The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast

On Darren Aronofsky's philosophical 2017 film about humanity's relationship to nature. We discuss the philosophical content of the film (Gnosticism, anyone?) and explore the relation between meaning and the sensuous aspects of an artwork. Can a work be both allegorical and yet have fully fleshed out characters and the other elements that make a film feel real? This was a very polarizing film; how...

Continuing on "The Death of the Author" by Roland Barthes (1967) and "What Is an Author?" by Michel Foucault (1969), and finally getting to “Against Theory” by Steven Knapp and Walter Benn Michaels (1982). What could it mean to say that a text, once written, speaks itself? We get into Foucault's critique of the cult of the author and the reader-centric types of analysis he proposes in its place. P...

On four essays about how to interpret artworks: “The Intentional Fallacy” by W. K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley (1946), "The Death of the Author" by Roland Barthes (1967), "What Is an Author?" by Michel Foucault (1969), and “Against Theory” by Steven Knapp and Walter Benn Michaels (1982). When you're trying to figure out what, say, a poem means, isn't the best way to do that to just ask the author...

Concluding our discussion of Aristophanes's play with Lucy Lawless and Emily Perkins. We focus on trying to connect its lessons to the here and now: Is Lysistrata's victory properly described as the ascension of some kind of "feminine spirit" over warlike values, and how does that actually relate to women's struggles now to attain positions of power? Listen to our performance and then part one of...

We are rejoined by actresses Lucy Lawless and Emily Perkins to discuss Aristophanes's bawdy play. Listen to us perform it first . Supplementary readings included Jeffery Henderson's introduction to his 1988 translation of the play; "Sexual Humor and Harmony in Lysistrata" by Jay M. Semel (1981); and "The 'Female Intruder' Reconsidered: Women in Aristophanes' Lysistrata and Ecclesiazusae" by Helene...

The PEL Players return to perform a "cold read" of Aristophanes's play about using a sex strike to end war, first performed in 411 BCE. Jeffrey Henderson's translation makes this very accessible, and it's still really damn funny. Your hosts are joined by five real actors from TV, film, and Broadway. We will be following this up in ep. 188 with a full discussion of the play and the issues it raises...

Three substantial chunks of a follow-up conversation to our free speech episode . Mark and Wes discuss Jordan Peterson on speech, organizations promoting certain speech (as opposed to restricting), insults vs. arguments, offense vs. harm, "incoherence" arguments like Fish's, fundamental principles in ethics, and more. Get the full discussion by becoming a PEL Citizen or Patreon supporter . The pos...

Continuing our free-form discussion, trying to make sense of Stanley Fish's “ There’s No Such Thing as Free Speech, and It’s a Good Thing, Too ” (1994) and other potential rationales for prohibiting hate speech. How might the same sentence or idea be used in different speech acts, some of which might be legitimately censured but others not? Listen to part one first, or get the Citizen Edition , al...

A free-form discussion drawing on Stanley Fish's “There’s No Such Thing as Free Speech, and It’s a Good Thing, Too” (1994), Joel Feinberg’s “Limits to the Free Expression of Opinion” (1975), and other sources. What are the legitimate limits on free speech? Feinberg delves into the harm and offense principles. Fish argues that every claim to free speech has ideological assumptions actually favoring...

Continuing on How to Do Things with Words (lectures from 1955), covering lectures 5–9. Austin tries and fails to come up with a way to grammatically distinguish performatives from other utterances, and so turns to his more complicated system of aspects of a single act: locutionary, illocutionary, perlocutionary. In doing so, he perlocutionarily blows our minds. Listen to part one first, or get the...

On How to Do Things with Words (lectures from 1955). What's the relationship between language and the world? Austin says it's not all about descriptive true-or-false statements, but also includes "performatives" like "I promise…" and "I do" (spoken in a wedding) that are actions unto themselves. They can't be true or false, but they can be "unhappy" if social conventions aren't fulfilled (e.g., yo...

Continuing with Emily Wilson on her translation of the Greek epic poem. We discuss the oikos , or estate, built on violence, and its connection to xenia , or hospitality, which serves to forge military alliances. Also: status distinctions and the role of the gods in the text. Listen to part one first, or get the ad-free, unbroken Citizen Edition . Please support PEL! End song: "Tiny Broken Boats"...

On the classic Greek epic poem, written ca. 750 BC and translated by our guest Emily Wilson in 2018. Does this story of "heroes" have anything to teach us about ethics? Wilson wrote an 80-page introduction to her new translation laying out the issues, including "hospitality" as a political tool, the value for status and identity of one's home (including your family and slaves), and the tension bet...

Continuing on Pascal's Pensées . More on our human desire and how God is supposed to address that, plus Pascal's views on political philosophy, the relation between faith, reason, and custom… and finally, the wager! Why not just be a skeptic? Is Pascal right that people suck? Listen to part 1 first or get the unbroken, ad-free, Citizen Edition now. Please support PEL ! End song: "44 Days" by Dutch...

On Blaise Pascal's Pensées (1670). Is it rational to have religious faith? You're likely familiar with "Pascal's Wager," but our wretchedness is such that we can't simply choose to believe and won't be argued into it. Pascal thinks Christianity is the only religion to accurately describe the human condition. Continues with part 2 . Get the unbroken, ad-free Citizen Edition . Please support PEL ! T...

Continuing on John Stuart Mill's On Liberty . We discuss "partial truths," whether "truth will out," whether we can discard some "experiments in living" as established failures, education, "barbarians," how Mill compares to Nietzsche, and more. Listen to part 1 first, or get the unbroken, ad-free Citizen Edition . End song: "Flavor" by Tori Amos with strings by John Philip Shenale, interviewed on...

Discussing John Stuart Mill's On Liberty (1859). If we disapprove of certain behaviors, when is it okay to prohibit them legally? What about just shaming people? Mill's "harm principle" says that we should permit anything (legally and socially) unless it harms other people. But what constitutes "harm"? And how can we discourage someone from, e.g., just being drunk all the time? Mark, Wes, and Dyla...

The PEL guys get personal and political and tell you in brief about things like Planet of the Apes , The Killing of a Sacred Deer , and Vine Deloria Jr. in the second half of our year-in-review discussion. Here you get a taste. You can only hear the meat with the full, ad-free episode, posted for PEL Citizens ( see partiallyexaminedlife.com/support !) or at patreon.com/partiallyexaminedlife . The...

Why did Victor Frankenstein create his monster? What role did beauty, love, science, and education play in his endeavor? Join Lise, Brian, and Jeff in a discussion of this classic, widely known novel. Get more C&C on the PEL site or at combatandclassics.org . The post Combat & Classics #15: Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” first appeared on The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast .

To what extent has our podcast changed in reaction to current politics? Mark, Seth, Wes, and Dylan reflect back on our year, discuss how we select texts, and give some thumbnail sketches of potential topics. Also, does authorial intent matter, and how to talk philosophically about works that aren't philosophical texts. Attention : Only the first 45 min of this discussion will be posted on the blog...

Continuing on Eichmann in Jerusalem , on how ordinary people can do—or acquiesce to—horrific things. How do people rationalize this? What can we apply from this to ourselves? Also, how was genocide a new type of crime, and what's the best rationale for punishing it? We talk justice, revenge, and ways that we too might be morally mass-confused. Listen to part one first or get the unbroken, ad-free...

On Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil (1963). Are we still morally culpable if our entire society is corrupt? Arendt definitely thinks so, but has a number of criticisms of the handling of the 1961 trial of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann. The Israelis were committed to the view that Eichmann was a monster, when the reality, says Arendt, is more frightening. Continues with Pa...

Concluding on William James's Psychology, the Briefer Course (1892). We briefly cover emotions and spend the bulk of our time on will. James’s introspective method allows us to distinguish reflex or coerced actions from voluntary, free-seeming ones, and gives us the vocabulary to attribute moral virtue to those who have enough willpower to keep those inconvenient truths in mind (if you eat this, y...

On Psychology, the Briefer Course (1892), chapters on "The Self," "Will," and "Emotions." Continuing from ep. 179 , we talk about the "Me" (the part of me that I know) vs. the "I" (the part of me that knows), including personal identity. James thinks that emotions are just our experience of our own physiology. Finally, we tackle will, veering into ethics, free will, and more. Please support PEL! T...

Continuing on Psychology, the Briefer Course (1892), completing "The Stream of Thought" and covering the chapter on "Habit." James thinks that psychologists focus too much on those parts of consciousness that get picked out by substantive words. He describes habit as part of a general natural pattern in which things that happen once tend to create pathways for themselves in surrounding material to...