand new research lab in Zurich started by Benjamin Crouzier focussed on o-series style reasoning and AGI. They are hiring a Chief Engineer and ML engineers. Events in Zurich. Goto https://tufalabs.ai/***TRANSCRIPT + RESEARCH:https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/t849j6v1juk3gc15g4rsy/TAU.pdf?rlkey=hh11h2mhog3ncdbeapbzpzctc&dl=0Tau:https://tau.net/Tau Language:https://tau.ai/tau-language/Research:https://tau.net/Theories-and-Applications-of-Boolean-Algebras-0.29.pdfTOC:1. Machine Learning Foundations and Limitations [00:00:00] 1.1 Fundamental Limitations of Machine Learning and PAC Learning Theory [00:04:50] 1.2 Transductive Learning and the Three Curses of Machine Learning [00:08:57] 1.3 Language, Reality, and AI System Design [00:12:58] 1.4 Program Synthesis and Formal Verification Approaches2. Logical Programming Architecture [00:31:55] 2.1 Safe AI Development Requirements [00:32:05] 2.2 Self-Referential Language Architecture [00:32:50] 2.3 Boolean Algebra and Logical Foundations [00:37:52] 2.4 SAT Solvers and Complexity Challenges [00:44:30] 2.5 Program Synthesis and Specification [00:47:39] 2.6 Overcoming Tarski's Undefinability with Boolean Algebra [00:56:05] 2.7 Tau Language Implementation and User Control3. Blockchain-Based Software Governance [01:09:10] 3.1 User Control and Software Governance Mechanisms [01:18:27] 3.2 Tau's Blockchain Architecture and Meta-Programming Capabilities [01:21:43] 3.3 Development Status and Token Implementation [01:24:52] 3.4 Consensus Building and Opinion Mapping System [01:35:29] 3.5 Automation and Financial ApplicationsCORE REFS (more in pinned comment):[00:03:45] PAC (Probably Approximately Correct) Learning framework, Leslie Valianthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probably_approximately_correct_learning[00:06:10] Boolean Satisfiability Problem (SAT), Varioushttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_satisfiability_problem[00:13:55] Knowledge as Justified True Belief (JTB), Matthias Steuphttps://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/[00:17:50] Wittgenstein's concept of the limits of language, Ludwig Wittgensteinhttps://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/[00:21:25] Boolean algebras, Ohad Osorhttps://tau.net/tau-language-research/[00:26:10] The Halting Problemhttps://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-machine/#HaltProb[00:30:25] Alfred Tarski (1901-1983), Mario Gómez-Torrentehttps://plato.stanford.edu/entries/tarski/[00:41:50] DPLLhttps://www.cs.princeton.edu/~zkincaid/courses/fall18/readings/SATHandbook-CDCL.pdf[00:49:50] Tarski's undefinability theorem (1936), Alfred Tarskihttps://plato.stanford.edu/entries/tarski-truth/[00:51:45] Boolean Algebra mathematical foundations, J. Donald Monkhttps://plato.stanford.edu/entries/boolalg-math/[01:02:35] Belief Revision Theory and AGM Postulates, Sven Ove Hanssonhttps://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-belief-revision/[01:05:35] Quantifier elimination in atomless boolean algebra, H. Jerome Keislerhttps://people.math.wisc.edu/~hkeisler/random.pdf[01:08:35] Quantifier elimination in Tau language specification, Ohad Asorhttps://tau.ai/Theories-and-Applications-of-Boolean-Algebras-0.29.pdf[01:11:50] Tau Net blockchain platformhttps://tau.net/[01:19:20] Tau blockchain's innovative approach treating blockchain code itself as a contracthttps://tau.net/Whitepaper.pdf

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

In this episode, Megan and Frank discuss the philosophical dimensions of prehistory. What and when is the “prehistoric”? How was prehistory "discovered", and what explains our fascination with it? Is ancient archeology safe from our biases? And how did archaic man's meaning-making differ from our own? Thinkers discussed include: Colin Renfrew, Hegel, Charles Taylor, Mircea Eliade, and Wittgenstein.-----------------------Hosts' Websites:Megan J Fritts (google.com)Frank J. Cabrera (google.com)Email: philosophyonthefringes@gmail.com-----------------------Bibliography:Prehistory: The Making of the Human Mind - Colin RenfrewHegel's Lectures on the Philosophy of HistoryCave of Forgotten Dreams - Official Trailer | HD | IFC FilmsBewitched by an Elf Dart: Fairy Archaeology, Folk Magic and Traditional Medicine in Ireland - DowdA Secular Age — Harvard University PressTheory and Observation in Science (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)From things to thinking: Cognitive archaeology - Currie & KillinCognitive Archaeology and the Minimum Necessary Competence Problem - Killin & Pain An Ape's View of the Oldowan - Wynn & McGrewNeuroscience, evolution and the sapient paradox - Colin RenfrewSapient paradox: Why humans got stuck in prehistory -Gossip Trap- Big ThinkThe Myth of the Eternal Return | Princeton University PressEliade_Mircea_The_Sacred_and_The_profane_1963Wittgenstein - Notebooks, 1914 - 1916, 2nd Edition | Wiley-----------------------Cover Artwork by Logan Fritts-------------------------Music from #Uppbeat (free for Creators!):https://uppbeat.io/t/simon-folwar/neon-signsLicense code: AAO0Q7IZMGVTLFJH

******Support the channel****** Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thedissenter PayPal: paypal.me/thedissenter PayPal Subscription 1 Dollar: https://tinyurl.com/yb3acuuy PayPal Subscription 3 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ybn6bg9l PayPal Subscription 5 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ycmr9gpz PayPal Subscription 10 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y9r3fc9m PayPal Subscription 20 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y95uvkao   ******Follow me on****** Website: https://www.thedissenter.net/ The Dissenter Goodreads list: https://shorturl.at/7BMoB Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thedissenteryt/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheDissenterYT   This show is sponsored by Enlites, Learning & Development done differently. Check the website here: http://enlites.com/   Dr. Christopher Hoyt is an Associate Professor in the Department of Philosophy and Religion at Western Carolina University. His research interests include Wittgenstein, and the philosophy of film.   In this episode, we talk about Wittgenstein, philosophy of mind, and religion. We start by discussing Wittgenstein's philosophy, how it relates to philosophy of mind, and how he approached religion. We talk about rituals and meaning, language games and belief systems, and religious dogma. Finally, we discuss the cognitive science of religion; evolutionary theory, and religion as an adaptation; naturalizing religion; and whether there would be room for collaboration between the Wittgensteinians and the cognitive scientists of religion. -- A HUGE THANK YOU TO MY PATRONS/SUPPORTERS: PER HELGE LARSEN, JERRY MULLER, BERNARDO SEIXAS, ADAM KESSEL, MATTHEW WHITINGBIRD, ARNAUD WOLFF, TIM HOLLOSY, HENRIK AHLENIUS, FILIP FORS CONNOLLY, ROBERT WINDHAGER, RUI INACIO, ZOOP, MARCO NEVES, COLIN HOLBROOK, PHIL KAVANAGH, SAMUEL ANDREEFF, FRANCIS FORDE, TIAGO NUNES, FERGAL CUSSEN, HAL HERZOG, NUNO MACHADO, JONATHAN LEIBRANT, JOÃO LINHARES, STANTON T, SAMUEL CORREA, ERIK HAINES, MARK SMITH, JOÃO EIRA, TOM HUMMEL, SARDUS FRANCE, DAVID SLOAN WILSON, YACILA DEZA-ARAUJO, ROMAIN ROCH, DIEGO LONDOÑO CORREA, YANICK PUNTER, CHARLOTTE BLEASE, NICOLE BARBARO, ADAM HUNT, PAWEL OSTASZEWSKI, NELLEKE BAK, GUY MADISON, GARY G HELLMANN, SAIMA AFZAL, ADRIAN JAEGGI, PAULO TOLENTINO, JOÃO BARBOSA, JULIAN PRICE, EDWARD HALL, HEDIN BRØNNER, DOUGLAS FRY, FRANCA BORTOLOTTI, GABRIEL PONS CORTÈS, URSULA LITZCKE, SCOTT, ZACHARY FISH, TIM DUFFY, SUNNY SMITH, JON WISMAN, WILLIAM BUCKNER, PAUL-GEORGE ARNAUD, LUKE GLOWACKI, GEORGIOS THEOPHANOUS, CHRIS WILLIAMSON, PETER WOLOSZYN, DAVID WILLIAMS, DIOGO COSTA, ALEX CHAU, AMAURI MARTÍNEZ, CORALIE CHEVALLIER, BANGALORE ATHEISTS, LARRY D. LEE JR., OLD HERRINGBONE, MICHAEL BAILEY, DAN SPERBER, ROBERT GRESSIS, IGOR N, JEFF MCMAHAN, JAKE ZUEHL, BARNABAS RADICS, MARK CAMPBELL, TOMAS DAUBNER, LUKE NISSEN, KIMBERLY JOHNSON, JESSICA NOWICKI, LINDA BRANDIN, GEORGE CHORIATIS, VALENTIN STEINMANN, PER KRAULIS, ALEXANDER HUBBARD, BR, MASOUD ALIMOHAMMADI, JONAS HERTNER, URSULA GOODENOUGH, DAVID PINSOF, SEAN NELSON, MIKE LAVIGNE, JOS KNECHT, LUCY, MANVIR SINGH, PETRA WEIMANN, CAROLA FEEST, STARRY, MAURO JÚNIOR, 航 豊川, TONY BARRETT, BENJAMIN GELBART, NIKOLAI VISHNEVSKY, STEVEN GANGESTAD, AND TED FARRIS! A SPECIAL THANKS TO MY PRODUCERS, YZAR WEHBE, JIM FRANK, ŁUKASZ STAFINIAK, TOM VANEGDOM, BERNARD HUGUENEY, CURTIS DIXON, BENEDIKT MUELLER, THOMAS TRUMBLE, KATHRINE AND PATRICK TOBIN, JONCARLO MONTENEGRO, AL NICK ORTIZ, NICK GOLDEN, AND CHRISTINE GLASS! AND TO MY EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS, MATTHEW LAVENDER, SERGIU CODREANU, BOGDAN KANIVETS, ROSEY, AND GREGORY HASTINGS!

As whores for criticism, we wanted to have Kasra on to discuss his essay The Deutschian Deadend (https://www.bitsofwonder.co/p/the-deutschian-deadend). Kasra claims that Popper and Deutsch are fundamentally wrong in some important ways, and that many of their ideas will forever remain in the "footnotes of the history of philosophy". Does he change our mind or do we change his? Follow Kasra on twitter (https://x.com/kasratweets) and subscribe to his blog, Bits of Wonder (https://www.bitsofwonder.co/p/the-deutschian-deadend). We discuss Has Popper had of a cultural impact? The differences between Popper, Deutsch, and Deutsch's bulldogs. Is observation really theory laden? The hierarchy of reliability: do different disciplines have different methods of criticism? The ladder of abstractions The difference between Popper and Deutsch on truth and abstraction The Deutschian community's reaction to the essay References Bruce Neilson's podcast on verification and falsification: https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/episode-61-a-critical-rationalist-defense/id1503194218?i=1000621362624 Popper on certainty: Chapter 22. Analytical Remarks on Certainty in Objective Knowledge Quotes By the nature of Deutsch and Popper's ideas being abstract, this essay will also necessarily be abstract. To combat this, let me ground the whole essay in a concrete empirical bet: Popper's ideas about epistemology, and David Deutsch's extensions of them, will forever remain in the footnotes of the history of philosophy. Popper's falsificationism, which was the main idea that he's widely known for today, will continue to remain the only thing that he's widely known for. The frustrating fact that Wittgenstein is widely regarded as a more influential philosopher than Popper will continue to remain true. Critical rationalism will never be widely recognized as the “one correct epistemology,” as the actual explanation (or even the precursor to an explanation) of knowledge, progress, and creativity. Instead it will be viewed, like many philosophical schools before it, as a useful and ambitious project that ultimately failed. In other words, critical rationalism is a kind of philosophical deadend: the Deutschian deadend. - Kasra in the Deutschian Deadend There are many things you can directly observe, and which are “manifestly true” to you: what you're wearing at the moment, which room of your house you're in, whether the sun has set yet, whether you are running out of breath, whether your parents are alive, whether you feel a piercing pain in your back, whether you feel warmth in your palms—and so on and so forth. These are not perfectly certain absolute truths about reality, and there's always more to know about them—but it is silly to claim that we have absolutely no claim on their truth either. I also think there are even such “obvious truths” in the realm of science—like the claim that the earth is not flat, that your body is made of cells, and that everyday objects follow predictable laws of motion. - Kasra in the Deutschian Deadend Deutsch writes: Some philosophical arguments, including the argument against solipsism, are far more compelling than any scientific argument. Indeed, every scientific argument assumes the falsity not only of solipsism, but also of other philosophical theories including any number of variants of solipsism that might contradict specific parts of the scientific argument. There are two different mistakes happening here. First, what Deutsch is doing is assuming a strict logical dependency between any one piece of our knowledge and every other piece of it. He says that our knowledge of science (say, of astrophysics) implicitly relies on other philosophical arguments about solipsism, epistemology, and metaphysics. But anyone who has thought about the difference between philosophy and science recognizes that in practice they can be studied and argued about independently. We can make progress on our understanding of celestial mechanics without making any crucial assumption about metaphysics. We can make progress studying neurons without solving the hard problem of consciousness or the question of free will. - Kasra in the Deutschian Deadend, quoting Deutsch on Solipsism At that time I learnt from Popper that it was not scientifically disgraceful to have one's hypothesis falsified. That was the best news I had had for a long time. I was persuaded by Popper, in fact, to formulate my electrical hypotheses of excitatory and inhibitory synaptic transmission so precisely and rigorously that they invited falsification - and, in fact, that is what happened to them a few years later, very largely by my colleagues and myself, when in 1951 we started to do intra- cellular recording from motoneurones. Thanks to my tutelage by Popper, I was able to accept joyfully this death of the brain-child which I had nurtured for nearly two decades and was immediately able to contribute as much as I could to the chemical transmission story which was the Dale and Loewi brain-child. - John C. Eccles on Popper, All Life is Problem Solving, p.12 In order to state the problem more clearly, I should like to reformulate it as follows. We may distinguish here between three types of theory. First, logical and mathematical theories. Second, empirical and scientific theories. Third, philosophical or metaphysical theories. -Popper on the "hierarchy of reliability", C&R p.266 Socials Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link Become a patreon subscriber here (https://www.patreon.com/Increments). Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here (https://ko-fi.com/increments). Click dem like buttons on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ) Are you a solipsist? If so, send yourself an email over to incrementspodcast@gmail.com. Special Guest: Kasra.

"Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is, I don't know which half." Knowing the context of his work, my view of the infamous quote attributed to John Wanamaker is that advertising measurement is fundamentally and necessarily uncertain, even in success. This surfaces another, in my view, invalid interpretation of the quote: that advertising is only effective when it can be measured perfectly, absolutely, and with total precision. To my mind, this has been the prevailing view within digital advertising sector: that advertising measurement is inherently defined by total, deterministic precision. This is the measurement myth. In this podcast, I'll unpack the measurement myth and why I believe the digital advertising ecosystem is abandoning it in favor of more holistic, statistically sophisticated, and scalable approaches to advertising attribution and measurement. I'll discuss some of the methodologies at the frontier of advertising attribution that are alleviating the need for deterministic identity in advertising measurement and how their use allows advertisers to materially expand the reach of their messaging, and what the implications of that are for the digital economy. Resources referenced / cited in this podcast: CapitalOne Mobile e-Commerce Statistics Sensor Tower 5 Year Market Forecast IAB 2025 Outlook Study Meta's Renaissance Everything is an ad network Netflix and Disney+ advertising, two years in Flying blind Last-click attribution, deterministic measurement, and Wittgenstein's ruler A Comprehensive Guide to Bayesian Marketing Mix Modeling Podcast: Understanding Interoperable Private Attribution (with Ben Savage) What is Federated Learning in digital advertising? Thanks to the sponsors of this week's episode of the Mobile Dev Memo podcast: Vibe. Vibe is the leading Streaming TV ad platform for small and medium-sized businesses looking for actionable advertising campaign performance. INCRMNTAL⁠⁠. True attribution measures incrementality, always on. Interested in sponsoring the Mobile Dev Memo podcast? Contact ⁠Marketecture⁠. The Mobile Dev Memo podcast is available on: Apple Podcasts Spotify Google Podcasts

Laura Ruis, a PhD student at University College London and researcher at Cohere, explains her groundbreaking research into how large language models (LLMs) perform reasoning tasks, the fundamental mechanisms underlying LLM reasoning capabilities, and whether these models primarily rely on retrieval or develop procedural knowledge. SPONSOR MESSAGES: *** CentML offers competitive pricing for GenAI model deployment, with flexible options to suit a wide range of models, from small to large-scale deployments. https://centml.ai/pricing/ Tufa AI Labs is a brand new research lab in Zurich started by Benjamin Crouzier focussed on o-series style reasoning and AGI. Are you interested in working on reasoning, or getting involved in their events? Goto https://tufalabs.ai/ *** TOC 1. LLM Foundations and Learning 1.1 Scale and Learning in Language Models [00:00:00] 1.2 Procedural Knowledge vs Fact Retrieval [00:03:40] 1.3 Influence Functions and Model Analysis [00:07:40] 1.4 Role of Code in LLM Reasoning [00:11:10] 1.5 Semantic Understanding and Physical Grounding [00:19:30] 2. Reasoning Architectures and Measurement 2.1 Measuring Understanding and Reasoning in Language Models [00:23:10] 2.2 Formal vs Approximate Reasoning and Model Creativity [00:26:40] 2.3 Symbolic vs Subsymbolic Computation Debate [00:34:10] 2.4 Neural Network Architectures and Tensor Product Representations [00:40:50] 3. AI Agency and Risk Assessment 3.1 Agency and Goal-Directed Behavior in Language Models [00:45:10] 3.2 Defining and Measuring Agency in AI Systems [00:49:50] 3.3 Core Knowledge Systems and Agency Detection [00:54:40] 3.4 Language Models as Agent Models and Simulator Theory [01:03:20] 3.5 AI Safety and Societal Control Mechanisms [01:07:10] 3.6 Evolution of AI Capabilities and Emergent Risks [01:14:20] REFS: [00:01:10] Procedural Knowledge in Pretraining & LLM Reasoning Ruis et al., 2024 https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.12580 [00:03:50] EK-FAC Influence Functions in Large LMs Grosse et al., 2023 https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.03296 [00:13:05] Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Core of Cognition Hofstadter & Sander https://www.amazon.com/Surfaces-Essences-Analogy-Fuel-Thinking/dp/0465018475 [00:13:45] Wittgenstein on Language Games https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/ [00:14:30] Montague Semantics for Natural Language https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/montague-semantics/ [00:19:35] The Chinese Room Argument David Cole https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/ [00:19:55] ARC: Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus François Chollet https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.01547 [00:24:20] Systematic Generalization in Neural Nets Lake & Baroni, 2023 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06668-3 [00:27:40] Open-Endedness & Creativity in AI Tim Rocktäschel https://arxiv.org/html/2406.04268v1 [00:30:50] Fodor & Pylyshyn on Connectionism https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0010027788900315 [00:31:30] Tensor Product Representations Smolensky, 1990 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/000437029090007M [00:35:50] DreamCoder: Wake-Sleep Program Synthesis Kevin Ellis et al. https://courses.cs.washington.edu/courses/cse599j1/22sp/papers/dreamcoder.pdf [00:36:30] Compositional Generalization Benchmarks Ruis, Lake et al., 2022 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2202.10745 [00:40:30] RNNs & Tensor Products McCoy et al., 2018 https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.08718 [00:46:10] Formal Causal Definition of Agency Kenton et al. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2208.08345v2 [00:48:40] Agency in Language Models Sumers et al. https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.02427 [00:55:20] Heider & Simmel's Moving Shapes Experiment https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-65532-0 [01:00:40] Language Models as Agent Models Jacob Andreas, 2022 https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.01681 [01:13:35] Pragmatic Understanding in LLMs Ruis et al. https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.14986

His earlier episodes on this show have been huge hits, and as he completes a trilogy of books, he returns to complete a trilogy of episodes. Amitava Kumar joins Amit Varma in episode 408 of The Seen and the Unseen to talk about writing, noticing, painting, travelling, trees, and unfulfilled train journeys. (FOR FULL LINKED SHOW NOTES, GO TO SEENUNSEEN.IN.) Also check out 1. Amitava Kumar on Instagram, Substack, Twitter, Amazon, Vassar, Granta and his own website. 2. The Green Book: An Observer's Notebook -- Amitava Kumar. 3. Amitava Kumar Finds the Breath of Life — Episode 265 of The Seen and the Unseen. 4. Amitava Kumar Finds His Kashmiri Rain -- Episode 364 of The Seen and the Unseen. 5. The Blue Book: A Writer's Journal — Amitava Kumar. 6. The Yellow Book: A Traveller's Diary — Amitava Kumar. 7. My Beloved Life: A Novel -- Amitava Kumar. 8. A Million Mutinies Now -- VS Naipaul. 9. The Trees — Philip Larkin. 10. Before the Storm -- Amitava Kumar. 11. Wanderers, Kings, Merchants: The Story of India through Its Languages — Peggy Mohan. 12. Understanding India Through Its Languages — Episode 232 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Peggy Mohan). 13. A Suitable Boy -- Vikram Seth. 14. Caste, Capitalism and Chandra Bhan Prasad — Episode 296 of The Seen and the Unseen. 15. ‘Indian languages carry the legacy of caste' — Chandra Bhan Prasad interviewed by Sheela Bhatt. 16. The Refreshing Audacity of Vinay Singhal — Episode 291 of The Seen and the Unseen. 17. Stage.in. 18. Laapataa Ladies -- Kiran Rao. 19. Kanthapura -- Raja Rao. 20. All About H Hatterr -- GV Desani. 21. From Phansi Yard: My Year with the Women of Yerawada -- Sudha Bharadwaj. 22. India is Broken -- Ashoka Mody. 23. Being Mortal -- Atul Gawande. 24. Earwitness to Place -- Bernie Krause interviewed by Erin Robinsong. 25. All That Breathes -- Shaunak Sen. 26. Frog: 1 Poetry: 0 -- Amitava Kumar. 27. The Heat Will Kill You First -- Jeff Goodell. 28. Danish Husain and the Multiverse of Culture — Episode 359 of The Seen and the Unseen. 29. The Artist's Way -- Julia Cameron. 30. An excerpt from Wittgenstein's diary — Parul Sehgal on Twitter. 31. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus — Ludwig Wittgenstein. 32. Burdock -- Janet Malcolm. 33. Hermit in Paris — Italo Calvino. 34. Objects From Our Past -- Episode 77 of Everything is Everything. 35. The Wisden Book of Test Cricket (1877-1977) — Compiled & edited by Bill Frindall. 36. Gita Press and the Making of Hindu India — Akshaya Mukul. 37. The Gita Press and Hindu Nationalism — Episode 139 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Akshaya Mukul). 38. The Ferment of Our Founders — Episode 272 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Shruti Kapila). 39. Private Truths, Public Lies — Timur Kuran. 40. The Incredible Insights of Timur Kuran — Episode 349 of The Seen and the Unseen. 41. Bhavni Bhavai -- Ketan Mehta. 42. All We Imagine as Light -- Payal Kapadia. 43. Secondhand Time -- Svetlana Alexievich. 44. Amitava Kumar's post with Danish Husain's postcard. 45. Fire Weather -- John Vaillant. 46. Ill Nature -- Joy Williams. 47. Hawk -- Joy Williams. This episode is sponsored by Rang De, a platform that enables individuals to invest in farmers, rural entrepreneurs and artisans. Amit Varma and Ajay Shah have launched a new course called Life Lessons, which aims to be a launchpad towards learning essential life skills all of you need. For more details, and to sign up, click here. Amit and Ajay also bring out a weekly YouTube show, Everything is Everything. Have you watched it yet? You must! And have you read Amit's newsletter? Subscribe right away to The India Uncut Newsletter! It's free! Also check out Amit's online course, The Art of Clear Writing. Episode art: ‘Gulmohar' by Simahina.

durée : 00:59:04 - Avec philosophie - par : Géraldine Mosna-Savoye, Antoine Ravon - En 1970, Iris Murdoch publie "La souveraineté du Bien", ouvrage marqué par ses lectures de Platon, de Wittgenstein ou encore de Simone Weil. Comment la conception du Bien d'Iris Murdoch nous donne-t-elle les clés afin de nous rendre (moralement) meilleurs ? - réalisation : Nicolas Berger - invités : Emmanuel Halais

durée : 00:59:44 - Avec philosophie - par : Géraldine Mosna-Savoye, Antoine Ravon - L'itinéraire philosophique d'Iris Murdoch (1919-1999) est marqué par les enseignements de Wittgenstein sur le langage, ainsi que par l'existentialisme sartrien. Comment découvrir la vérité si le langage peut mentir ? Peut-on percer le mystère de la vie humaine, en dépit de son opacité ? - réalisation : Nicolas Berger - invités : Frédéric Worms Philosophe

Anand Vaidya is Professor of Business Ethics and the Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence at San Jose State University, and Visiting Professor of Indian Philosophy of Mind and Knowledge at University of California, Los Angeles. He graduated from UCLA in 1998. He studied logic, language, metaphysics, Kant and Wittgenstein. He then went on to UCSB to study epistemology and philosophy of mind, writing a dissertation on knowledge of possibility and necessity via two-dimensional modal logic. Since his graduation he has expanded his research out to the cross-cultural and multi-disciplinary study of mind and epistemology. He now does work in Indian philosophy as well as the philosophy of artificial intelligence and teaches courses in business ethics and critical thinking. Lecture Title: "Vedanta and the Hard Problem of Consciousness" Special thanks to Anand for allowing me to share this lecture with the MBS audience. EPISODE LINKS: - Anand's Website: https://anandvaidya.weebly.com/ - Anand's Work: https://tinyurl.com/bdzm87x9 - Anand's Publications: https://tinyurl.com/3e3h7uum - Anand's Round 1: https://youtu.be/dpMoGXCJxUY CONNECT: - Website: https://tevinnaidu.com - Podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/drtevinnaidu - Twitter: https://twitter.com/drtevinnaidu - Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/drtevinnaidu - Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/drtevinnaidu - LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drtevinnaidu ============================= Disclaimer: The information provided on this channel is for educational purposes only. The content is shared in the spirit of open discourse and does not constitute, nor does it substitute, professional or medical advice. We do not accept any liability for any loss or damage incurred from you acting or not acting as a result of listening/watching any of our contents. You acknowledge that you use the information provided at your own risk. Listeners/viewers are advised to conduct their own research and consult with their own experts in the respective fields.

There are records today for pre-Cymru Connection heads in hands as Britain's clumsiest Welsh language comic gets all sorts of muck over himself. Amidst such mess there's only one thing that can carry Elis James through: A songwriting talent to rival Lennon & McCartney at their peak.This brings the return of the classic 'Dorking, Leatherhead, Ryegate' - one for the purists. And speaking of stuff for the purists - and defenders of terrestrial radio's most divisive feature - DI Robbyns also makes a surprise appearance for one courtroom session only in a game which slightly baffles its participants.Want to get in touch with the show with everything from ditties to deep introspective reflections to rival de Beauvoir and Wittgenstein? Well elisandjohn@bbc.co.uk or 07974 293 022 on WhatsApp are the relevant destinations.

Podcast 416 Ask David is it reckless to question the existence of the "soul?"' How can I make myself accountable? Do we have a "personality," or is that just another illusion?  Do questions about the "self" and "free will" involve All-or-Nothing thinking? The answers below were prepared prior to the podcast, and simply based on email exchanges. Be sure to listen to the live podcast discussion to get a variety of opinions and comments! Questions for today's podcast. #1: Weren't your comments on the self a bit reckless, given that the existence of / or belief in the “soul” is a prerequisite for most religions? #2: How can I make myself accountable for doing the exercises in your books? #3. Holy asks if the concept of having “a personality” is the same as the question of having “a self?” #4. Could questions about the “self” and “free will” involve All-or-Nothing Thinking?   Question #1. (not question, just a comment worthy of a response) Your comments on the “self” were shallow, mocking and restless. The recent episode on ‘Do I have a self?' (Episode 406) was very shallow and mocking of people who thought there was a soul/self. Given a soul is a prerequisite for most religions, dismissing it out of hand without meaningful discussion seems reckless. David's response Thanks, there's a lot of truth in your comment and we'll definitely include this on an upcoming Ask David! To give a brief response prior to the show, I would say that I am not trying to defend or attack any religion, but don't want to give up my right to freedom of thought. I, David, am not saying that the “soul” does not exist, but what I am saying is hard to convey, and I probably won't be successful now, either. But, when you talk about a “soul,” I do not have any idea what you mean by that word, or what you are referring to, if anything. To me, words like “self” or “soul” are simply language that is “out of gear,” as Wittgenstein might say. Meaning can only occur in a specific concept. It is not the case that there are “pure meanings” for abstract concepts. Thinking along those lines was the huge error that Plato and Aristotle made. Now, let's say I go to YouTube and listen to some really kick-ass music that I totally love. I might say, “Wow, that guy (like James Brown, for example) really has soul!” What I'm saying is that I tremendously admire and appreciate his talent, his energy, and so forth. I am not referring to something metaphysical. My concern about your comment is that it sounds scolding, at least to my ear, like the “morality police,” perhaps. Personally, I have seen a great deal of evil done in the name of this or that religion, and I have no doubt that you have, too! Still, I am sure you have strong religious beliefs, which I respect, and apologize for having offended you. But I admit I am ambivalent, and partially happy that you are offended, and speaking out, because I believe that critical thinking is also tremendously precious, just as your religious beliefs are precious to you. In a selfish way, I have to confess I am also happy for the criticism, because controversy stirs up interest, and I am trying to interest people in our podcasts, which are ultimately dedicated to healing and relief of suffering. Still, I cannot deny the truth in your comment, that my “critical thinking” can be a disguise for a put down. When I wrote Feeling Good, I was very aware already (in the 1970s) that the chemicals categorized as “antidepressants” had few or no clinically significant effects above and beyond their placebo effects, and subsequent research has validated this. But I did not emphasize this in that book because I did not want to pull the rug out from anybody, and hurt anybody's feelings. After all, if you are getting a nice “placebo effect,” that's a good thing, at lest to some extent. Now, I'm older, so I'm more willing to speak my mind, and let the chips fall where they may. And you have bravely spoken your mind, too. Kudos to you! And that's the end of my prayer! Keep those good thoughts rolling along. Amen Best, david (PS I'm sure you'll get way better answers from the others on the podcast tomorrow!)   Question #2. How can I make myself accountable for doing the exercises in your books? Good to have Fabrice back. Regarding your books I have a question. I have trouble holding myself accountable doing the exercises in the book. Do you have any advice on how to prioritize doing the homework and being disciplined with it? How did other depressed people get better using your books? I already filled out multiple notebooks but appear to be stuck. Any help appreciated! David's Response Thanks, we will address your question on a future Ask David podcast, if that's ok.   Question #3. Holy asks if the concept of having “a personality” is the same as the question of having “a self?” @HolyLoveQuest  • 1 day ago Thank you for this video on this topic, it was very clear to me! It's a shame that this chapter of your Feeling Great book was removed, because to me this philosophical point is one important tool (among the many techniques that you propose) to get read of negative thinking, and to heal. What you said about the DSM is refreshing, and I agree with it. So, you said schizophrenia and bipolar1 are mental disorders, and you explained why, but what would be the third: psychopathy? It would be nice if you do another video where you dig on this. Your voice on it is really important. What the APA is doing is really concerning. Other psychiatrists disagree with this business of labelling people. And you're right, it's detrimental to human beings. There is another psychological concept that you didn't talk about, but who looks similar to the "self", which is the "personality". What is your take on it, the same or different? Lastly, now in the spiritual domain, is the notion of the soul the same for you than the "self"? Or, in your opinion, could it be a possibility of an essential part of us which links us all to the Spirit, to spirituality? Looking forward to watching the other philosophical videos! David's Response Will include in next Ask David Podcast!   Question 4. Could questions about the “self” and “free will” involve All-or-Nothing Thinking? Matt send me the following email he received and asked if we could include it in our next podcast, and my answer was “of course!” Hi, I'd like to tell you about my experience with my son. He is 14 years old and despite our honest attempts not to label, he has always been the problem child: selfish, disobedient etc. Recently we started him on Prozac and the changes have been incredible. Things that have been way beyond his best times are now simple, like going to sleep on time or having a good time with his brother. Every night my wife and I tell each other about some new miracle. So, I wonder what you can say about this from the lens of free will. An obvious conclusion would be that the choices he made until now were not "free" because his brain was not presenting him with the same set of choices that other kids experience. On the other hand, if he is acting better now, we could say that it is not his choice, just a pill making the decision for him. I feel like that would be insulting and degrading. I wonder if a lot of resistance to therapy and especially pharmacotherapy is related to anxiety about the question: "If I can be changed by a pill, then who am I?" I had another thought after listening to the episode on "self". The position that self doesn't exist seems extreme to me, maybe like "all or nothing thinking". Maybe we could answer that question with a "magic dial". How much do we agree that there are selves and free wills? I agree that there are problems associated with having a self and free will, but I think there are practical and theoretical reasons on the other side as well. Maybe the golden path is in the middle? David's Response:  Will include your excellent question in the next Ask David Podcast! I am so happy to hear the good news about your son! At this point I will briefly say that concerns about “free will” might definitely include all-or-nothing thinking in the following sense. There is an awful lot of our thoughts, beliefs, feelings, behaviors, preferences, and so forth that is kind of hard-wired by evolution, genetics, and who knows what. For example, I really love blueberry pie that way my mother made it, but I never cared for pumpkin pie. I cannot “will” myself to like pumpkin pie! So I don't have free will in that sense. Similarly, I can't “will” myself to want to stop breathing permanently, or to stop feeling hungry when I haven't eaten, and I can't “will” myself to levitate when mediating or being able to high jump over something five feet high. The list goes on and on. And even when I freely chose something, like what type of new shirt to purchase, I have no doubt by genes and innate preferences, and possibly my upbringing, will strongly influence my choices. We all have biases, preferences, and desires that we do not choose, at least not consciously, Like sexual preferences, for example. We're kind of stuck with what we've got. Now we can make free choices, of course, but we cannot be “totally free,” because we exist and are human. A cat can't “not” get excited by a wiggly piece of string or a mouse that's running away. But we CAN make conscious choices, obviously, just as I made the decision to print your excellent question and type out this brief response! Warmly, david

Feeling Down? Try the Feeling Great App for Free! The Feeling Great App is now available in both app stores (IOS and Android) and is for therapists and the general public, and you can take a ride for free! Check it  out at FeelingGreat.com! Is the Universe One? Is the Universe Real? Is the Universe Real? These two philosophical problems used to seem nonsensical to me, and certainly not relevant to much of anything in my life—or anyone's! But now the picture has changed a bit! When I was a student at Amherst College, I majored in the philosophy of science. On this show, I've often talked about my hero, Ludwig Wittgenstein, who attempted (successfully in my opinion) to “solve” all the problems of philosophy. He wanted to help those of us who were “afflicted” by an attraction to philosophical problems to see through them and understand precisely how and why they were nonsensical. He hoped to provide a “treatment” for philosophers so we could give up the need to obsess about nonsensical philosophical problems. Once you see through the these problems, they become kind of like a joke, and you can use jokes to help other people see through them. For example, here's a kind of lame joke about the question of whether or not the universe is “real.” Wittgenstein said that before we try to answer questions like that, we might want to ask ourselves if these questions even makes sense! And if it a philosophical problem doesn't make sense, it isn't a real question, so we won't need to deal with it. In other words, questions that don't make sense don't need to be answered because they're not real questions. Take the question, "Is the universe real?" You could ask, “Well, what would it be like if the universe weren't real? What would that look like? How would things be different?” If you can't answer that question, the question might not make sense. To most of us, philosophical questions wound nonsensical because we are taking words, like “real,” out of the contexts in which it DOES make sense. For example, we can ask : “Is this painting real? Or is it a fake?” That question does make sense. It has an obvious meaning, since many valuable paintings are copied and are fakes, and they try to pass them off as the “real” thing. But what would a "real" or "fake" universe look like? How would it differ from our universe? Now let's think about another example that is mildly humorous. Let's imagine you're driving through Iowa in the summer, and you spot a farmer working in his corn field. You're interested in speaking to him because you are writing a story about your travels in Iowa, and want to talk about the lives of farmers. So, you pull your car over to the side of the road and shout, “Howdy! What are you doing in the field?” The farmer seems pleased and grabs a gorgeous stalk of corn and holds it up and proudly shouts, “I'm growing corn, and it is real!” Well, that's great that he's happily growing corn, but what does the tag-on, “and it is real” mean? It doesn't actually mean anything, because farmers don't grow “unreal corn.” So, in this context, the word has no meaning. Now, if you were on a movie set, they might actually be using artificial corn as a prop, so now the contrast between real and unreal corn becomes meaningful. This is a very humble point, but it's the very heart of what Wittgenstein was trying to make us aware of. Philosophical problems kind of sound meaningful and puzzling, but most of the time, they are simply a kind of nonsensical use of language. Now, in personal relationships, we might also have a notion of when people are being “real” or fake. And we often act fake because we don't think we're good enough just the way we really are. So, for example, you may hide your shyness in social situations because you're ashamed, and telling yourself that your shyness is incredibly weird and abnormal, and makes you “less than” other people. One method of helping people overcome shyness is simply to disclose it to others. This TEAM-CBT  technique is called "Self-Disclosure." Instead of hiding your shyness and feeling awkward and ashamed in social situations, you share your feelings openly. Shame depends on hiding, so when you open up, the feelings of shame will often disappear. For example, in a recent podcast of a dramatic, live therapy session, a man named Chris revealed many troubling things about his teenage years that he'd been hiding for years. When he opened up, he began sobbing intensely, thinking he'd let his father down with his wild behavior when he was a high school student. His grief, he was incredibly compelling, and his courageous self-disclosure was appealing to most of us who were privileged to witness that session. Showing us his “real” self became his path to enlightenment, joy, and deeply meaningful relationships with himself and with all of us who witnessed that amazing session. So, although the question, “is the universe real” is silly and nonsensical, the question, “are we being real with each other,” is definitely NOT silly or nonsensical. Being real and vulnerable is an important key to connecting with ourselves as well as other human beings. Is the Universe One? How about “Is the universe one?” This philosophical question also seemed nonsensical to me for years, although I was intellectually aware that some Buddhists make claims that the universe IS one and that the failure to “see” this is the basic of all evil. That's because if you see other humans, for example, as being "external" to yourself, you may feel you have the right to abuse and exploit them. However, for years I thought the idea that the universe is "one" seemed like sheer nonsense. For example, I am sitting in a chair typing, and there is a cup on the desk. People have never call that cup “David,” and no one has ever called me a coffee cup (although lots of people have sad some pretty bad things about me!) So, I concluded that the cup and I are not “one,” and so the whole thing about the universe being one seemed nonsensical and silly. But when I began to think about it in the context of my work with patients, my thinking suddenly changed. For example, the TEAM interpersonal model I've developed was based on research I did early in my career that suggested that Blame was one of the main causes of troubled relationships, and perhaps the most important and powerful cause. And this is certainly true in my personal life and in my work with individuals with troubled relationships who are unhappy in their marriages or people who are angry with their neighbors, or family members, or anyone. We almost always see ourselves as victims, and the other person as the one who is to blame for the problem. This triggers feelings of frustration, anger, and moral superiority, and can easily and often lead to arguments, mistrust, divorce, hostility, and violence, murder, and even war. Now, I'm beginning to see that the idea that we are separate from others, who are doing something TO us, does, in fact, lead to hostility, and arguably to evil. And once you “get it,” the same insight applies to our relationships, not just with loved ones, friends, and other people in general, but also our relationships with animals, with the environment, and with the planet earth. If we think of them as “other,” then we may conclude that it is okay to exploit or use them for our own advantage. In the interpersonal TEAM model, we focus more on circular causality, or interpersonal connectedness and ask the question, how do we actually shape and cause the very behavior in the other person that we complain about so vigorously? I have developed a fast, powerful tool that allows any to pinpoint their own role in a relationship problem very quickly and with reasonable accuracy. It's called the Relationship Journal (RJ), and we've talked about it often on this show. Essentially, it's simple to use the RJ, but it can be startling and illuminating but incredibly painful. All you have to do is write down ONE thing another person said to you that you found upsetting, and EXACTLY what you said next. Choose an interaction that did not go well; otherwise, it's a waste of time. Then, the RJ will take you through a step by step analysis of your response, and it's implications. When you discover how you are actually forcing the other person to treat you shabbily, it can hurt. This is one of the four ‘Great Deaths” of the self, and it's the most painful of all, in my experience. This is the "Great Death" of the angry, blaming "self." I hate this great death! But if you have the courage to use it and take a look, it can be incredibly illuminating and liberating, and can put you on the path to far more loving relationships. As an exercise, I will list a number of common complaints that people have about loved ones, friends, or family that they find irritating. Your job will be to show how you could FORCE them to do the exact thing you are complaining about. The other person could be your partner, friend, son or daughter, etc. Your complaint about that person might be that they Refuse to talk to me. Can't (or won't) open up and express their feelings Constantly whine and complain, and ignore and resist my good advice. Constantly argue, and always have to be right. Won't listen. Are relentlessly critical. Always have to get their way. Doesn't treat me with respect. In each case, see if you can figure out how you could FORCE the other person to do that exact thing. We will discuss a couple of these on the show and lustrate solutions to give you a feel for how this works. Rhonda's and Matt shared their wise and interesting thoughts on both of these philosophical questions, and how you can understand them in the context of your own lives, and, if you're a shrink, how you can use them in your work with patients. Thanks for listening today! Matt, Rhonda, and David

Special Announcement #1 The Legendary Summer Intensive Starts on Thursday of this week! Featuring Drs. David Burns and Jill Levitt August 8 - 11, 2024 Click for registration / more information! This workshop is a training program which will be limited to therapists and mental health professionals and graduate students in a mental health field  Apologies, but therapists have complained when non-therapists have attended our continuing education training programs. This is partly because of the intimate nature of the small group exercises and the personal work the therapists may do during the workshop. Certified coaches and counselors are welcome to attend. Special Announcement #2 Here's some GREAT news! The Feeling Great App is now available in both app stores (IOS and Android) and is for therapists and the general public, and you can take a ride for free! Check it Today's Podcast #408-- Does God exist? We started today's podcast with a beautiful testimonial and a shout out for the intensive from August 8 to 11, 2024 at the South San Francisco Intensive in person or virtually if you prefer. To learn more, contact www.CBTintensive.com. Act fast because the intensive is on Thursday of this week when today's podcast will be published. Today, we tackle another popular and intensely debated philosophical / religious puzzle: Does God exist? People have very heated views, one way or the other. I (David) will start with a brief explanation of a Wittgenstein answer to this question, and then for the most part, we will focus instead on the question of how we all incorporate spirituality into TEAM-CBT. Wittgenstein emphasized that philosophical problem exist when we debate about the meanings of words or terms that are vague, or poorly defined. Traditionally, we think there are three positions one could take: Theism: You believe that God exists. Atheism: You do not believe in God. Agnosticism: You say that you do no know whether or not God exists. My own thinking, which is strongly influenced by Wittgenstein, would be that I don't understand any of those three stances because I have no idea what you mean by your use of the word, “God.” What is it, exactly, that I'm supposed to believe in, or not believe in? To me, the question, “Do you believe in God,” is nonsensical, so I simply do not deal with it. All of the three positions listed above are based on the idea that the word, “God,” has some kind of clear meaning that we can all agree upon. But it clearly does not. You might define “God” as the “creator of the universe.” Well, there is certainly something magical and mysterious about the existence and creation of the universe (assuming it did begin with some kind of “big bang.”) Some questions might include “Where did all the energy come from all of a sudden?” Or “Are there many universes?” These are valid questions, and physicists are pursuing the answers, which is very exciting and fantastic. But they are generally not invoking the concept of a “God,” although some undoubtedly would say that they do “believe in Gad.” Regardless, I cheer them on and find every new discovery about the nature of the universe, and how the universe works, endlessly fascinating! For today, we will ask a much simpler question of whether and how we include some kind of spiritual dimension into our work as shrinks. This is a topic that is equally exciting, and definitely meaningful. Rhonda got us started by explain that she sees the belief in God as a matter of faith, and is not something that can be tested empirically, which is certainly true. She says she does believe in God, or some “higher power,” but does not believe in a God who “rules over things.” She was raised in the Jewish religion, and says that many Jews believe that God exists in everyone . This sounds a little like Hinduism, which traces back at least 2500 years ago, and possibly as early as 5000 years ago. I believe that the Hindus believe that God exists in everything. The practical impact of the belief that God exists in all of us, is that we will treat each other with love and respect, since we are all an expression of God. She also said that we can “create God among us as a community.” Matt said that he was raised as a Christian and that when he was growing up he had heard about miracles, like Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead in the New Testament on the Gospel according to John. He said that he views our work with individuals who are severely depressed as a kind of spiritual healing, even though we are working with purely secular methods. This is especially true when we are working with individuals who appear to be paralyzed by depression, claiming they are unable even to get out of bed, people who bombard themselves with harsh criticisms, and feel hopeless and ashamed. Matt said that self-acceptance (accepting ourselves exactly as we are) is one of the many tools we use, and that he (Matt) loves to think about the ripple effects of our work, which not only transforms the lives of individuals who awaken from their depressive trance, but this also has enormous positive effects on their friends and family as well. He asks, “How do we achieve this?” I (David) loved hearing from Rhonda and Matt on spirituality in TEAM, and pointed out many areas of overlap between TEAM and the Christian theology I was raised on, since my dad was a Lutheran minister. For example, The TEAM concept that you do not, and cannot, earn genuine feelings of worthwhileness or self-esteem through achievement. In other words, your worth is not your work, but something you give yourself unconditionally. In Christianity, we are sometimes taught that you cannot get to “heaven” through your good works. Enlightenment is a gift, a decision, and not something you have to earn. We also teach that humans are not purely good, but have a mixture of positive and negative motives, and that many people suffer because of guilt and regret about past errors or sins. When we are teaching the Acceptance Paradox, we are teaching a “letting go” of the inner abuse we endure from that relentless, critical voice in our brains, labeling us and telling us that we aren't good enough, we're “bad,” we're “losers,” and so forth, using powerful tools like the Externalization of Voices. In Christianity, this message is delivered in my ritualized ways, including the act of communion, confessing your sins and accepting the blood and body of Christ who “died for your sins.” This is just another way of sending the message that it is okay to accept the fact that you are flawed and fallen, and yet still worthy of God's love—and your own love! In the interpersonal TEAM model for troubled relationships, the entire emphasis on pinpointing your own role in a problem with a friend, colleague, loved one, or stranger, instead of casting blame on the other person and feeling angry and morally superior. My Relationship Journal is a tool designed to facilitate this process very rapidly. In Christianity there are many messages about taking out the moat in your own eye, as well as the idea that when you blame others, and cast judgment, you condemn yourself. There is a strong emphasis on humility and accountability in TEAM-CBT. This often comes up during positive reframing; we talk about how the patient's self-criticisms are often an expression of high standards, honesty, and humility, and that these are beautiful qualities that are real, important, and powerful. And this similar, it seems to me, to the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus talked about “blessed are the meek, for they shall be called the Children of God.” There are many, many additional areas of overlap, and many books have been written on this subject. During the podcast I provided examples of how the spiritual and psychological realms can meet and reinforce each other at the moment the patient recovers and discovers their own enlightenment. I am proud to have developed TEAM-CBT, and it is clearly infused with many spiritual dimensions, even though it is entirely secular. I mentioned that I was born on a Sunday morning, and my dad said it was the only time he was unable to preach his sermon. He was too excited, especially since my parents had become reconciled to the notion that they could not have children. He called me David Dean Burns, and hoped that someday I would become D.D. Burns, D.D. DD is an honorary degree in theology, and he (and everyone) assumed that I would one day be a minister, like was. He was L.C. Burns, DD. (Lyle Charles Burns) I went in a different direction, but have kind of returned to my original calling, though threw an unexpected route, and hope you have all enjoyed our “sermons” this morning. I would add that I would never impose my beliefs or spiritual orientation on any patient, and only ask about the integration of their successful recovery with their own religious beliefs AFTER they have recovered, so as to add a deeper level of meaning to the work and transformation that they experienced. We only emphasized the Jewish and Christian approaches to spirituality because that was our upbringing, but the spiritual “discoveries” during TEAM treatment are actually compatible with nearly all, if not all, religions and spiritual paths. Warmly, Rhonda, Matt, and David

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