In our continuation of Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations, we'll discuss Wittgenstein's arguments against the possibility of a private language, which culminates in the position that all subjective experiences of sensations are not communicable. Thus, language must be doing something else, other than communicating inner experiences, with its words that seem to refer to these experiences. Of particular interest to Wittgenstein is the communication of pain, and sense perceptions. Finally, we'll consider Wittgenstein's arguments as concern meaning: presumably there is an inner experience of "meaning something" by one's words, which is different from how the words may be perceived - or the individual may even intend to deceive. Is it therefore sensible to speak about an "inner meaning" separate from common use? Join me as we explore my favorite ideas from Wittgenstein!

In this episode, we're finally talking about a book near and dear to my heart, Wittgenstein's "Philosophical Investigations" (this book took second place in a Patreon poll, and I decided it was time). What is language? How is the meaning of words determined? Wittgenstein initially proposed a pictorial theory of the meaning of sentences, but after his return to philosophy, Wittgenstein II put forward a new theory of language, as the "language-game". We will discuss Wittgenstein's life and career, and then focus on Philosophical Investigations, a work assembled from notes written over the span of 16 years, covering a wide variety of topics and approaching philosophy through thought-experiments, and reflections on the varied uses of words. Wittgenstein's method is to describe rather than explain, and to take our understanding of words from the metaphysical down to the everyday. "Don't think, but look!"

Joe Folley joins me for a conversation on Albert Camus and the absurdist response to the death of God. We begin by comparing and contrasting Camus and Nietzsche, and their differing approaches to the devaluation of values. Taking inspiration from Nietzsche, Camus searches for an attitude to life akin to amor fati, but defined by a defiance against dogmatic certainties and nihilistic abandonment of life's struggles. We also consider the influence from Descartes, the Stoics, and Schopenhauer on Camus' thought. In the latter half of the conversation, we explore the meaning behind philosophy's attempts at consolation; the question of the suspension of judgment versus the affirmation of certainties; the arguments between analytic and continental philosophers; the philosophers who have bridged the divide; the classical versus romantic worldviews; and the value of truths of a vague or emotional nature that can only be conveyed through art.

The longest Q&A so far! The beginning has a number of Patreon updates, most of which involve things that have already transpired on the podcast. If you want to be involved with asking Q&A questions, or voting in polls to decide future material for the podcast, join the Patreon!

In Marcus Tullius Cicero's Tusculan Disputations, he cites a story of Pythagoras, the man who created the term, "philosopher". His description of the philosopher is as one who comes into life not as a competitor, not in the pursuit of money or fame - but merely as a spectator, who observes and inquires into the nature of things. According to Pythagoras, this way of life is the best, by far; Cicero wholeheartedly embraces this way of understanding philosophy, as part of his consolatory project in which philosophy is seen as part and parcel with virtue. For Cicero, the worth of philosophy is that it delivers us from life's suffering. We will explore the background of Cicero's Tusculan Disputations, the Pythagorean doctrine of metempsychosis, and the Homeric convention of presenting the gods themselves as spectators. This analysis will bring us back to Nietzsche's Birth of Tragedy, as well as some of the comments he makes in his later career about the theatric element of Greek culture, and the philosopher as a spectator, who "stands aside" from the world rather than acting within it. By the end of the episode, we will pose the question of whether or not Cicero's Stoic philosophy actually constitutes a life as spectating, or whether Cicero is just another actor on the philosophical stage.

There is nothing new under the sun: it was here, already, long ago. It was here before our time. This much must be said of the ancient skeptics, who put forward perspectival, relativistic, and moral anti-realist arguments during the Hellenistic age. The central figure is Pyrrho of Elis, who is only known through secondary sources, and whose life is surrounded by a number of fascinating anecdotes which speak to an of image life guided by indifference and the pursuit of ataraxia. In this episode, we'll discuss that concepts, as well as ephektos, adiaphoria, and the possibility of viewing skepticism as a power or a practice rather than a doctrine or ideology. We will also discuss the ten skeptical tropes of Pyrrho and the five tropes of Agrippa. Primarily, we will follow the chapter on Pyrrho found in Diogenes Laertius, but I've also included some insights from A.W. Benn's "The Greek Philosophers" and Mary Mills Patrick's book on Sextus Empiricus, as well Sextus Empiricus himself (particularly the chapter on Gorgias).

Devin (Left Nietzschean) joined me to discuss the underlying philosophical themes of Star Trek, including a potential affinity with Nietzsche as regards the need for self-overcoming as opposed to utopia; the idea of moral "perfectionism", interpreted through "Schopenhauer as Educator"; interpreting the political positions and critiques of the show in their cultural context, as regards the significance of the Federation, Borg, and Dominion; the distinctive traits of each captain in classic Trek, including an interpretation of Kirk as an Odysseus figure; the depressing inability of "New Trek" to articulate a positive vision of the future, instead choosing to wallow in dystopia.

In this episode, we'll compare Nietzsche's view of causality, habit, and free will to Hume. Although, in substance, they make very similar arguments, we'll explore important differences. Nietzsche arrives at his critique of causality through his attack on free will, and the subsequent understanding of metaphysical beliefs as necessitated by moral beliefs - whereas for Hume, the issue of liberty versus necessity is secondary to the critique of reason's ability to derive necessary connexions. For Hume, habit cannot be further explained, because this would be to ignore our practical affirmation of habit and the insufficiency of reason; Nietzsche wishes to investigate the genealogy of habit as part of his critique of morals. Perhaps most importantly, Hume places his philosophy in "subserviency" to the easy and obvious philosophy of commonsense, whereas Nietzsche sets his philosophy against common sense - and everything "common".

Today we're going to become Humean, All Too Humean. This is an introduction to David Hume's life and works, brief consideration of his influences, and deep dive into Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding - the work that woke Kant from his dogmatic slumber. In our analysis we discuss: Hume's 'two species of philosophy'; Hume's distinction between ideas & impressions, and between relations of ideas & matters of fact; his critique of causality; his explanation of habit, or custom as a 'guide to human life'; a brief look at his comments on probability, on free will, on miracles; and Hume's moderate skepticism versus what he calls, Pyrrhonism.

Gnostic Informant on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@UCtdweFMJ5DGj7_q5IcpQhPQ

Neal and I do a deep dive into the origins of the term "demon"/"demonic". What was the original meaning of the term "daimones" in Ancient Greece? How does the understanding of the term change, from the Hellenic to the Hellenistic to the Christian eras? We also discuss the imagery associated with the demonic, deriving from Pan, and discuss the anecdote from the ancient world, from which we get the phrase, "the Great God Pan is dead!"

A conversation with Prof. Moeller (Carefree Wandering). We discuss the political implications of Daoist philosophy, the Daoist critique of Confucian family roles and anthropocentrism, the comparison to Nietzsche's critique of modernist theories of truth, the differences between the two regarding their respective past and future orientations in philosophy, the difference in "vibe", and the parallel between the two as focused on achieving "great health".

Butcher Ding Story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGtgGz5SsY0

Happy Fish Story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nMCrj3soDU

Prof. Moeller's new book: https://cup.columbia.edu/book/the-enigma-of-gender/9780231221276/