Mind & Desire

Gregory B. Sadler

0.0 (0)
SUPERACIÓN PERSONAL
CADA SEMANA

This podcast takes insights, arguments, distinctions, and practices from complex philosophical texts and thinkers and makes them accessible for anyone who wants to learn. It also provides advice about how to effectively study philosophy and apply it to your own life gregorybsadler.substack.com

28 MAR

Episode 50 - The Concept Of Digital Natives

A number of the ideas that people use to make sense of the world and try to formulate what we ought to be doing, make recommendations, set up their own lives, engage with others, are essentially fictions or myths. And I’d like to talk about one of them in particular today that I’ve encountered, now going back at least 20 years in my work as an educator. I’m sure many of you have heard these terms thrown around for about that same amount of time. And the term, and the concept, is that of “digital native.” Usually this is tied in with a generational sort of differentiation where those of us who, for example, grew up in Generation X without the internet, without all these websites, without mobile technology would be digital immigrants, as would definitely be the baby boomers. And then the millennials were supposed to be digital natives. And then, the next generation coming up under them, the current generation in college, Generation Z or Zoomers, whatever you want to call them, are also supposed to be digital natives. On its face, it seems like a plausible idea. Those who, as children, are being introduced to and engaging with a new technology should be a bit more savvy in using it. It should feel more intuitive to them than to people who are older adults who are engaging with it without having had the benefit of childhood. Sort of like people will try to say, you know, the time for learning languages is when you’re a child. By the time that you’re an adult, your brain has become too fixed and ossified to easily learn languages, which turns out to be a good bit of nonsense, and perhaps, I won’t say wishful thinking, because it’s actually a kind of pessimistic thinking, but maybe wishful thinking for the experts who then get to play at being experts about that and use it as an excuse for why they don’t know languages that well So coming back to technology, and in particular, the technologies that are associated with the internet and with phones, you know, mobile technology and all of those sorts of matter, what was being said roughly 20 years ago, maybe a little bit even further back by the so-called pedagogical experts, was that we now needed to take into account, in addition to all the other sorts of divides, like the difference between male and female students or difference between races or any other sort of background thing like that. We also needed to take into stock when we were designing our classes and assessment measures and even thinking about what technology we were going to apply and use, whether in the classroom or in our course management systems outside of the classroom. We needed to take into account this new divide between a sort of have and have not. Those who have a normal facility and perhaps greater insights into the newer technology and those of us who have to struggle with it, who don’t have the habits already baked or built in like these younger people do. I remember one particular incident that really drove it home to me, the mindset that is involved in this. So it was a pedagogy and professional development conference. And I think the session that I was in wasn’t even really about digital divides and digital natives versus digital immigrants or any of that sort of stuff. But the presenters ended up introducing that distinction. And then there were a bunch of other people in the session who in the Q&A and response part were really hammering this point home. I looked around and I noticed the demographic disparities involved in this. So this is when I was quite young as a professor. I’d been teaching probably about... 10 years at that point. So I was in my early 40s, out of graduate school, having a good bit of experience under my belt as a Generation X instructor. And the people who were leading the workshop and carrying out most of the conversation and seemed very, very committed to this notion of digital native versus digital immigrant divide were all boomers. I’m not going to say that all boomers are the stereotypical boomer or anything like that, but these actually were. They had all the wisdom that they were going to share with us younger professors who should be taking our cues from them. about how we should be dealing with yet another generation younger than us, our millennial students. And so boomers were portraying themselves as the ones who, they were part of one big “we”: them, the bosses, we, the underlings. And we were the digital immigrants who needed to be sensitive to and structure everything around the other generation of digital natives. I noticed that there were a few older millennials in there and they were seemingly a little bit uncomfortable. And there were a lot of people my age as well. And they were some of them just kind of keeping their heads down. None of them really wanting to raise the issue, which is that this whole digital native thing is kind of BS. Yeah. Now, why do I say that? Well, because our actual experience in the classroom, many of us using technology in ways that these educational experts were often not knowing about and perhaps not even suspecting that we might be doing, we knew that we instructors actually understood the technology and could use it more readily in than the supposed digital natives, not least because we actually had to be fairly conscious about what we were doing. And so we could raise an issue here about deliberate and conscious use of a technology and more intuitive use, and say that sometimes you’re actually better off thinking about what you’re doing rather than just responding in a gut way. But it went really far beyond that. What I noticed in my classes were that despite having cell phones, despite having grown up in an environment that included the internet and being on computers, most of my students really did not know how to use them effectively, even when it came to things like doing searches for information using a search engine, by that time almost completely Google, or writing papers and formatting them easily and up to standards in a word processing program, or how to effectively send emails. And that’s a very, very basic technology. A lot of them knew on a very surface level how to do these sorts of things, but didn’t really understand once things got tricky, what they should do next. or how to find information that would be useful for them, or any of the limitations of the technology that they were using. If they were indeed natives, they were natives who didn’t understand their own supposed special environment, as well as the people who came in from the outside, we might say, temporally. And so this entire narrative or dichotomy, or whatever you want to have it, ideology perhaps, of digital natives and digital immigrants who are very different, almost like dogs and cats to each other, or you know how “men are from Mars and women are from Venus. This all collapses when you look at it carefully. And I still see people making a lot of reference to it today. But indeed, it tends to still be boomers who are saying those sorts of things, and not people in Generation X, who perhaps had a better vantage point since we had a lot. more technology that we grew up with, but it was technology that we had to master. It wasn’t quite so easy to use when you got a computer. First you actually, back in the day, had to learn how to use an operating system like DOS or some other thing to program what you wanted. And then eventually, you know, we get all of the mouse and point and click and windows and pick whatever else you want to talk about. And things in some respects get easier, but also get harder to really know precisely what you’re doing with. I’m not going to say that younger people per se don’t know what they’re doing. But many of them don’t seem to be, if they are digital natives, natives who know more than just a city block of their environment. And that’s a big problem when we want to make these generalizations. So it’s something I’ve been thinking about today. I thought it might be interesting for people, to talk about and think about, and perhaps compare their own experiences or their own assumptions about this contested term. I will actually close this out by throwing out a modest proposal, which is actually quite a radical one when you’re not just calling it “modest”, which is that we should retire this term. It turns out to be pretty useless for picking out any sort of reality that would help us in figuring out policy or education or anything that really matters to us. Should we replace it with another term? Only if we’re going to make the concept better, fuller, more flexible than it currently stands. It’s really more of a mistake waiting to happen than anything else. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit gregorybsadler.substack.com/subscribe

13 min
11 MAR

Episode 49: The Practice Of Taking A Pause, Whether "Stoic" Or Not

This post is public so feel free to share it. Recently, I was a guest on another podcast, as I do from time to time, going on other people’s platforms and talking with them about whatever it is that they want to bring me in for. And in this case, the person wanted to talk about Stoicism and specifically Epictetus, and they hit me with a term that I wasn’t really familiar with but I could say “I think I know what you’re talking about”, especially after they cited a passage and explained what they meant. It’s not something that’s actually new, but the term that’s circulating around is relatively new it’s being labeled as the “Stoic pause.”. The general idea behind it is one that you can find articulated across the Stoic corpus. Seneca talks about it. Epictetus talks about it. Marcus Aurelius talks about it. And so do others as well, and for good reason. And it’s basically just this. Before you allow your reasoning processes or your reactions or your feelings or whatever it happens to be, to lead you to have a response, take a little break. Introduce a little pause temporally into the process. And for the person who was asking me about this, he thought this had to do specifically with the notion of handling what the Stoics call “impressions” or “appearances”, or even “imaginations”, phantasiai, and whether we give assent to them or don’t give assent to them. And that’s all part of the picture, to be sure, but it’s not quite so simple and straightforward as that in all the Stoic writings. There’s lots of passages where those people that I already talked about will say: ‘when you run into this, then pause for a moment and say, examine what’s going on with yourself.” It might be examine the impressions that are impinging upon you, test them to see if they are what they think they are. It could also be pause for a moment so you can choose what you’re going to do. It might be framed in terms of reasoning processes that we could call unconscious, or subliminal, or implicit, or below the level of our conscious thinking. But we are engaging in thinking nonetheless, as we can later reconstruct it. And if we’re paying attention, we can actually see what’s And a lot of our emotions from a Stoic perspective, particularly the emotions that they call the perturbationes, the ones that are getting in the way, “perturbations” is a literal translation of the disruptive emotions. They usually involve a set of judgments that we’re making, and we make those judgments because we have some appearances or impressions coming in, and then we think about those and we respond in turn. So this isn’t the be-all and end-all of what Stoic practice would be, but it’s very helpful to do. Really, we could say you cannot function without doing this, and doing it repetitively and doing it consciously, and over time with practice getting good at it. If you don’t do it, all the other stuff that you do is probably not going to work out very well for you. This is going to be one big deficit area. So far, so good, right? That’s an important idea, taking a pause, not just to take a pause and count to 10 or something like that, but to actually refocus your attention on: “Hey, what’s going on here today?”, and paying attention to what it is that you think, what it is that you feel, the judgments that you’re making, what information you’re using that might be a little dubious. All those sorts of things. That’s all great. Nothing wrong with that at all. It’s also not distinctively Stoic. And to call it the “Stoic pause”, I’m not sure who came up with this term, is a little bit weird and culty, and maybe a little bit too grifter self-helpy as well. Because again, it’s not the unique property of Stoic philosophy. It would be sort of like talking about “Greg Sadler’s soccer kick,” right? Everybody else plays soccer in the world. Of course, many of them call it “football” and we could change it to “Greg Sadler’s football kick”. Well, so many other people are doing it. You would hear that and you’d be like, why are you bringing Greg Sadler into this as distinctive? So there’s nothing particularly Stoic about this. All of the other robust virtue ethics that we can find throughout the centuries, not just in Western philosophy, but also in Chinese philosophy and Indian philosophy, all over the place, are going to advise that at least at some point in time, you pay attention to and slow down your reactions, and analyze your own thought processes and emotions, and pay attention to habits and all of that sort of stuff. So just shifting back to the Western sphere and talking about ancient mediterranean and near eastern thought on this, well the Platonists advise doing that. You’ve just got to read Plutarch a bit and you’ll see that. The Aristotelians definitely suggest doing this. The Stoics do. The Epicureans do. Even the Skeptics who some of them don’t believe in much of anything, they certainly are suggesting doing that as well. This shows you that we’re already covering a lot of ground But it’s not just philosophy people. We could say that this is an important part of many religious traditions as well. And so you can find in the Biblical Wisdom literature some references to doing this sort of thing. We can say that it also pops up in literature as well. And speaking of literature, it even shows up in science fiction. I brought up in that particular session, that recording on the person’s podcast, that one prime example of this is from A.E. Van Vogt, who was a Golden Age science fiction writer, probably most famous for his World of Null-A and Slan, but he wrote a lot of other works as well. And he called it the “thalmic pause”, because he was saying you put the part of your brain that likes to make snap decisions on a sort of pause ,and you think through what’s actually going on here. He’s describing exactly the same process. Now, of course, if you know your history about this guy, Van Vogt had some philosophical training, specifically, he was involved with the Institute for General Semantics and Korzybski and those people. But there’s many other people who advise taking some sort of pause before making a snap judgment or a decision. I mean, we might even say that we see something like this going on in the very first book of the Iliad, because Achilles is hearing what Agamemnon has to say, and he’s getting angry, and he’s thinking: “I should kill this b*****d right here where he stands. I’m going to pull up my sword and do this jerk in. He’s not a very good king at all.” And Athena helps him to stay his hand. This might be a prime example of this sort of thing. And, you know, we have a great character in Homer who will often do that sort of thing, and typically only gets himself in deep trouble when he makes quick decisions, and that’s Odysseus. So it’s not as if this is a distinctively philosophical idea, let alone just a Stoic idea, but it is a really good thing to do. I think philosophies might be particularly helpful for helping us understand why we should do it, how it can be beneficial to us, and then what we should be filling that pause with, how we should be examining the thought processes and decision-making processes, the evaluations that we’re engaged in. So I’m not going to call this the “Stoic pause” myself, because as we’ve just talked about, it’s got a much wider base than just Stoicism. But if somebody wants to call it the “Stoic pause”, that’s up to them. They can certainly do that. But I do think it’s something that all of us would benefit from incorporating into our practice, even if we get away from our ordinary lives. And we’re just talking about studying philosophy. I’ll give you just a prime example of this before we end here. So you’re reading something and you think you understand exactly what the author is saying. And they write something that to you seems really, really stupid, and you find yourself thinking: “Why am I reading this dummy? I’m wasting my time with an idiot like this.” Well, that’s a great place to take a pause. You might actually be right. Now, you might be right in your assessment that they’re an idiot, and have gotten something fundamentally wrong, and then wrote about it. You might also be wrong at the same time, that it’s a total waste of your time. So you should actually look at the connection between those two statements, right? Because one doesn’t necessarily imply the other. But odds are, if they’re a great thinker, and you are reading them for the first or eighth time, and other people think that reading them is valuable, and as you’re reading them, your take is: “No, this person is stupid and their ideas are stupid.” Odds are that you’re missing something, and you’re probably bringing something to the reading that’s getting in the way. So you might want to take a pause there and think about how you are responding and whether it really makes all that much sense. And if you do that, you will probably save yourself some headaches and not throw away books that would be useful for you to refocus on. So you see that even outside of our ordinary scope of life, if you’re just doing study, this pause, whatever you want to call it. We could call it the “Stoic pause", the “Platonic pause, the “A.E. Van Vogt” pause, whatever you want to call it. This practice of pausing, and then filling that pause with the sorts of mental activities that are going to be helpful for you, this can be incredibly powerful. And you’re probably going to need to do this thousands of times over the course of your life in order to be happy. Gregory B. Sadler - That Philosophy Guy is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Gregory Sadler is the founder

13 min
25 FEB

Episode 48: Not Making Judgements About Philosophy Based On "Vibes"

I’ve had a few queries and comments, mostly in YouTube but also in some other places lately, that got me thinking about a sort of general topic. And this is one of those, if the shoe fits, wear it. Many of you listening to this, probably this isn’t the case for you, but you might know somebody that this would be helpful for to hear, or maybe just share this idea with them. And I’m going to put it in a really flippant sort of contemporary culture way. You don’t want to make judgments about philosophy or philosophers based on what the kids these days call “vibes”. And actually, it’s not just the kids these days. There’s lots of other people who use the term ironically, and it’s been around for a very long time. I mean, longer than my generation, the generation before mine, the boomers were talking about good vibes. And so, you know, it’s made its way back into the popular parlance and taken up a seat in popular conversations about philosophy and many, many other fields as well for, I would say, close to a decade now. And what do I mean by this? So we could get a little bit more expansive and perhaps even rigorous about this notion. People have been doing this for a very, very long time, going way back in the literature that we have, you’ve got to do some work in order to find it, I imagine. But I’ve encountered this in literature, about literature, about philosophy, about other fields as well. And it consists in making a judgment not based on actually spending time reading the thinker and working through their thought in a kind of careful and receptive manner and then coming to a well-founded conclusion about them but instead taking shortcuts, going by your gut, or reading for the gist, and only catching maybe 10% of what’s being said, or even just going by what you’ve heard about them from other people, and using that as sort of your input as you then start reading your way through people. I’m going to give you a prime example of this that happened recently, and it was in Substack, and it was specifically about Alasdair MacIntyre, because I’m advertising that I’m teaching this upcoming class on MacIntyre’s After Virtue, which is a complex book. It’s covering a lot of the history of ideas coming all the way up to present culture, and you know there’s a good bit of sophistication to it. This person asked about something that showed me that they they didn’t really know that much about MacIntyre, and whatever ideas they had were kind of garbled and They asked about universal moral frameworks. Does MacIntyre ever deliver on his promise to provide that? And that’s exactly the opposite of what MacIntyre does. He mentions universal moral frameworks as something that the Enlightenment was attempting to provide us with and then failing to do so over and over and over again with a number of different attempts, a number of different responses and steps. And he’s quite right about that. And so this person, you know, maybe they were reading and not reading attentively, so they fell into the mistake of thinking that the philosopher who is criticizing a position is actually endorsing that position. So I wrote them back and I was like: yeah, MacIntyre doesn’t do that. If you think that he is, why don’t you cite me (and I’m being flippant here), cite me some chapter and verse, meaning tell me where in the text you’re actually finding this. And their response was to say: Well you know, I just read a few chapters of it and that was the impression that I got from it. And I wrote back and said, well, see, there’s your mistake. You don’t ever want to make judgments about a philosophical work or about a philosopher or about a school based just on small sample size and your first impressions of that, because they’re probably going to be wrong. And I’m going to say right up front (well not exactly up front, because I’ve been talking now for several minutes about that!), but I’m going to lay it out for you: I’ve done that myself plenty of times. And I think pretty much every one of us who’s in the philosophy business for a while has probably fallen into that mistake, but we don’t want to say that as reason for justifying it. We actually want to say: Oh, I can relate to you. It’s an easy mistake to make early on, and you definitely want to avoid it. Those of us who did, we can say, yeah, it led me into some blind alleys and reasoning wrongly about what I should read and what I shouldn’t read, and what different people are thinking. And it’s better to be disabused of that illusion that you’ve actually got it figured out based on vibes or impressions or feels or whatever you want to call it. It’s better to have something solid, something that actually does relate to the text in a way that’s reasonably representative of it so that you can have good judgments going forward. And you know, I had somebody just today in YouTube who asked a question that actually made me laugh a bit. They wanted to know whether taking a course in formal logic would help them as they go to study continental philosophy, and so I had to tell them: No actually that’s not going to be of any help whatsoever. And I was kind of wondering where they got that idea from. I suppose they thought that formal logic is going to be helpful for everything. It’s not even helpful for most analytic philosophy quite frankly, If you’re reading around in actual analytic philosophy, particularly the classical works in it, let’s say from the first 30, 40 years of the inception of that new way of doing philosophy, And the person responded by saying: well you know, I’ve read some Hegel and I’ve read some Zizek. So I thought maybe as I’m going to read other continental philosophy, formal logic would actually be quite helpful. And then I got a formal logic textbook and I found it quite difficult. And I thought: well, I don’t think you’ve actually read Hegel and Zizek then. Or you have “read” them, but that means you sort of like ran your eyes over them and digested some of the words. But there’s no way that you attentively studied Hegel, say going through the entire Phenomenology, or the Science of Logic or even the Philosophy of Right, or even any of the lectures, and worked your way through that and then found sort of an intro level formal logic class difficult. It’s just not going to be the case. So I think the same would hold for Zizek. Zizek is a very stream of consciousness thinker in some of his works. His earlier works are actually quite rigorous and you need to understand a lot in order to make sense of what he’s saying adequately. So clearly this person felt that they understood Hegel and Zizek in some respect, but I don’t think that they did. And we don’t have to single out continental philosophy in this respect. I think there’s lots of people who go by vibes when it comes to Spinoza, right? They are attracted to some ideas that they maybe got in somewhat digested form, even in the media of memes and they’re like, yeah, this is a really cool guy. Everything’s substance. I’m just a mode of substance. And well, there’s a lot more to it than that. Or people do this with Aristotle. Aristotle is the best thinker ever. And then you’re like: well, I don’t think you’ve actually read that much of his works. People who, for example, will talk about the organon in very glowing terms and then want to apply those logical works, which usually they don’t actually read the whole of. They’ll read the Categories and On Interpretation and the two Analytics, and then that’s it for them. They don’t read the Topics, which is an amazing, important work and would actually be quite helpful for them to do. And it’s quite different than the other works as well that get classified in that. But people talk about this and it’s sort of like when I’ve talked in the past about texts with aura, ideas, thinkers take on a kind of aura, a positive set of feels that then get contrasted to other things the other philosophers. They’re not as good as Aristotle he’s The Prince of Philosophers, or the Philosopher, as Thomas Aquinas called him. And none of this is actually going to be helpful for a person who wants to genuinely study and make progress in this complicated field that we call philosophy. I bring it up in part because, again, if the shoe fits, wear it. If you’re falling into this sometimes, not necessarily all the time, if you’re listening to this, you’re probably inclined towards philosophy already and not making these sorts of beginner level mistakes all the time. But we can fall into this. If you know people who could benefit from hearing this message, maybe you want to pass that along to them. You can send them this if you want to. You’re probably able to reproduce this in your own voice and words in a conversation with them. And it might actually turn out to be quite helpful to take a stumbling block out of the way that holds people back from using the precious time that they have for studying philosophy in a more productive manner. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit gregorybsadler.substack.com/subscribe

11 min
10 FEB

Episode 47 - The One Single Thing I'd Like Most To Stress About Ethics

Last week, I gave a podcast interview and we ranged over a number of interesting questions. I got asked one by the host that, you know, it seems sort of a easy question, almost a softball at first. And I suppose for some people, if they have oversimplistic views on ethics, it might really be one. But for me, it was a tough question. I had to think about it quite a bit. And so here’s the question as far as I remember it. I mean, we’ll find out when the podcast actually comes out what the exact wording was. But it was something along the lines of, “if you can only say one single thing, make one point for the average person or the audience of people out there in general about ethics, what would it be?” And like I said, that is not an easy one for someone like me who thinks that ethics is kind of deep and complicated. And it’s not that people can’t get it, but there’s a lot of as we say moving parts, and you don’t want to leave them out any more than you’d want to say: “hey, let’s simplify the toaster or the car, we’ll get rid of all the parts that aren’t absolutely necessary.” And then you find out you’ve actually gotten rid of some of the necessary parts when you try to use it. So I think for people who are committed to some sort of very hardcore substantive ethics that they think covers everything, like you know, you could be a Kantian and be like, just follow the categorical imperative. And then, of course, you have to explain the categorical imperative, which has at least three formulations. But we’ll put that aside. Or if you’re a utilitarian and you’re saying, follow the greatest happiness principle. Well, okay, that sounds good, but it requires a lot of explaining and then showing how it actually works in practice and answering objections. And you might think of the old Google motto, just don’t be evil. Well, that’s so contentless, it doesn’t tell you anything actually helpful. But I think a lot of people do approach ethics in that way, because they’ve already got some point of view staked out that they think really covers everything. And I just don’t have that sort of approach. I have a much more complicated and messy approach that is you know what we sometimes call “ethical pluralism”, thinking that there’s multiple principles that we need to bring to bear. I am of course a virtue ethicist, but virtue ethics isn’t as simple as just be virtuous or do what virtue would tell you, because there’s a lot more to it than that. So I did have an answer, and I’m fairly satisfied with this answer, and I’m going to give it to you here. But it’s one that as I think about it, more each time that I mull it over, which is what I’m doing here with you, it winds up getting a little bit more complicated. I’ll probably have to write a piece about this before too long. So I’m kind of working my thoughts out here. So when I was asked the question, after I took a tiny little pause and bought myself some time by saying wow, that’s a tough question there. I didn’t have a Twix bar like in the commercial to chew on or anything like that. I said something along these lines. What I would want to say is that whatever good you’re doing by a particular choice or action that you are intending actually doing, what you need to keep in mind is that even if the action fails or somehow goes astray, there are factors that you didn’t know about, or it just goes unnoticed. Maybe it was to help somebody and they don’t realize that they’re being helped. Or if something else undoes it, or even if it’s just like seemingly a little drop in not just the bucket, but an ocean that is the wider world, The good that you accomplish or even just intend (intending is a sort of accomplishing), is real. And even though it’s limited, that doesn’t take away its reality. And its reality is not just that it exists, but that it is indeed true. Even if it’s not perfectly good, because most things aren’t, that doesn’t take away what goodness it has. And why do I think this is the most important thing for me to say? Because I’ve seen so many people who are on one side of this or the other. They’re the doer of the good action and they see it somehow not come to full fruition and they feel as if what they did was nothing. it didn’t accomplish anything. It didn’t embody any good. It didn’t improve anything. And they can get discouraged and that might lead them to not do it in the future. But even if like their universe was to end right there, I would still give them that advice and say, the good that you did is still good. Keep that in mind. And on the other side, I think there’s a lot of people who are perfectionists, not just for themselves, but for lots of other people as well. They’re kind of critics, they’re naysayers, they’re the ones who say: well, you think you did something, but look at it. Oh, it’s not really a good thing at all, because it’s not a perfect good, or an eternally lasting good, or the best or anything like that. So we live in a world where this happens an awful lot. And I just think it’s really important for somebody at least to be consistently putting that message out. And maybe I’m not the only one to do that, thank goodness. But if I have to be the one to stress this over and over again, well I’m happy to do so, because it was a hard-won insight that for me that took a long time and experience and thinking about things for it to stick for me and I know that other people would benefit from hearing it as well and I do have a couple you know like corollaries and follow-ups to this as well which goes a little bit against the “hey, what’s the one thing that you want to say”? If you’re smuggling in corollaries, now you’re saying two things, three things, four things. But indulge me for a moment while I bring up another thing that I did say in the podcast, and then one other thing that I didn’t say in the podcast but I’ve been thinking about So the first thing is that there’s a kind of perfectionism that a lot of people succumb to and try to impose on other people in ethics. And we have this phrase, “don’t let the best be the enemy of the good,” meaning don’t let the fact that you’re aiming at some imaginary, not real best, some superlative, become the impediment to you actually choosing and doing and perhaps even sustaining something that is genuinely good, albeit not the best. So I think everybody’s heard that phrase, or at least if you hadn’t before, now you’ve got a good idea what it means and you can relate to it. And I want to add a little bit more there. So, you know, we can talk about the superlative, which is the best. We can talk about the whatever we want to call it, maybe substantive, the good. And then in between, we have something else that we call the comparative, and that is the better term, right? It’s not the best, and it’s not just the good. It’s where one good is more good than another good, and we can compare them back and forth. And that’s why we call it the comparative. So we could say, you know thinking about ice cream, and this is going to seem completely arbitrary to you: Vanilla that’s good. Vanilla is nice to have. Butter pecan, well that’s better. What’s the best? I don’t know. For me, it probably is mint chocolate chip. For you, it’s going to be something different. But you notice we’ve got like a hierarchy that we set out there. So what’s the upshot for this? I think we need to watch out not just for the best being the enemy of the good, but also for the best becoming an impediment to discerning and choosing and recognizing the better, as indeed a greater good than other goods, but not necessarily the apex of goodness itself. Because a lot of what we’re doing in ethics is not simply choosing between the good and the bad. It’s nice when things are that straightforward and obvious. Instead, we have to look at different kinds of things that are good and decide, well in this situation, which of them is better than than the other one. And we’d be foolish if we pick the lesser good instead of what we recognize to be the greater good, the better. But if we’re being perfectionists, if we’re always needing the best, we could have just the same attitude towards the better as we have towards the good, and we might think: ah you know, maybe the better isn’t even really better. And we might even come to think that it’s not even truly good. So I think this is a corollary. The other one that I wanted to bring up is that if we can say that the good that we do, even if it doesn’t last forever and seems to be easily dissipated or disappearing in an entire ocean where it’s a mere drop or anything along those lines, we can say the same thing about the opposite of the good the bad or the evil however you want to put it and some people will try to justify the bad that they do by, you know reference to some greater good. Or they’ll say: well it’s really not so bad, or they’ll say: well I did a bad thing, but nobody caught me, or I intended to do something bad, but it didn’t come off, so everything’s okay. Well, if we’re going to say that whatever good we do is something positive and real, I think we also need to be honest with ourselves about the bad as well and say,if there weren’t bad consequences that resulted from it, if I had a bad intention, even though it wasn’t fulfilled, it’s still bad. And that’s a thought that I think needs to go along with this one single thing. So another corollary. And like I said, I’m in process of working out my full thoughts on this. It’s not as if I haven’t had plenty of time indeed to think about these things over the course of time in the past. But these are murky matters that I think could use some additional reflection and articulation. So you can look forward to seeing me writing som

13 min
19 ENE

Episode 46 - Thinking About Why One Takes Offense From A Philosopher

One of the common ways that I see quite a few people who want to study philosophy, whether in academic settings or in the wider world, screwing things up for themselves is a sort of mistaken process, prioritization, and perspective that they assign to the thinkers, the texts, maybe movements that they’re reading from the past. And I suppose that you could say it takes on a certain sort of perfectionism assigned not to oneself, but to other people, namely the people that one is reading. I would say judging, but judging improperly. And in this, I’m going to give a little bit of advice, but it’s not going to be: Hey, don’t do that at all. It’s going to be more along the lines of: This is a problem. I’m not going to say stop doing it right now or here is a universal bar upon it, a negative imperative. Instead, I’m going to say think about these points, if this is indeed a problem for you, if you fall into these tendencies or if you see other people doing it, it might help to put it into perspective as well. And think. Think about what’s actually going on here. Does it really make sense to take these sorts of positions, which is not something coming out of a brute necessity or some sort of moral imperative, although it might be felt that way. It’s actually on some level a choice that the person is making. So I’m going to give you an example of this and then maybe a few other similar examples as well. And then I’ll talk about what’s really problematic about this. So some of you may have been seeing me recently releasing content on Jeremy Bentham’s unpublished until after he died. So we call that posthumously published work, which was supposed to be part of his major early released work, the Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. I t’s usually titled Offenses Against Oneself, which is a bit of a misleading title because it really focuses much more on male-male homosexuality and whether it should be prohibited or punished by the law or not, which was indeed the case at the time that Bentham was writing. He didn’t publish it in his lifetime, in part because he was afraid of the blowback that he would get, because what he’s actually making a case for is that it should not be prohibited or punished, and that doing so actually from a variety of perspectives, some of which are utilitarian, the principle of utility, and some of which are just based on, you could say, analysis of the arguments behind them. These are not good cases for prohibiting or punishing male-male sexual relationships. So if there’s contemporary people that are going to get ticked off about me producing that content, it would probably be those who don’t like those kinds of relationships and would like to see them once again barred and punished and whatever else we’re going to throw into the mix. And there are quite a few people out there like that. There have been for a long time, even though we’ve seen considerable changes in our own lifetime on these matters here in the United States and you know, more so in some other places as well. The comment that I got was instead from somebody who wanted to take issue with the subtitle that gets appended to this “Of Pederasty,” and the fact that Bentham does use that term within the work. They were saying: I’m glad that Bentham is a supportive voice, but I can’t stand the fact that he uses this term and it’s targeting gays with something that’s really terrible. In effect, they’re saying they can’t see past that, and that’s what they wanted to focus on. And my response was pretty straightforward and simple. I said, I think that you’re smart enough to realize that Bentham is writing in the late 18th century and to, you know, yourself, place things in proper perspective when you’re thinking about language that everybody’s using at the time. To be fair Bentham pursues a rhetorical strategy of deploring homosexual relationships and sex, but you don’t think that he’s really committed to that. He does by the way, and I’ll point out this, he does have some pretty odd ideas about masturbation, which he considers to be worse than any other sexual offense. But that’s a bit of a digression. And it shows you that he is a creature of his time because that is based on some of the medical opinions of his time. Now, we can find similar, let’s call them, deplorings or dismissals of other philosophers. For example, there’s a lot of boneheaded things that Aristotle says about different people, slaves, women, non-Greeks. And you could easily say, well, I’m not going to learn anything by reading this person. Or if you buy into some of the more hysterical views expressed out there aboutanimal ethics and Rene Descartes’ part in it, there’s a lot of people who credit him, I think, pretty unfairly with the idea that animals are simply machines and don’t feel pain so we can do anything that we want to them, which you’re not actually going to find in his writings. And it’s making him sort of a poster boy himself for something that you don’t like. We could also go back to ancient times again and think of the Stoics. One of the topics that comes up over and over again is why didn’t the Stoics condemn slavery? Seneca had slaves. Epictetus himself was a slave. He often calls people slave in his discourses. They didn’t have some sort of systematic critique of slavery as an institution, which, by the way, was found in pretty much every other culture that they ran across. So it was kind of a constant in ancient times. But they also didn’t say: Do whatever you like to your slaves. Seneca actually has an entire discussion of slavery. where he says, you know, you should be treating them in this way, in this way. Cicero says similar things. And we see that in Epictetus. He’s discussing the little bit of God that is in everybody, including that slave over there. So you really have to kind of cherry pick or ignore important parts of a thinker’s work to allow yourself to focus in this way on the things that are going to offend you and allow you to say: I am bothered by this, and then to express that opinion to other people when the discussion really isn’t about that. So it’s a way of making it all about, not just you, but the point that you want to focus on to the detriment of the topic that pretty much everybody else at the time is interested in. We see this in comments. We see this happening in classes. We see this in discussions. There’s a lot of conference questions that are not really questions, but more rants that people engage in doing that sort of thing. It’s a very common sort of foible, we might say. What’s the problem with it? Well, there’s a couple different problems. You could say you’re being very anachronistic. People will often bring up a trope like, it’s a different time and culture. You have to understand that. And quite frankly, sometimes that’s just BS that is functioning like a cop-out. I just don’t want to discuss this thing. And it’s often poorly informed. So if you try to defend Aristotle from the claim that he contributed to slavery by saying that some people were natural slaves, and you haven’t actually read the discussion in Politics book one, and you’re like: Well everybody had slaves back then. Don’t worry about that. Aristotle actually says that not everybody’s cool with this. And by the way, most slaves are not slaves by any sort of nature or justice, or they’re just slaves because they’ve been taken as war captives. So you do want to be properly informed. Sometimes it actually is the case. I think in the case of Bentham, using the word pederasty, he’s not using it quite with the same tenor that somebody in our own time might be doing. Particularly if you read the rest of the work. But there are some cases where you can say: Yeah, this person really is using this term and doing so to be offensive in a way that translates across the eras. It’s important, though, that we recognize that we might be relying on contemporary vantage points that 20 years from now or 100 years from now might get similarly called into question later on. We’ve got plenty of experience of that in our lifetime. Another thing that you might think about is whether you’re expecting perfection or just to lower the bar a little bit, kind of sanitized or bowdlerized versions of the great thinkers who you want and you know, what’s behind that? I would suggest that a lot of the time it’s people who aren’t really that capable of receiving other people’s thought unless it’s been in some way put through some filters, dumbed down a bit, made safe for them. And this, by the way, applies not just to progressives who want to, say appropriate Nietzsche, but it’s going to be a very sanitized, defanged Nietzsche, as I call it. It also applies to conservatives who are like: Yeah man, I love western civilization and the Classics. And then you put Plato’s works in their hands, and suddenly they realize that in the Symposium is a bunch of guys mostly talking about male-male homosexual relationships, and suddenly they want all of that stuff to be excised from the text. There’s a kind of touchiness that goes along with this projection of perfectionism onto other people It also helps to realize that some terms may have just been in common use at the time that the author is writing and nothing detrimental in the same sense as we use the words today is intended by it. You might think, for example, of the term cripple, right? We’re not supposed to use that anymore. As a matter of fact, in our lifetime, we were supposed to switch to handicapped or disabled. And now we’re not supposed to say those either in certain circles. We’re supposed to say differently abled. This is a prime example of how easily terminology can shift around. So if you’re going to like get on somebody’s case, imag

17 min
20/12/2025

Episode 45 - An Often Lacking But Sorely Needed Skill

This post is public so feel free to share it. I’d say I’ve had a more than normal amount of exchanges in various social media that have been rather unproductive, for a reason that I think goes beyond social media. It’s in fact something that I’ve seen throughout my academic career. And I think it betokens a certain lack of or not using an important skill that I try to foster in my own students and clients when I’m working with them, when it comes to engaging in philosophical discussion. But it’s something that I would say is a much wider application, because it helps to prevent misunderstandings and talking past each other, which is a rather unproductive use of our linguistic and communicative and even intellectual capacities. We human beings, as for example the Stoics, among many others, tell us are not just rational creatures, but that also means creatures that exist in communities, social creatures, creatures that can have an understanding with each other. And so when understanding is blocked, that’s kind of a problem. So let me tell you what I’m talking about first, and I’m going to keep it rather generic. I know that it happened in Substack and Twitter, and it also happens occasionally in LinkedIn or Facebook, or even when I’m posting things in YouTube. Typically what’s going on is I am reposting what somebody else has said, and then I am using it as a sort of platform to say the things that I want to say. I’ll give you just one example of this. I saw somebody who is making some sweeping generalizations about philosophy inside academia and philosophy outside academia. And they were very concerned about the sorts of things that people who are lauding philosophy outside academia say about philosophy inside academia. They thought they were being a bit unfair. And I was staking out a different position, which is there is no such thing really as philosophy inside academia or philosophy outside academia, because there are indeed people doing philosophy inside and outside both. But the experiences, the situations, what counts as academia, what counts as being outside of it, it’s incredibly varied. So any sort of generalization that a person wants to make is probably going to not only be wrong in some sense, you know, admit of exceptions, it’s just not going to be all that applicable. And it’ll typically be very reflective of the frame of reference that the person who’s writing it has. Nobody has enough of a frame of reference to be able to generalize in that way in the present day. Really probably, even in the past, one might make those sorts of generalizations because we certainly can indulge in them, but they wouldn’t be very accurate. And I think a lot of people just didn’t know that. So I weighed in saying that, and then the person was assuming that because I reposted their thing, I’m directly responding to them, which is kind of a bad assumption, because if I was directly responding to them, it would have been a reply statement. to their original post rather than quoting them and then saying, see, here’s part of the problem. Maybe we need to rethink this. I’ve had other things like this coming up as well. People jump into conversations and think that they’re contributing to the conversation, but they’re really not responding to me as such. They’re responding to the original post which I was not endorsing or saying had gotten things basically right. And then they do respond in a comment to me. So I had another one piggybacking off of that who did precisely that, and they thought they were contributing to the conversation. They actually used those words. And my response to them was you’re not actually contributing to the conversation. You want to talk to the person who originally posted that, to which I was kind of responding by quoting their post, but actually saying a whole bunch of other things, which you haven’t bothered to engage at all. As a matter of fact, you’re still engaging in that kind of sweeping generalization that I was criticizing. So this is just one instance out of many. I don’t want to get too hung up on the details of this, but what is the broader problem that shows a kind of carelessness, thoughtlessness, lack of paying attention to things, which could in fact be looked at as a sort of deficit, of a skill or capacity that has to be developed. It’s something that comes up over and over again when, for example, I teach Platonic dialogues, and I have students who don’t seem to grasp the difference between Socrates repeating what somebody else has said, not because he endorses it, but because he’s actually questioning it and probably saying, thinks that it’s wrong and is about to do his famous Socratic refutation, the elenchus that we see attributed to him as, for better or for worse, one of his key characteristics of They’re not able to properly differentiate between saying something about somebody else’s ideas and positively affirming those ideas. And that’s a real problem because if you can’t do that, a dialogue effectively becomes a monologue or it just turns into everybody agreeing and you do have different characters, but they’re all saying the same thing. And that definitely isn’t what’s happening in a platonic dialogue. If you think that is what’s happening, you have gone wrong somehow in your reading of it. And we could say this about all sorts of other things. It doesn’t have to be a dialogue as such. When Aristotle is bringing up somebody else’s point of view, and then shortly after that, he’s going to criticize that point of view, he is not endorsing that point of view, although he might say, well, they’ve got a little bit of correctness to what they’re saying. He’s very good about that sort of thing. So it’s not just when we have different characters speaking. It can also be within the body of a text. I actually ran into something like this the very first semester that I was student teaching with my mentor who had me and the other TA each give two lectures. And it’s, I don’t remember exactly what book it was. It was something, some article about the Holocaust and God that I was supposed to present. And I was presenting not my point of view, but the author’s point of view. And the author was actually citing somebody else who he disagreed with, who was attributing the guilt for the Holocaust of the Jewish people to Christians, if I remember right. So I had a woman who came up to me after class, very angry. And she was very upset with me for saying that somehow God was responsible for the Holocaust. I said, I’m not saying anything. This author is saying that another author is saying that. And she could just not get that through her head because she was so upset. She actually went to the chair and complained to him and he took me aside and gave me some advice about how to handle students like that. But it shows you that there’s a lot of people who just don’t distinguish either because they don’t, simply can’t, in which case this is going to be a really big problem for them in life, or they don’t have much experience in distinguishing, or they haven’t built up those mental muscles, or they’re being careless or kind of lazy, or they’re being tendentious and they’re trying to take offense when no offense is actually intended In any case, it’s not a very useful way to approach things. And if we want to have good communication about complex and oftentimes tricky and, you know, polemical topics, we really have to be clear about who is saying what and for what reason and responding to who. And so the fact that it’s other people who claim to be quite interested in philosophy, including a post-grad in philosophy, who are doing it, shows me that this is definitely something we need to concentrate on more. And maybe we need some sort of skill building curriculum to work on that. That might be something that I actually do some writing about later on down the line. But I think this is a good place to end this. These are some reflections from those recent engagements. But you can see that this is a really perennial human problem that probably isn’t going to go away. But I think we can make some headway into if we’re deliberate and thoughtful ourselves about it and figure out how people wind up going wrong in these ways. Gregory B. Sadler - That Philosophy Guy is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit gregorybsadler.substack.com/subscribe

12 min
08/11/2025

Episode 44 - Back To Recording In My Office And Lessons Learned From My Fall And Surgery

I’m recording this new episode of Mind and Desire after a bit of a hiatus here inmy office, where I haven’t been able to be and work for not quite a month, but pretty close to it. As I think all of you know, I had a pretty nasty slip and fall on our hardwood floor in our condo which resulted in me landing just right in order to shatter my hip. As it actually turned out I shattered the head of my femur and a good bit of the bone. So I had to have what’s called emergency hip replacement. As my surgeon explained to me: This is not your dad or your grandpa’s hip replacement, where they have arthritis and it’s getting bad, and they come in and they get it handled in one or two hours. My operation actually took four hours. And because of the trauma of the fall and then trying to get up afterwards, which was not a great idea, and all of the other things that went with it, there’s a lot more pain and damage, a lot more recovery that has to take place. So the “emergency” is really the key term there. But I have been on the mend since the operation, as I’ve written about, it is something that takes a lot of time, because there’s many different steps that you have to go through to fix things. But I’m here for the first time back in my office. And this is you could say a baby step for actually doing things. This is probably the easiest location to get to. I can be dropped off right at the front door. There’s a lift that I can take, and I can get around on my cane to the elevator and then up to the fifth floor where my office is, and over to my office, unlock the door, come in here, sit down at this desk in front of the microphone, and communicate with all of you so that’s pretty good now I’m going to talk in this one, not so much about philosophy, but about some of the things that I’ve learned through this experience. And I’ve already mentioned one of them. Emergency hip replacement is on a whole different level than ordinary hip replacement as far as the toll that it takes on your body and the recovery that it requires. I’ve done a bit of writing in Substack about some of the lessons that I’ve learned, but I haven’t actually gone through all of them. So I’ll just mention a few of them that I have already written about in those three articles so far. One of them is that weird freak stuff happens, and there isn’t really any deeper causality to it. I suppose if you think of the universe as being providentially organized and ordained by some higher mind, maybe you could think that there was some overarching reason for me to have a accident of this sort and undergo this experience. You know, maybe I was getting too big for my britches, or it’s to teach me the value of suffering, or something like that. But if you don’t buy into that, then it’s pretty easy to say, or it should be easy to say rather, that sometimes random stuff happens. I landed on my hip in such a way that it shattered that hip joint. The physician at the emergency room, because we went there, at first was very skeptical. He was like: You’re 55. What, you think you broke your hip? And then he moved my leg and he was like: Oh, maybe we need to do an x-ray. And when he came back from the x-ray, he had a very different attitude and facial expression. And he said something along the lines of: Oh yeah, you really broke that hip. So that sort of thing isn’t supposed to happen to healthy 55-year-olds. A lot of people were searching for the big why of it. Maybe my bones are brittle, so I had to meet with a bone specialist. They asked questions like: Are you safe at home? But really, when it comes down to it, sometimes the stars just align in weird ways. So that’s one important lesson, that we don’t always have to ask for deeper Why’s. And it might be good for us at some point to close that off. Another one was that as somebody who has been suffering from chronic pain in one form or another for decades, and I’m not recommending this, by the way, but it does have a sort of helpful effect. If I was somebody who didn’t experience a lot of routine pain, probably the pain much more intense that I was feeling, because of the fall and break and then the surgery and the recovery, would have gotten to me a lot more. But I’m kind of used to it. So when I was asked, you know, what would I like my pain level to be by one of the nurses, I actually settled on a four. Because to me that seemed just fine and reasonable, because some days I may actually be at a four when I’m normally healthy, and getting around, and getting on with life. Nobody should be in pain ideally, but sometimes having been in pain can be helpful for you. And the third thing that I actually wrote about quite recently had to do with people wishing me a speedy or quick recovery. I said: OK, I understand the sentiment behind it, but it kind of misfires. Because what you really want with this sort of thing is definitely not quick recovery. And to want it to be quick is kind of off base. What you want is all of the little things that have to connect with each other, and cumulatively build you back to a state of health, to be going along and happening as they should. So day-to-day work, doing the PT exercises that you don’t really want to do, every one of them matters. Walking around on it, exercising, eating right, taking care of the pain by getting ahead of it with the painkillers. All of those sorts of things have to do with the healing and none of them are or should be quick. Now, what other lessons have I learned? Well, I’ll give you a hint about one that I’m going to be writing about soon. So they went in for the surgery through my thigh, the front of my thigh, the quadriceps. And that’s where I’ve had a good bit of the pain. And they made a pretty sizable incision. Fortunately, these days they can make them a good bit smaller than they used to in the past, where they’d cut you wide open. But it was still pretty big and they stitched it up with sutures and that’s exactly the way it should be. And it doesn’t look very attractive as these things I imagine never do. So I was looking at it and we’d look at it every single day after we took the big bandage off, because it had to be kept clean and kind of monitored, all of those sorts of things. And you could see it, it was all puckered up and elevated and, you know, there was red blotchy stuff around it. And you could see it slowly getting better. When I went to the surgeon this week... They took the sutures out. And interestingly, when they did that, of course, there’s a little bit of bleeding until they put a bandage on it. When we took the bandage off, I discovered that all of that bunched up ugly skin is now straightened out. And I do have this long line that’s going to be quite a big scar. It doesn’t look great, and it probably never will look great. As a matter of fact, as a side note, when I went in to the ER and they had me get into a gown, so I took off my shirt, they saw the four incision scars from when I had my gallbladder out, and they did that laparoscopically. And they asked, did somebody stab you at one point? And I was like, no, no, it’s just an operational scar. So I’m at the point where I don’t worry too much about attractiveness and all of those sorts of things that I used to be, maybe we could say, obsessed with, in my younger years. And I’m happy. actually, to have these various scars, not because they’re things to show off or anything, but anytime that I look at them, I can remind myself of what it is that I went through. And so I think having a certain kind of attitude towards what happens to our body and what makes it seem less attractive, more ugly in certain respects, can be quite helpful. And I’ll have to think about what other lessons I’ve learned. Those are the biggest ones so far. I could sit down and perhaps plot them out and determine for myself what all the other lessons are. You’ll probably see me doing that in subsequent writings. But that’s probably a good place to leave off here so this doesn’t get overly long. I did want to get back to recording these Mind & Desire podcast episodes. And so it actually fills me with some joy and I would say rightful pride that I’m able to be here once again in the office recording it, even if it’s just a short break, while that I’m here as opposed to spending all day in my office like a workaholic. So that is where I’m going to leave off and you can expect more reflections to come down the line. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit gregorybsadler.substack.com/subscribe

12 min
06/09/2025

Episode 43 - Why I Like Teaching Cicero's On The Nature Of The Gods

In the last week or so, I have been editing a number of Sadler's Lectures podcast episodes on Cicero's On the Nature of the Gods book 2. And if you've been following my YouTube channel, then you're probably going to say, oh, I've seen those already. Well, yes, you've seen the videos, but what I do is take the sound files from the videos and And then I clean them up, take out all the filler words, long pauses, repetitions where I say the same word twice for some reason, just as I do for this Mind and Desire podcast. And it produces something a bit new. And for me, it's kind of cool because when I'm shooting a video, I'm up there in front of the chalkboard. I've got my notes on the board. I've got the text in front of me. And I'm just presenting to the viewers that are going to be watching the video, whether they be my academic students or lifelong learners or fellow professors, whoever's going to be watching that stuff. When I'm editing those videos into podcast episodes, I'm going back over the material again, or rather my presentation of the material to another person, and I'm here, hearing myself talk about the things that are important, interesting, worth taking into account, requiring some explanation from that text or that generally portion of the text that I am presenting on. So for the roughly last week or so, that has been what I've been doing in podcast editing with this work, Cicero's On the Nature of the Gods, which I like quite a bit. And I did an entire sequence in the past on book 1 of the work. which has to do with the Epicurean position on not just the gods and religion, but cosmology, the nature of the universe, all those sorts of things. And book 2 takes us into the Stoic position, which Cicero takes a good bit more seriously than he does the Epicureans. As a matter of fact, pretty much everybody in antiquity who is not an Epicurean, you could say that they took Platonist, Aristotelian, Stoic ideas more seriously, viewed them as more plausible than Epicurean ideas. So Cicero himself is not committed to the Stoic views on these matters, but he can present them quite well. And he does so by placing them in the mouth of this guy, Balbus, who is a Stoic. And then he's going to criticize these ideas later on in the next book. So we're not getting a lot of critical examination, but we are getting a lot of exposition. Now, why should we read this work? Well, if you're interested in Stoic cosmology, you obviously want to go to this work because it's one of the main source texts for that, in part because we've lost so much Stoic literature from that period. But there's another reason why somebody might check that out other than just enjoying Cicero or, you know, liking to read ancient texts. And it's because it's, we could say, a underrated text in an area of philosophy that I do some work in and occasionally teach in, in which you may have some interest in as well, which we typically call the philosophy of religion. And this is an area of philosophy, a sub-discipline, if you like, where you can find textbooks and you can find all sorts of resources out there. You can find anthologies and reading lists. And it's been around as, we could say, an official sub-discipline for, you know, over 200 years. I know Hegel certainly has his lectures on the philosophy of religion, and there might be some other people that I'm blanking on who also take a similar approach, where there's these traditional topics that are discussed by a number of earlier thinkers, and we look at what they have to say, and then we kind of go through it. And in the present, what you're most likely going to find is a concentration on, you know, can we define religion? Are there other ways of characterizing what religion is, as opposed to other main areas of life or other disciplines? A lot of investigations into the nature of religious language, a preoccupation with arguments for and against the existence of God of all different sorts, issues of truth claims in religion and how we should adjudicate them, and whether it's possible to have more than one correct religion? Can we have religious pluralism? Those sorts of things tend to be what we focus on. And I really like this text. I have been teaching it now for more than 20 years in philosophy of religion classes precisely because it is a text that is going to bring in alternate but not totally foreign perspectives that give people, who are a little bit too used to thinking about philosophy of religion primarily in terms of theism, usually understood as Christian theism, versus atheism as the main axis for understanding things. So why would this text be interesting in that respect? Well, one reason is because it is dealing with religion as understood by different philosophical schools in antiquity. And these are pre-Christian schools. So Cicero is writing before this Jesus fellow shows up on the scene and people start following him and writing things about him, let alone, you know, developing into a movement that would have some traction and intellectual purchase and contributions within the larger Roman Empire. So it's kind of cool to see that a lot of the issues that we see in the modern: period and in the late modern period, various theists, whether Christian of different denominations or deist, as well as then agnostics, skeptics of different sorts, and then atheists of different brands as well, all debating back and forth, we get to see these ideas, at least some of them, being discussed in a different context. So for example, you'll often hear people talk about the problem of evil, or can you prove that the gods exist, or the ideas that we have of the divine, or whether there's anything like divine providential care for the universe. Well, these are all being discussed in those three books of Cicero's On the Nature of the Gods, but they're being looked at by an Epicurean, a Stoic and a Skeptic. There was actually the possibility of having an Aristotelian, but he's not there so he doesn't get to participate But what we get is very interesting because the Stoics are going to provide arguments for the existence of God and the gods, plural we could say. Capital-g God and lowercase-g gods. And a lot of these are going to look kind of similar to arguments that later theists are going to make we can identify arguments from design or what we call teleological arguments. We can identify arguments from effects, which we could call cosmological arguments. There aren't any ontological arguments at that time, but that's going to happen later on. When we see an argument for the existence of, let's just say, the divine, to keep it rather generic, we can sometimes lose our focus and attend only to the argumentation and not where it's actually going. Because we're more focused on the polemics, on debate between people. And what we really should be thinking about is, well, what kind of God or gods is this supposed to be proving the existence of if the arguments should happen to work? And here's where it gets really interesting. Because for the Stoics, we don't have a God who is outside of the universe, who created it or anything like that. I mean, the closest that we get to that is the discussion of the ekpurosis, where the universe essentially gets consumed by fire or, strictly speaking, the kind of fire that ether is and God is still there. And then God starts everything up again. But that's as close as you're going to get. And even all the Stoics didn't necessarily accept that, as we find out in the book. Instead, the Stoics are pantheists, strictly speaking. They believe that the cosmos itself is divine and is not just divine nature in a trivial way, but is the best thing there is. It is rational. It is intelligent. It is all good. It actually cares about us human beings and providentially orders things. And yet at the same time in this book, we're going to see a little tension because the world, the mundus, is also that same God. But then we have the heavens above where the gods also exist. So the arguments, if you accept them, are leading you to a very different place than a say trinitarian god, or even the god of the deists who is still relatively speaking outside of space and time, when you see this. And so here's the upshot of this, especially for my students, is they find that their frame of reference gets shaken a bit. And that's the thing that I think is so cool about teaching these particular works. It's also great, and here's where I'm going to close, sometimes you get religious people who have gotten the wrong message about philosophy and think that philosophy is hostile to religion and you'd better not do philosophy because the philosophers are basically all godless and they're going to lead you away from the true belief. Well, you can find that even the Epicureans thought that there were gods. They were very different than what we think of as divine being or beings, but they believed in that. They weren't atheists, right? You could hedge and say, practically speaking, they were atheists, but now you're playing with words a little bit, rather than attending to what the text actually tells us. The Stoics very, very clearly believed in God and the gods, the divine beings. And they thought that was really important for us humans to have the right ideas about. To avoid, for example, superstition, which is talked about in the work. A distinction is made between genuine religion and superstition. And when you check these things out, you see that Christianity, at least, certainly absorbed a number of ideas and approaches from these ancient philosophies, that at least in the works of the Christian intellectuals who played such a massive role in the early, what we call patristic, period in forming the thought behind what we call Christianity as a religion. So those are some reflections I've had on this experience of going back over the videos to turn them into podcasts on this reall

15 min

This podcast takes insights, arguments, distinctions, and practices from complex philosophical texts and thinkers and makes them accessible for anyone who wants to learn. It also provides advice about how to effectively study philosophy and apply it to your own life gregorybsadler.substack.com

Creador

Gregory B. Sadler
Años de actividad

2024 - 2026
Episodios

50
Clasificación

Explícito
Copyright

© Gregory B. Sadler, ReasonIO / Reason at Work, LLC
Mostrar sitio web

Mind & Desire