Philosophy For Our Times

how can you have even a concept of traumatizing "your parents traumatizing you", if there is no choice? it just gives the big bang the source of pain and emotion, beauty and disgust, mercy and vengeance etc., which emanates to infinity in/through objects. That, then, means all objects receive that emanation, which means everything is conscious. So that storm is simply the big bang motivatuional emanation. Its kind of a lazy argument for a pantheistic clockmaker God.

Specifically that last Paul Bloom episode. I guess he see perversion as a synonym for irrationality? And precisely how do you calibrate this irrationality dial? (yet he advises against instrumentalizing… I’m aghast at the lack of epistemological humility on display) It was apparent (as the guest admitted) that this was a theme he had just recently arrived at but wouldn’t it be best to research past studies on perversion, maybe? Or differentiate between intellectual and affective reason? Do we arrive at experiences of the sublime through our gut or brain? The level of entitlement it takes to speak so confidently about a subject that they’ve obviously not debated internally (even with their negative, opposite other) boggles the mind. There’s so many of these characters nowadays.

As a layperson this podcast serves as a window into the sort of conversations and ideas that that one might encounter in discussions between professionals, of various philosophical ideas and issues. It seems like the creators of this podcast seek to provide opinions and arguments about philosophical questions that feature differing viewpoints from not only philosophers, but also experts in other fields whose expertise might be relevant to the topics at hand. The inclusion of non-philosophers seems like an approach that might lead to more interesting discussions. What results is relatively brief statements by the participants regarding their respective views of the topic at hand, and a little bit of clarifying input from the moderator. The topics tend to be overly broad to be meaningfully discussed in the time allotted, and there is very little in the way of direct criticism of arguments or positions taken. The takeaway is usually just a rough idea of the opinions of the various forum members, but lacking any detailed argument for their positions. Personally this listener is uninterested in opinions unsupported by evidence and logical argument. If you, like me seek a robust exchange of ideas this is probably not the podcast for you.

Fantastic content. PLEASE get better audio equipment/better audio editing. Too quiet, too much echo, sometimes muffled. But the rest of the pod is fantastic.