PhilosophyPodcasts.Org

Interviewing leading philosophers about their recent work

Henry David Thoreau 06/16/2025

Bernard Mandeville, 1670-1733. 05/22/2025

Bernard Mandeville, 1670-1733. Man-Devil: The Mind and Times of Bernard Mandeville, the Wickedest Man in Europe John J. Callanan A lively and provocative account of Bernard Mandeville and the work that scandalized and appalled his contemporaries—and made him one of the most influential thinkers of the eighteenth century In 1714, doctor, philosopher and writer Bernard Mandeville published The Fable of the Bees, a humorous tale in which a prosperous hive full of greedy and licentious bees trade their vices for virtues and immediately fall into economic and societal collapse. Outrage among the reading public followed; philosophers took up their pens to refute what they saw as the fable’s central assertion. How could it be that an immoral community thrived but the introduction of morality caused it to crash and burn? In Man-Devil, John Callanan examines Mandeville and his famous fable, showing how its contentious claim—that vice was essential to the economic flourishing of any society—formed part of Mandeville’s overall theory of human nature. Mandeville, Callanan argues, was perfectly suited to analyze and satirize the emerging phenomenon of modern society—and reveal the gap between its self-image and its reality. Callanan shows that Mandeville’s thinking was informed by his medical training and his innovative approach to the treatment of illness with both physiological and psychological components. Through incisive and controversial analyses of sexual mores, gender inequality, economic structures, and political ideology, Mandeville sought to provide a naturalistic account of human behavior—one that put humans in close continuity with animals. Aware that his fellow human beings might find this offensive, he cloaked his theories in fables, poems, anecdotes, and humorous stories. Mandeville mastered irony precisely for the purpose of making us aware of uncomfortable aspects of our deepest natures—aspects that we still struggle to acknowledge today. "Entertaining. . . .[Callanan] has convinced me that exposing Mandeville and his writings to a new generation of readers is indeed worthwhile."---Howard Davies, Literary Review "John Callanan’s Man-Devil: The Mind and Times of Bernard Mandeville, the Wickedest Man in Europe (Princeton University Press) is by far the best discussion we have of this paradoxical, and immensely influential thinker, and everyone interested in the history of moral, social, or economic theorising should read it."---David Wootton, Engelsberg Ideas "[A] superb book."---Joseph Hone, History Today "Callanan, a philosopher at King’s College, London, has produced an engaging, expansive and effortlessly erudite study of a man who today too few people know. Man-Devil is a fascinating and welcome corrective, not least because Bernard Mandeville was amongst the first to argue that we don’t really know ourselves."---Peter West, The Critic “Bernard Mandeville was one of the most controversial writers of early eighteenth-century England, famed for coining the paradox ‘private vices, publick benefits’ as the subtitle to his major work, The Fable of the Bees. While John Callanan never loses sight of this satirical, even mischievous, bent, he convincingly shows the reader why Mandeville became such an influential figure in eighteenth-century thought, taken up by David Hume and Adam Smith among others. Well-researched and original in its approach, his book is highly recommended.”—Malcolm Jack, historian and Mandeville scholar “Mandeville is the first great social theorist, and everyone who comes after him—Rousseau, Smith, Marx, Hayek—is deeply in his debt. But he is slippery and paradoxical. John Callanan at last makes Mandeville’s core doctrine clear and brings out his continuing importance for understanding human beings as sociable animals. This is an important, long-needed book.”—David Wootton, author of Power, Pleasure, and Profit: Insatiable Appetites from Machiavelli to Madison “Callanan sensibly and sensitively places the infamous Fable of the Bees in the wider context of Mandeville’s other writings and intellectual context and, thereby, illuminates him as a diagnostician of human self-concealment and satirist of human pride. He reveals the Dutch physician with a successful London medical practice as an original pilferer of other people’s useful ideas and with a relish for the urbane. And for those who recognize a good bargain when they are offered one, this book also instructs in the art of living, even points the way to the path of wisdom.”—Eric Schliesser, author of Adam Smith: Systematic Philosopher and Public Thinker “John Callanan's enjoyable account of Mandeville explains clearly both why the author of The Fable of the Bees was notorious in his own day and why major figures such as Hume, Rousseau, and Smith felt the need to engage with him so closely. It tells the reader what we know about Mandeville's life, and explores the full range of Mandeville's writings. Mandeville's ideas are put in context, but are also brought to philosophical life. This is the best account in English of Mandeville’s thought as a whole.”—James Harris, University of St Andrews “This is the book on Mandeville I’ve long hoped for, and it is even better than I could have hoped. It is beautifully and engagingly written, as befitting a book on a great, extremely funny—not a common virtue of philosophers—and often scurrilous prose stylist. The Mandeville which emerges in Callanan’s book is provocative and subtle, a humane exponent of Terence’s dictum “nothing human is alien to me” but also a sharp-witted critic of hypocrisy possessing a medical remove from which to examine our paradoxical species.”—Aaron Garrett, Boston University “John Callanan’s Man-Devil strikes a balance between a ‘forensic’ investigation of Mandeville's engagement with reactions to his ideas in his own time and an examination of the Mandevillean tendency to cross disciplinary boundaries and enrich contemporary controversies in human and social sciences. ‘Nothing human is alien’ to Mandeville, including the human animal’s wondrous potential of being in denial about its own bottomless self-deception.”—Spyridon Tegos, University of Crete John Callanan is reader in the history of philosophy, Department of Philosophy, at King’s College London. He is the author of Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals and the coeditor of Kant and Animals. /episode/index/show/986c45f0-7b3e-43f8-aa02-6e8b855cab37/id/36677470

This concise book introduces phenomenology in its rigor--and its breadth: from philosophical foundation to application in psychology, psychiatry, qualitative research, critical theory, sociology, etc. Dan Zahavi Phenomenology: The basics, 2nd Edition Two footnotes to the podcast. 1. Walter Hopp's beloved Boston University course is distilled in his Phenomenology: A Contemporary Introduction (2020), an excellent companion to Zahavi's text that focuses on philosophical phenomenology. 2. Paul Møller's Psychosis risk and experience of the self (2023) is the text mentioned in the podcast that uses phenomenological experience to predict psychosis risk. Description of Phenomenology: The basics, 2nd edition. Phenomenology: The Basics is a concise and engaging introduction to one of the important philosophical movements of the twentieth century and to a subject that continues to grow and diversify. Yet it is also a challenging subject, the elements of which can be hard to grasp. This lucid book provides an introduction to the core ideas of phenomenology and to the arguments of its principal thinkers, including Husserl, Heidegger, and Merleau-Ponty. Written by a leading expert in the field, Dan Zahavi examines and explains key questions such as: What is a phenomenological analysis? What are the methodological foundations of phenomenology? What does phenomenology have to say about intentionality, embodiment, intersubjectivity, and the lifeworld? How do ideas from classic phenomenology relate to ongoing debates in qualitative research and the cognitive sciences? This second edition has been thoroughly revised and expanded. It contains a new chapter on critical phenomenology and updated discussions of the application of phenomenology in psychiatry, psychology, and qualitative research. Including a glossary of key terms and suggestions for further reading, Phenomenology: The Basics is a superb starting point for anyone seeking a concise and accessible introduction to this rich and fascinating subject. Table of Contents Preface to the second edition Introduction Part I: Foundational issues 1. The phenomena 2. Intentionality 3. Methodological considerations 4. Science and the lifeworld 5. Digging deeper: From surface to depth phenomenology 6. Merleau-Ponty’s preface to Phenomenology of Perception Part II: Concrete analyses 7. Spatiality and embodiment 8. Intersubjectivity and sociality 9. Critical and political phenomenology Part III: Applied phenomenology 10. Classical applications: Psychology, psychiatry, sociology 11. Current debates in qualitative research and the cognitive sciences 12. A method, an attitude, a theoretical framework Conclusion Glossary References Index Author(s) Biography Dan Zahavi is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark, and Director of the Center for Subjectivity Research in Copenhagen. His book The Phenomenological Mind (third edition, 2021), coauthored with Shaun Gallagher, is also available from Routledge. Critics' Reviews "Clear, engaging and insightful, there is no better introduction to the past, present and future of phenomenological philosophy than this new edition of Zahavi's book." - Dave Ward, University of Edinburgh, UK "Nuanced, problem-driven, and accessible, this is simply the best introduction to phenomenology. Lucidly written, it presents clear explanations of key concepts and theories while covering the breadth of the phenomenological tradition. The revised edition now also provides an introduction to Critical Phenomenology, likely the most-discussed trend in phenomenology today." - Tobias Keiling, University of Warwick, UK Praise for the previous edition: "For the one seeking a way into phenomenological thinking today, or a way to help others find one, it has not been obvious, in the English context, what resource should serve as the best point of entry. The first great merit of Dan Zahavi’s book, Phenomenology: The Basics, is to change this calculus for good. Offering English readers an entry point into phenomenology that is accessible, lucid, and engaging, presents key concepts and insights faithfully (but not ploddingly), along with their pertinence in multiple fields of contemporary research, and doing this without obvious error or negligence, is no small achievement." - Karl Hefty, Reading Religion "A lucid and authoritative introduction to phenomenology including its practical applications in sociology and psychology from one of the world’s leading phenomenologists." - Dermot Moran, Boston College, USA "Zahavi’s Phenomenology: The Basics will guide several generations of philosophers and scientists in the study of consciousness, embodiment, communality and normality." - Sara Heinämaa, University of Jyväskylä, Finland "Dan Zahavi, one of the most prolific and insightful phenomenologists of his generation, has provided a concise, clear and intellectually stimulating introduction to the study of phenomenology."- Alessandro Duranti, University of California, Los Angeles, USA "This lucid book gets to the core of what phenomenology is all about, and is essential reading for any students of that tradition." - Piet Hut, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, USA ? /episode/index/show/986c45f0-7b3e-43f8-aa02-6e8b855cab37/id/36190325

One of the preeminent philosophers of our time, Owen Flanagan, was for many years an addict. He synthesizes in this book both the science and phenomenology of addiction. 02/16/2025

One of the preeminent philosophers of our time, Owen Flanagan, was for many years an addict. He synthesizes in this book both the science and phenomenology of addiction. Owen Flanagan James B. Duke University Professor Emeritus of Philosophy & Professor of Neurobiology Emeritus What Is It Like to Be an Addict?: Understanding Substance Abuse "A brilliant and unparalleled synthesis of the science, philosophy, and first-person phenomenology of addiction. Owen Flanagan is a distinguished philosopher who ... is also an ex-addict. This book is beyond excellent. It is wise. Everyone who wants to understand addiction must read it." -- Hanna Pickard, Bloomberg Distinguished Professor of Philosophy and Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University "This elegant and clear book ... deserves to be a landmark in the study of addiction." -- Carl Erik Fisher, M.D., Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychiatry, Columbia University, author of The Urge: Our History of Addiction Owen Flanagan is an internationally acclaimed philosopher of mind, consciousness, ethics, and comparative philosophy and author of 12 books translated into many languages. A powerful and important exploration of how addiction functions on social, psychological and biological levels, integrated with the experience of being an addict, from an acclaimed philosopher and former addict. What is addiction? Theories about what kind of thing addiction is are sharply divided between those who see it purely as a brain disorder, and those who conceive of it in psychological and social terms. Owen Flanagan, an acclaimed philosopher of mind and ethics, offers a state-of-the-art assessment of addiction science and proposes a new ecumenical model for understanding and explaining substance addiction. Flanagan has first-hand knowledge of what it is like to be an addict. That experience, along with his wide-ranging knowledge of the philosophy of mind, psychology, neuroscience, and the ethics and politics of addiction, informs this important and novel work. He pairs the sciences that study addiction with a sophisticated view of the consciousness-brain/body relation to make his core argument: that substance addictions comprise a heterogeneous set of "psychobiosocial" behavioral disorders. He explains that substance addictions do not have one set of causes, such as self-medication or social dislocation, and they do not have one neural profile, such as a dysfunction in dopamine system. Some addictions are fun and experimentation gone awry. Flanagan reveals addiction to be a heterogeneous set of disorders, which are picked out by multifarious cultural, social, psychological, and neural features. Flanagan explores the ways addicts sensibly insist on their own responsibility to undo addiction, as well as ways in which shame for addiction can be leveraged into healing. He insists on the collective shame we all bear for our indifference to many of the psychological and social causes of addiction and explores the implications of this new integrated paradigm for practices of harm reduction and treatment. Flanagan's powerful new book upends longstanding conventional thinking and points the way to new ways of understanding and treating addiction. /episode/index/show/986c45f0-7b3e-43f8-aa02-6e8b855cab37/id/35300140

Until now there were three schools of thought on how best to live one's life (Utilitarian, Kantian, and Aristotelian). Agnes Callard proposes a fourth: Socratic. 02/11/2025

Until now there were three schools of thought on how best to live one's life (Utilitarian, Kantian, and Aristotelian). Agnes Callard proposes a fourth: Socratic. Agnes Callard Open Socrates "[C]harming, intelligent…Open Socrates encourages us to recognize how little we know, and to start thinking." —Jennifer Szalai, New York Times An iconoclastic philosopher revives Socrates for our time, showing how we can answer—and, in the first place, ask—life’s most important questions. Socrates has been hiding in plain sight. We call him the father of Western philosophy, but what exactly are his philosophical views? He is famous for his humility, but readers often find him arrogant and condescending. We parrot his claim that “the unexamined life is not worth living,” yet take no steps to live examined ones. We know that he was tried, convicted, and executed for “corrupting the youth,” but freely assign Socratic dialogues to today’s youths, to introduce them to philosophy. We’ve lost sight of what made him so dangerous. In Open Socrates, acclaimed philosopher Agnes Callard recovers the radical move at the center of Socrates’ thought, and shows why it is still the way to a good life. Callard draws our attention to Socrates’ startling discovery that we don’t know how to ask ourselves the most important questions—about how we should live, and how we might change. Before a person even has a chance to reflect, their bodily desires or the forces of social conformity have already answered on their behalf. To ask the most important questions, we need help. Callard argues that the true ambition of the famous “Socratic method” is to reveal what one human being can be to another. You can use another person in many ways—for survival, for pleasure, for comfort—but you are engaging them to the fullest when you call on them to help answer your questions and challenge your answers. Callard shows that Socrates’ method allows us to make progress in thinking about how to manage romantic love, how to confront one’s own death, and how to approach politics. In the process, she gives us nothing less than a new ethics to live by. /episode/index/show/986c45f0-7b3e-43f8-aa02-6e8b855cab37/id/35204115

Wouter Kusters is a philosopher who suffered two psychotic breaks in his life. This book also at times degenerates into mad thinking. The reader's mind follows Kusters descent.philosophy), the book also attempts to go mad itself, to be a mad text. 01/11/2025

outside! See https://CorriganIPU.com for updates on Human Rights Complaint against this DMH facility in Fall River MA 01/09/2025

outside! See https://CorriganIPU.com for updates on Human Rights Complaint against this DMH facility in Fall River MA See https/://CorriganIPU.com for updates on Human Rights Complaint submitted to Mass DMV regarding alleged human rights violations in this Fall River, MA facility. Corrigan IPU patients deserve a real, substantive right to access the outdoors. It is gross really to see the Corrigan IPU patients staying inside day after day, week after week, and in some cases month after month. And it is still more alarming when Corrigan staff blithely and complacently point to the four times a day when a minority subset of patients (youthful patients) can go outside. (Roughly 25% to 50% of patients [depending on the patients on unit at a particular time) can access the outdoors because, for example, they do not suffer neither obesit], paranoia exacerbated in groups, social anxiety, catatonia, or dementia, and do not present fall risks). For the other patients (the majority [especially when weighted by length of stay]). they are inside constantly, and it is disgusting to see. Their skin can be as white as white-out. The outdoors breaks are valued by the employees, but the employees aren't able to extend the courtesy to their fellow humans. It is a case of domination of the medical professionals over the neurodiverse. Some Corrigan staff no doubt get off on this. Most would get off on it indirectly and subliminally. Maybe a few get off on it consciously and directly. On the other hand, there is also another factor at play: the way we can get used to things that are odious, simply because others aren't clamoring about it, and we simply stop paying attention. If you went to Corrigan IPU, you would be appalled by the majority of patients who never go outside. But I venture if you shunned it for a year or so, you would eventually get used to it. You would be able subconsciously to suppress how disgusting it is for these humans (who happen to be patients) to be tortured by not having a real substantive, right of access to the outside. How does this happen? Rousseau in his Confessions said it was human nature. “I have derived an important moral principle, perhaps the only one of any real practical use, which is that we should avoid situations that bring our duty into conflict with our interests … since I am certain that in such situations, … we will sooner or later weaken, without noticing it, and become unjust and wicked in deed without having ceased to be just and good in spirit” I first raised this issue with Corrigan in October 2024 to Larry Weiner who is the Director of Human Rights at Corrigan. He simply ignored me. Danielle Keogh, LICSW, actively resisted my efforts. I then decided to make a formal Human RIghts Complaint. I assumed this would get a response. However no one from Corrigan would even acknowledge they received it. I sent it to: Jose Afonso ("provider" where a "provider" is sometimes called a "prescriber". It is essentially someone who can prescribe, so it is a nurse practitioner, DO, etc.) Maxwell I. Mayer (provider) Larry Weiner and Jeanne Crespi, social worker. Nb: I have invited each of these people to come on to this podcast or contact me in writing to correct me where I am wrong. To work at Corrigan you need to develop the ability to shun. You shun recognition of how many patients don't get to go outside. You shun the nausea you probably had when you first saw this. You also learn, it seems, to shun other people, people such as me who are raising the issue. A social worker or mental-health counselor would in fact claim that such shunning constituted "self care" or "an adaptive coping mechanism." Until they correct me, I would attribute Afonso and Mayer's non-response to their occupational or characterological contrariness and sense of superiority. They are "providers." They also have a vested interest (which is subliminal [see Rousseau]) as they possess the big swinging dicks at Corrigan IPU, are used to being kowtowed to, and, on information and belief, seem to use the Corrigan IPU as the IPU for their personal (presumably middle-class, white) patients. (The nurses will hold a bed open when they know that one of the providers' patients will soon be needing a bed. On information and belief, they also keep their own patients there longer ceteris paribus. Also as the golden goose: Corrigan IPU apparently requires an MD be on call all the time in case of an admission. The upshot is that it is good to have one of them as a provider. From the perspective of their patients' families, keeping this small (16-bed) unit open is a godsend. It only starts to look sketchy when you think of the anonymous payers of taxes and insurance premia. Why did I send it to Jeanne Crespi? She is the interim "Person in Charge," meaning she is the person you are supposed to contact with a Human Rights Complaint. It was thus quite surprising to me that neither she nor Larry Weiner even acknowledged my Complaint, or were willing to indicate to me that my Complaint would be taken seriously. I mean: that is one of their official, professional duties, as the Human Rights Officer and Person in Charge. In each case I was specifically--and increasingly plaintively--asking that they person please acknowledge receiving my Complaint, as a matter of simple courtesy. To no avail. Repeatedly shunned, I felt myself in full Karen mode. I went up the chain of command until, finally, I reached Star Sims, JD, Director of Human Rights for all of DMH. I appreciate attorney Sims responding quickly and professionally, acknowledging receipt of my complaint. Below are: (I) my exchange with Attorney Sims (II) timeline dates, factoids, and gossip mentioned in the podcast (III) my letters to Corrigan staff (each of which was met with the silent treatment) (I) my exchange with Attorney Sims On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 9:38 AM Sims, Startese (DMH) wrote: Good Morning Mr. [sic] Baker, I am acknowledging that I have received your email. I have forwarded your email/complaint to the DMH Office of Investigations for processing. The Human Rights Office does not investigate complaints. Thank you, Star Star Sims, J.D. Director of Human Rights Department of Mental Health 25 Staniford Street Boston, MA. 02114 From: August Baker Sent: Friday, February 14, 2025 6:58 PM To: Sims, Startese (DMH) Subject: Human Rights Complaint Startese Sims, JD/ Director of Human Rights / Massachusetts Department of Mental Health Dear Attorney Sims, It is well-known that all detainees should be provided at least one hour daily of outdoor air and outdoor light. This is for example the longstanding and well-established position of the United Nations (as codified in the Nelson Mandela Rules). If a facility does not provide daily outdoor access, that is considered a form of torture (e.g., the Association for the Prevention of Torture). Massachusetts state law and state regulations concur. A patient of a facility must be provided daily access to the outdoors, individually or in groups. 104 CMR §27.13(6)(f) I hereby make this Human Rights Complaint regarding the Acute Inpatient Unit at Corrigan Mental Health Center ("Corrigan IPU"). Although the percentage varies depending on the current patient load, a significant portion of the patients at Corrigan IPU are not provided a substantive right of daily access to the outdoors. As a result, based on information and belief, many patients at Corrigan IPU can go a whole week without accessing the outdoors. Some can go even an entire month without access. The staff at Corrigan IPU do not even keep track of when was the last time that a patient accessed the outdoors. I have the right to make this Complaint and have it be taken seriously. Under Massachusetts state law and regulations, any person may make a Human Rights Complaint regarding a condition involving DMH clients which he or she believes to be dangerous, illegal, or inhumane. 104 CMR, § 32.04 That is precisely the situation here I am complaining about a condition involving DMH clients which I believe to be both illegal and inhumane. Yet I have attempted several times to bring this condition to the attention of Corrigan personnel, and their response has been to ignore my complaint. I first brought the issue to the attention of Human Rights Officer Lawrence Weiner in October 2024. I recently made my complaint known to Facility Medical Director Jose Afonso, and staff member Maxwell Mayer. I also made it known to Jeanne Crespi, who, according to the January 2025 DMH Resource Directory, is the current Person in Charge. In addition, I have made public records requests regarding this issue. (I asked, specifically, for any information regarding a Plan as defined in 104 CMR 27.13(6)(f)5. I also contacted the Ombudsman. In all cases, there has been no response at all. It appears that DMH has a policy of ignoring correspondence. I have no reason to believe that my Complaint is being taken seriously. Could you please acknowledge receipt of this email? Could you also please be sure that someone is taking this complaint seriously? Thank you so much, Sincerely, August Baker, PhD (II) timeline dates, factoids, and gossip mentioned in the podcast We start with the Kennedy Administration Mental Health Centers Act. The first MHC in the state was in Lowell, and the second was the Fall River Mental Health Center. It started out in 1961 as an annex of Taunton State Hospital and was located within Charlton (then known as Union) hospital. In August 1962, it moved to a remodeled laundry building at 680 Maple St., adjacent to its future location on Hillside Ave, which was then under construction. The Hillside Ave building originally had a 40 bed IPU on the top floor. It was renamed after a cardiologist, Dr. John C. Corrigan, in 1970. From 1992 to 1995, the Weld administration attempted unsuccessfully to privatize Corrigan. In 1992, most Emergency Services provision was privatized in the state, but Corrigan and Pocasset remained under DMH control. 2010 press reports indicated that a closure of Corrigan was prevented by the efforts of legislator David B. Sullivan, who started his career as a social worker at Corrigan. It was said then that 16 beds would be lost. I infer that the reduction to 16 beds occurred prior to 2010. 2015 Southcoast Behavioral in Dartmouth opened as a joint effort of South Coast Health and Acadia Healthcare of Franklin Tennessee. It opened as a 77,000 square foot, 5-unit hospital with 24 beds per unit. Thus, initially, it had 120 beds. It has since opened three more units. Thus, it is up to 192 beds. As noted in the podcast, what is striking is to compare the professional staff at Southcoast Behavioral (with its 200 patients) compared to 16-bed (!) Corrigan. Southcoast Behavioral no doubt has many more techs than Corrigan IPU, but it has far fewer techs per bed. It is run entirely by nurses. That is, nurses do all the work, compared with Corrigan which has redundancy between OT, Social work and the nursing staff. Even the OT staff at Corrigan feel the need to insert themselves into treatment planning generally (not simply with respect to OT). Southcoast Behavioral is built ranch-style, we might say. Every unit has direct same-floor access to the outside. It is in this respect much more humane than Corrigan. It also pays market wages and salaries, compared to Corrigan which pays labor-market rents to its unionized, public-sector workforce. That might sound like a good thing, but with labor-market rents comes discrimination. The Corrigan professional staff has zero African Americans. The Corrigan blue-collar staff is entirely white and male at the higher pay grades. There are a handfull of African Americans on the lowest end of the payscale. On January 7, 2015, the Fresh Air law (S.911, H.3805) was signed by Gov. Deval Patrick. [See ] At the time, it was estimated that 25 to 30 percent of psychiatric hospitals would be unable to pass even the 2016 regulations which DMH promposed to operationalize the law. However those hospitals which were unable to comply were required to provide a plan to DMH indicating how they would remedy the situation. It is now 10 years later, and Corrigan has still not provided meaningful outdoors access to its most physically and mentally compromised patients. (It offers only nominal outdoor access. These are taken advantage of by its youthful patients and enjoyed also by the staff. Nothing wrong with that, but what about the compromised patients?) It is this plan that I have been trying to get. I originally asked Larry Weiner for it in 2024. He shunned the entire topic. 2017 Emergency Services at Corrigan were privatized resulting in savings of $6.4 million in the first year alone without a reduction in the level of services. Unlike the early 1990s, employees did not succesfully organize resistance to the move. Kennard C. Kobrin was a psychiatrist at Corrigan until 1998. His background was in San Francisco, not Hollywood. He was married to the actress Joanna Cassidy, who described Kobrin as a "wonderful duality," "with doctors on one side and Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix and people who were selling clothes to Jefferson Airplane on the other." https://www.southcoasttoday.com/story/news/1999/04/11/trying-dr-kobrin/50529926007/ [IN PROGRESS] (III) my letters to Corrigan staff (each of which was met with the silent treatment) [IN PROGRESS] /episode/index/show/986c45f0-7b3e-43f8-aa02-6e8b855cab37/id/35379150

Corrigan Mental Health Center in Fall River, MA. See CorriganIPU.com for latest on Human Rights Complaint 12/14/2024

Corrigan Mental Health Center in Fall River, MA. See CorriganIPU.com for latest on Human Rights Complaint See CorriganIPU.com for updates on Human Rights Complaint The IPU at Corrigan Mental Health Center. This is a psychiatric IPU in Fall River, MA. It's a DMH facility. Best parts: 1) there are some excellent staff members (excellent both for patients and for co-workers), (e.g., OT Kyle, providers Max and Allison, nurses Christian and Jill, tech Sean, Social Worker Nicole). 2) As a public-sector, unionized shop, the staff can be their authentic selves. For those who don't like their jobs, they can express that openly. They are not pressured to dissimulate. 3) for patients, if you are looking for a place to stay a while, (i.e., if you are okay with being detained longer than the usual 72 hours), and if you are young and hence able to access the outdoors space, it may be a good place. If you are a patient of one of the Corrigan doctors (like Mayer, then an advantage of having Mayer as a doctor is that he is able to use this unit as an IPU for his regular outpatient clients. He can keep them there in an emergency and thus provide a respite for the patient and their family, a chance to return to stabilization) Worst parts: (a) Approximately half of the patients do not have actual access to the outside. The staff will tell you they provide four outdoor opportunities per day. But for practical purposes, many of the patients cannot--orwould not be reasonably expected to--access the outdoors as provided by Corrigan. (To go outside requires negotiating a steep set of stairs [it can be possible to take elevators but the elevators are difficult to operate, the techs don't make them readily available, and even when the techs are asked to take someone down in the elevator, they may choose not to. ). In addition, accessing the outside can only be done in a large group. Many of the patients are anxious in groups and would love to access the outside if they were able to do so individually, but prefer not to go down in the crowded group, long-stair, way with chains and locks, and authentically depressed staff). (b) Taxpayers lose big time. This is an extremely cost inefficient IPU. It is staffed 24/7/365, (including always an on-call provider apparently), and the staffing levels are such that, during the day shift alone, there are more staff than patients!!! At one time, Corrigan IPU had 40 patients. The folklore is that a patient there hung themself and, as a result, the beds were dropped all the way to 16. But there are more than 16 staff working the day shift alone (not even counting the evening shift or nighttime shift). During the daytime, there are 5 nurses (a charge nurse, another unit nurse, a med nurse, and two nurses in an administrative role (not on unit). 2 occupational therapists 2 providers 4 techs and 3 social workers That is for 16 beds, and often a bed or two is empty, so let's say 15 patients on average. In addition, there are other staff who are not full time (or who work full time, but divide their time across the IPU and other operations): a pharmacist, a nutritionist (she may be full time), a peer advocate, a human rights officer, and more layers of admin. In addition, Corrigan tends to keep people longer than other inpatient units--- much longer (e.g., instead of 72 hours, one stays for months or even, for two patients, 2 years and counting). Because of this, there are more court proceedings compared to units which churn more on a 72 hour cycle. Few if any patients bring their own counsel. So whenever there is a hearing, the taxpayers are paying for the DMH attorney, the Corrigan Staff, the patient's attorney, and the judge or magistrate. (c) Danielle Keogh, LICSW is a reckless individual. You would think that social workers would be people who will talk directly to anyone they have issues with. SW Keogh was incapable of doing this and, instead, recklessly tries to railroad subordinates by going behind their back and trying to squeeze them. You would think that she, as a social worker, would be patient-centered. In fact, she claims the patients at Corrigan are not well enough for a patient-centered approach. Her priority appears to be her career and her title / her status. (How, one might ask did she get promoted to her current position after only a few years on the job? Pretty privilege? Who was making the hiring decision? Why do they like working with her?) Her focus is entirely on appearances and, in particular, looking good to bureaucrats. Her direction to her subordinates is to lie on MIS because her main priority is to do well in audits. That is, she wants to do well when she is evaluated from above. Her going behind subordinates' back and trying to clamp them down is the sign of someone who thinks that social work is about being a tool in a hierarchy. You would think that she, as a social worker, might view social work as a place to create change and fight social injustice. But in reality, she deals with personnel matters unprofessionally--as a matter for gossip. Her view of what social work is about is doing whatever has no effect. For example, it is essential that social workers spend hours and hours--not actually talking with patients--but arranging post-discharge PCP appointments which, if you know anything about the patients, you know they will never attend. She acts friendly to your face while going behind your back, and she lies to your face about it. She is unprofessional and insecure. She is reckless because she is dysregulated. It seems she holds anger inside, unwilling to talk with the person she is angry with. Instead, she takes it out by interfering with their lives. She is the sort of social worker who is essential a Karen. She thinks her role is to interfere in the lives of everyone around her because of her insecure attachment to some bureacratic rules she got somewhere. Very little integrity. She is not to be trusted. She is really disappointing. Or it is disappointing that whoever hired her and has been reviewing her has made her think the way she is in professional situations is ok. Very disappointing to have met such a disingenuous, dishonest, insecure, unprofessional, disregulated person. Overall. somehow when Southcoast Behavioral was created, Corrigan was not folded in. A staff of 50 to oversee 15 non-violent patients who don't have medical issues. The unit doesn't even track which patients actually get outside for outdoor air and outdoor light. On information and belief, about half of the patients never get outside, yet no accommodations are made. (Frequently, the reason given for not being able to make changes is, of course, "we don't have the staff." It should not be surprising that not one member of the professional staff is African American, and Dr. Mayer's patients (who comprise 20% of the population) are disproportionately if not entirely middle-class. Be thankful you don't get the government you pay for. /episode/index/show/986c45f0-7b3e-43f8-aa02-6e8b855cab37/id/34816800

disavowal 12/11/2024

psychosis 11/28/2024

turkeys 11/10/2024

anxiety, wonder 10/11/2024

anxiety, wonder Maria Balaska Anxiety and wonder On being human Description At times, we find ourselves unexpectedly immersed in a mood that lacks any clear object or identifiable cause. These uncanny moments tend to be hastily dismissed as inconsequential, left without explanation. Maria Balaska examines two such cases: wonder and anxiety – what it means to prepare for them, what life may look like after experiencing them, and what insights we can take from those experiences. For Kierkegaard anxiety is a door to freedom, for Heidegger wonder is a distress that opens us to the truth of Being, and for Wittgenstein wonder and anxiety are deeply connected to the ethical. Drawing on themes from these thinkers and bringing them into dialogue, Balaska argues that in our encounters with nothing we encounter the very potential of our existence. Most importantly, we confront what is most inconspicuous and fundamental about the human condition and what makes it possible to encounter anything at all: our distinct capacity for making sense of things. Table of Contents Preface Acknowledgments Abbreviations Introduction 1. What Makes Us Anxious? 2. Anxiety and the Origin of Human Existence 3. Wonder and the Origin of Philosophy 4. The Paradox of Anxiety and Wonder 5. After Anxiety and Wonder Notes Bibliography Editorial Reviews Review “In this astute analysis of anxiety and wonder, Maria Balaska argues that understanding ourselves requires more than natural causal explanations and resists psychopathological approaches to overpowering experiences. With Kierkegaard, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, and Lacan, she insightfully elucidates the deeply human desires to feel at home in the world and find meaning in it-and the possibility of their fulfilment.” ―Kate Kirkpatrick, Regent's Park College, University of Oxford, UK “Maria Balaska presents the best treatment to date of wonder and anxiety in Kierkegaard and Heidegger. Focused on the objectlessness of both experiences – what Kierkegaard calls the ambiguous power of spirit and Heidegger terms “the nothing” – the book draws as well on Freud, Lacan, Plato, and Wittgenstein to argue that living authentically means embracing the liberating power of one's mortal open-endedness. Capacious, insightful, and written in lucid prose, Prof. Balaska's text will enrich both lay and professional readers.'” ―Thomas Sheehan, Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies, German Studies and Philosophy, Stanford University, USA “Maria Balaska facilitates a conversation between Heidegger, Kierkegaard, Lacan and Wittgenstein that presents philosophy as embodying an anxious wonder at our capacity to make sense of things. She thereby deepens our understanding of all four thinkers, and illuminates not only the distinctive nature of philosophy, but its ineliminable role in the perennial human task of making sense of ourselves and our place in the universe.” ―Stephen Mulhall, Professor of Philosophy, University of Oxford, UK “This is an excellent book … A must-read for specialists interested in how continental philosophy can contribute to the thriving discourse on the experience and place of anxiety and wonder in our lives.” ―Philosophical Investigations About the Author Maria Balaska is a Research Fellow at Åbo Akademi University, Finland, and a Visiting Research Fellow at the University of Hertfordshire, UK. She is the author of Wittgenstein and Lacan at the Limit: Meaning, and Astonishment (2019) and editor of Cora Diamond on Ethics (2020). Publisher ‏ : ‎ Bloomsbury Academic (May 2, 2024) Language ‏ : ‎ English Paperback ‏ : ‎ 168 pages ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 1350302937 ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-1350302938 /episode/index/show/986c45f0-7b3e-43f8-aa02-6e8b855cab37/id/33417232

liberalism 10/11/2024

human/animal 05/20/2024

human/animal Sharon Patricia Holland an other In an other, Sharon Patricia Holland offers a new theorization of the human animal/divide by shifting focus from distinction toward relation in ways that acknowledge that humans are also animals. Holland centers ethical commitments over ontological concerns to spotlight those moments when Black people ethically relate with animals. Drawing on writers and thinkers ranging from Hortense Spillers, Sara Ahmed, Toni Morrison, and C. E. Morgan to Jane Bennett, Jacques Derrida, and Donna Haraway, Holland decenters the human in Black feminist thought to interrogate blackness, insurgence, flesh, and femaleness. She examines MOVE’s incarnation as an animal liberation group; uses sovereignty in Morrison’s A Mercy to understand blackness, indigeneity, and the animal; analyzes Charles Burnett’s films as commentaries on the place of animals in Black life; and shows how equestrian novels address Black and animal life in ways that rehearse the practices of the slavocracy. By focusing on doing rather than being, Holland demonstrates that Black life is not solely likened to animal life; it is relational and world-forming with animal lives. “With her characteristic brilliance and speculative flair, Sharon Patricia Holland breaks new ground in an other, a book that will prove to be her most philosophical and speculative text yet. Holland pulls at the ways that blackness as ontology and epistemology undoes and ethically remakes the bio/zoopolitical distinction between animals and humans. She remakes the very ideas that underline life itself as a human project that both denies and relies on animality: love, death, knowing, being, and ultimately revolution as it happens on the scale of the ordinary and the everyday. An essential volume.” — Kyla Wazana Tompkins, author of Racial Indigestion: Eating Bodies in the Nineteenth Century “Sharon Patricia Holland’s an other is a beautiful, expansive, rich, and genius gift to a world that could not have anticipated it. Her work at the level of the animal and cohabitation and about relationality and comportment is assuredly a necessary and brilliant offering. Holland’s enormous intervention cannot be overstated. Black studies will not be the same after this book.” — Sarah Jane Cervenak, author of Black Gathering: Art, Ecology, Ungiven Life Sharon Patricia Holland is Townsend Ludington Distinguished Professor of American Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and author of The Erotic Life of Racism and Raising the Dead: Readings of Death and (Black) Subjectivity, both also published by Duke University Press /episode/index/show/986c45f0-7b3e-43f8-aa02-6e8b855cab37/id/31380522

white trash 05/04/2024

white trash Stephanie Li Ugly White People: Writing Whiteness in Contemporary America White Americans are confronting their whiteness more than ever before, with political and social shifts ushering in a newfound racial awareness. And with white people increasingly seeing themselves as distinctly racialized (not simply as American or human), white writers are exposing a self-awareness of white racialized behavior—from staunch antiracism to virulent forms of xenophobic nationalism. Ugly White People explores representations of whiteness from twenty-first-century white American authors, revealing white recognition of the ugly forms whiteness can take. Stephanie Li argues that much of the twenty-first century has been defined by this rising consciousness of whiteness because of the imminent shift to a “majority minority” population and the growing diversification of America’s political, social, and cultural institutions. The result is literature that more directly grapples with whiteness as its own construct rather than a wrongly assumed norm. Li contextualizes a series of literary novels as collectively influenced by changes in racial and political attitudes. Turning to works by Dave Eggers, Sarah Smarsh, J. D. Vance, Claire Messud, Ben Lerner, and others, she traces the responses to white consciousness that breed shared manifestations of ugliness. The tension between acknowledging whiteness as an identity built on domination and the failure to remedy inequalities that have proliferated from this founding injustice is often the source of the ugly whiteness portrayed through these narratives. The questions posed in Ugly White People about the nature and future of whiteness are vital to understanding contemporary race relations in America. From the election of Trump and the rise of white nationalism to Karen memes and the war against critical race theory to the pervasive pattern of behavior among largely liberal-leaning whites, Li elucidates truths about whiteness that challenge any hope of national unity and, most devastatingly, the basic humanity of others. Ugly White People is not about the 'racists' but about the way whiteness shapes the subjectivity of all white people. Relying on an elegant and parsimonious textual analysis of the work of contemporary authors, Stephanie Li shows how whites manage to evade while they acknowledge their whiteness, how they consume people of color through racist love, and how they accept whiteness in a way that neglects addressing racism. I highly recommend this book to readers interested in understanding contemporary whiteness. — Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, Duke University The best writing critically studying whiteness today intensely engages imbrications of race with other identities, especially class, gender, nationality, and disability. No one does all of that better than Stephanie Li. Addressing literary moments with a sure grasp of history and an adventuresome readings of texts, Ugly White People speaks compellingly to the persisting strength of Trump and white nationalism and to the desire for social media celebrity as something authors both explore and share. — David Roediger, author of The Sinking Middle Class: A Political History of Debt, Misery, and the Drift to the Right Stephanie Li is Lynne Cooper Harvey Distinguished Professor of English at Washington University in St. Louis. She is author of Pan-African American Literature, Playing in the White, and Signifying without Specifying. /episode/index/show/986c45f0-7b3e-43f8-aa02-6e8b855cab37/id/31123403

Carol Gilligan 04/26/2024

Carol Gilligan Gilligan, Carol In a Human Voice Carol Gilligan's landmark book In a Different Voice – the "little book that started a revolution" – brought women's voices to the fore in work on the self and moral development, enabling women to be heard in their own right, and with their own integrity, for the first time. Forty years later, Gilligan returns to the subject matter of her classic book, re-examining its central arguments and concerns from the vantage point of the present. Thanks to the work that she and others have done in recent decades, it is now possible to clarify and articulate what couldn't quite be seen or said at the time of the original publication: that the "different voice" (of care ethics), although initially heard as a "feminine" voice, is in fact a human voice; that the voice it differs from is a patriarchal voice (bound to gender binaries and hierarchies); and that where patriarchy is in force or enforced, the human voice is a voice of resistance, and care ethics is an ethics of liberation. While gender is central to the story Gilligan tells, this is not a story about gender: it is a human story. With this clarification, it becomes evident why In a Different Voice continues to resonate strongly with people's experience and, perhaps more crucially, why the different voice is a voice for the 21st century. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- During the podcast, Mary Gaitskill's piece on Anna Karenina, from Fassler, Joe. Light the Dark: Writers on Creativity, Inspiration, and the Artistic Process (pp. 69-73). Penguin, excepted here: MARY GAITSKILL "I Don’t Know You Anymore" I READ ANNA KARENINA for the first time about two years ago. It’s something I’d always meant to read, but for some reason I didn’t expect to like it as much as I did. ... I found one section in particular so beautiful and intelligent that I actually stood up as I was reading. I had to put the book down, I was so surprised by it—and it took the novel to a whole other level for me. Anna’s told her husband, Karenin, that she’s in love with another man and has been sleeping with him. You’re set up to see Karenin as an overly dignified but somewhat pitiable figure: He’s a proud, stiff person. He’s older than Anna is, and he’s balding, and he has this embarrassing mannerism of a squeaky voice. He’s hardened himself against Anna. He’s utterly disgusted with her for having gotten pregnant by her lover, Vronsky. But you have the impression at first that his pride is hurt more than anything else—which makes him unsympathetic. Then he finds out Anna is dying, and he goes to visit her.] He hears her babbling, in the height of her fever. And her words are unexpected: She’s saying how kind he is. That, of course, she knows he will forgive her. When Anna finally sees him, she looks at him with a kind of love he’s never seen before. ... Throughout the book, he’s always hated the way he’s felt disturbed by other people’s tears or sadness. But as he struggles with this feeling while Anna’s talking, Karenin finally realizes that the compassion he feels for other people is not weakness: For the first time, he perceives this reaction as joyful, and becomes completely overwhelmed with love and forgiveness. He actually kneels down and begins to cry in her arms; Anna holds him and embraces his balding head. The quality he hated is completely who he is—and this realization gives him incredible peace. He even decides he wants to shelter the little girl that Anna’s had with Vronsky (who sits nearby, so completely shamed by what he’s witnessing that he covers his face with his hands). You believe this complete turnaround. You believe it’s who these people really are. I find it strange that the moment these characters seem most like themselves is the moment when they’re behaving in ways we’ve never before seen. I don’t fully understand how this could be, but it’s wonderful that it works. But then the moment passes. Anna never talks about the “other woman” inside of her again. At first, I was disappointed. But then I thought: No, that’s actually much more realistic. What Tolstoy does is actually much better, because it’s more truthful. We feel a greater sense of loss, knowing it will never happen again. I very much saw that as the core of the book. Everyone says Anna Karenina is about individual desire going against society, but I think the opposite perspective is stronger: the way social forces actively go against the soft feelings of the individual. /episode/index/show/986c45f0-7b3e-43f8-aa02-6e8b855cab37/id/31004483

Merav Roth 04/20/2024

Merav Roth Merav Roth A Psychoanalytic Perspective on Reading Literature Reading the Reader (Art, Creativity, and Psychoanalysis Book Series) 1st Edition What are the unconscious processes involved in reading literature? How does literature influence our psychological development and existential challenges? A Psychoanalytic Perspective on Reading Literature offers a unique glimpse into the unconscious psychic processes and development involved in reading. The author listens to the 'free associations' of various literary characters, in numerous scenarios where the characters are themselves reading literature, thus revealing the mysterious ways in which reading literature helps us and contributes to our development. The book offers an introduction both to classic literature (Poe, Proust, Sartre, Semprún, Pessoa, Agnon and more) and to the major psychoanalytic concepts that can be used in reading it – all described and widely explained before being used as tools for interpreting the literary illustrations. The book thus offers a rich lexical psychoanalytic source, alongside its main aim in analysing the reader’s psychological mechanisms and development. Psychoanalytic interpretation of those literary readers opens three main avenues to the reader’s experience: the transference relations toward the literary characters; the literary work as means to transcend beyond the reader’s self-identity and existential boundaries; and mobilization of internal dialectic tensions towards new integration and psychic equilibrium. An Epilogue concludes by emphasising the transformational power embedded in reading literature. The fascinating dialogue between literature and psychoanalysis illuminates hitherto concealed aspects of each discipline and contributes to new insights in both fields. A Psychoanalytic Perspective on Reading Literature will be of great interest not only to psychoanalytic-psychotherapists and literature scholars, but also to a wider readership beyond these areas of study. /episode/index/show/986c45f0-7b3e-43f8-aa02-6e8b855cab37/id/30914573

Jodorowsky 04/07/2024

Peter Singer. Buddhism and Ethics. 03/05/2024

Peter Singer. Buddhism and Ethics. Peter Singer and Shih Chao-Hwei The Buddhist and the Ethicist: Conversations on effective altrusism, engaged Buddhism, and how to build a better world ABOUT THE BUDDHIST AND THE ETHICIST Eastern spirituality and utilitarian philosophy meet in these unique dialogues between a Buddhist monastic and a moral philosopher on such issues as animal welfare, gender equality, the death penalty, and more An unlikely duo—Professor Peter Singer, a preeminent philosopher and professor of bioethics, and Venerable Shih Chao-Hwei, a Taiwanese Buddhist monastic and social activist—join forces to talk ethics in lively conversations that cross oceans, overcome language barriers, and bridge philosophies. The eye-opening dialogues collected here share unique perspectives on contemporary issues like animal welfare, gender equality, the death penalty, and more. Together, these two deep thinkers explore the foundation of ethics and key Buddhist concepts, and ultimately reveal how we can all move toward making the world a better place. “A remarkable and historical meeting of minds between one of the greatest philosophers of our times and a leading proponent of Buddhist ethics, grounded on utilitarianism and guided by compassion and insight, which aims at preventing and relieving all kinds of suffering, whatever they might be, and doing as much good as possible to all sentient beings without discrimination.” —Matthieu Ricard, author of Altruism and A Plea for Animals “Few things are more enlightening than good dialogue, and this engrossing conversation between a Western philosopher and an Asian Buddhist is a case in point. Their probing exploration of each other’s worldviews illuminates key concepts in the Buddhist and utilitarian traditions and reveals an underlying unity; these two schools of thought, though quite different in cultural ancestry, exhibit much commonality of purpose and spirit as they address some of life’s most important and challenging questions.” —Robert Wright, author of Why Buddhism Is True “The Buddhist and the Ethicist is a fascinating exchange between two brilliant and wide-ranging thinkers who were originally brought together because of their shared interests in animal welfare. Their conversations cover a staggering array of topics, and I truly enjoyed seeing what came out of their extremely active brains and hearts and how much they got mine going in many different directions. I guarantee you, too, will rethink some views you have on different ethical questions and will be exposed to many situations and dilemmas about which you’ve rarely or never thought. I know I’ll be returning to this valuable collection time and time again.” —Marc Bekoff, University of Colorado, author of The Animals’ Agenda: Freedom, Compassion, and Coexistence in the Human Age (with Jessica Pierce) and A Dog’s World: Imagining the Lives of Dogs in a World Without Humans (with Jessica Pierce) “This gem of a book invites readers to listen in as two brilliant contemporary moral philosophers talk about what it means to be a good person and live an ethical life. The Buddhist and the Ethicist offers us a living encounter between Western and Eastern moral traditions. We have the honor of sitting in as Peter Singer, one of the West’s most innovative and influential utilitarian philosophers, and Shih Chao-Hwei, a prominent Buddhist scholar, monastic, and activist, talk some of the most contentious and significant moral issues of our time, including human-animal relations, equality, sexuality, and effective altruism. Singer and Chao-Hwei show us how to have constructive, respectful dialogue about values—a skill more vitally important now than ever before. They remind us that it is possible to begin from seemingly conflicting points of view and, through open-minded conversation, to find and expand common ground.” —Jessica Pierce, author of Who’s a Good Dog? And How to Be a Better Human “This timely and stimulating dialogue between Professor Peter Singer and Venerable Chao-Hwei Shih takes place at the intersection between altruism and engaged Buddhism. Their many conversations through the intervening years have examined diverse and relevant social issues during the twenty-first century. Their incisive examination of ethical considerations for all life-forms, while ages old, are brought together in this book through candid discussions about ending life and killing from in utero, to euthanasia, suicide, and killing during wartime. At the same time, their dialogue integrates the crosscutting themes of women and equality, sexuality, animal rights, and more. I invite you to become a part of their dialogue through which you can revisit these topics that transcend cultures and countries.” —Sulak Sivaraksa, author, activist, and cofounder of the International Network of Engaged Buddhists “An enlightening exploration of ethics, altruism, and social justice through the engaging dialogue between a prominent philosopher and a great scholar of Buddhism. A must-read for those seeking to expand their understanding of these traditions and the pressing issues of our time.” —Netiwit Chotiphatphaisal, student activist, author, and engaged Buddhist “A wonderful book that does what philosophy and religious teachings are supposed to do: challenge us to think better, to live better, and to be better.” —Ryan Holiday, podcast host and author of The Daily Stoic “Their dialogues unfold in rigorous detail and probe rich and trenchant ethical questions. . . . Plenty of insight in these thought-provoking and challenging investigations.” —Publishers Weekly “In this fascinating book, Singer and Chao-Hwei explore dynamic topics, including animal welfare, capital punishment, gender equality, and the foundations of both Buddhism and ethics.” —Tricycle “Particularly illuminating is Chao-Hwei’s clarification of terms, often misunderstood in the West, such as karma, rebirth and nirvana, as well as the central role and nature of compassion in Buddhist ethics. For those interested in how nuanced philosophical thought can inform our daily lives and actions, this accessible meeting of minds is a good place to start.” —The Sydney Morning Herald (Non-fiction pick of the week) /episode/index/show/986c45f0-7b3e-43f8-aa02-6e8b855cab37/id/30208193

narrativity 03/05/2024

narrativity Peter Brooks Seduced by story: The use and abuse of narrative Chosen by New York Magazine/Vulture as a Best Book of 2022 “There’s nothing in the world more powerful than a good story. Nothing can stop it. Nothing can defeat it.” So begins the scholar and literary critic Peter Brooks’s reckoning with today’s flourishing cult of story. Forty years after publishing his seminal work Reading for the Plot, his important contribution to what came to be known as the “narrative turn” in contemporary criticism and philosophy, Brooks returns to question the unquestioning fashion in which story is now embraced as an excuse or explanation and the fact that every brand or politician comes equipped with one. In a discussion that ranges from The Girl on the Train to legal argument, Brooks reminds us that among the powers of narrative is the power to deceive. Praise A potent defense of attentive reading and its real-world applications. —Jennifer Szalai, The New York Times Brooks spent most of his career trying to impress upon readers the particular power of narrative…In his most recent book, “Seduced by Story,” he describes the horrifying feeling of having succeeded all too well. —Parul Sehgal, The New Yorker A succinct account of narrative persuasion, offering a solid case for the ambivalent power that stories can have in shaping us as individuals and nations. —Caterina Domeneghini, Los Angeles Review of Books Brooks explores various fields – including psychoanalysis, legal practice and modern political discourse – in which the distinction between narrative and “reality” has been eroded, or even collapsed. . . . It is in this context that a critical faculty – the ability to understand and critique narrative – is of vital importance. —Jonathan Taylor, TLS Brooks built an influential career arguing that stories are key features of how we all experience ‘human temporality’ and strive to articulate ‘meaning in general.’ This new book is, therefore, a kind of personal as well as intellectual reckoning with narrative turns and what may be their less salubrious legacies. —Killian Quigley, Australian Book Review Society’s obsession with résumé, and its use to construct an aura of credibility, is such a pervasive element of contemporary life that it inevitably implicates even the author and his own field of “literary humanities.” But that dynamic is exactly what Brooks parses in his terrific critical survey: the essential differences between surface stories and the ways in which they’re constructed. —J. Howard Rosier, New York Magazine/Vulture A bracing and insightful look at the downsides of reducing everything to storytelling. . . A thoughtful and revelatory analysis of what’s lost when story trumps all. —Publishers Weekly For writers, readers, and citizens of the story-addled world. —Emily Temple, Lit Hub A rhapsody to the partial suspension of disbelief that allows us to immerse ourselves in novels, but simultaneously and most crucially, a brilliant intervention against the complete suspension of disbelief that allows a citizenry to succumb to conspiracy theories, false-flag narratives, authoritarian fictions. An eloquent and triumphant culmination of Peter Brooks’s lifelong inquiry into the aesthetic and ethical intersection of literature, psychoanalysis, law, and politics. Impossibly good. —David Shields Stories are everywhere—shaping us, shocking us, showing us what really happened (or making it up). Peter Brooks invites us to step to one side of our over-storied surroundings to think about all the ways they work. . . . In the process, he tells a gripping tale of his own. —Rachel Bowlby This is an amazing book, crossing back and forth between literature and politics, illuminating each side by the other. It is written without fuss, continually evocative and surprising. —Richard Sennett /episode/index/show/986c45f0-7b3e-43f8-aa02-6e8b855cab37/id/30208423

Daniel C. Dennett 02/10/2024

Daniel C. Dennett Daniel C. Dennett I've been thinking Description "How unfair for one man to be blessed with such a torrent of stimulating thoughts. Stimulating is an understatement." —Richard Dawkins A memoir by one of the greatest minds of our age, preeminent philosopher and cognitive scientist Daniel C. Dennett. Daniel C. Dennett, preeminent philosopher and cognitive scientist, has spent his career considering the thorniest, most fundamental mysteries of the mind. Do we have free will? What is consciousness and how did it come about? What distinguishes human minds from the minds of animals? Dennett’s answers have profoundly shaped our age of philosophical thought. In I’ve Been Thinking, he reflects on his amazing career and lifelong scientific fascinations. Dennett’s relentless curiosity has taken him from a childhood in Beirut and the classrooms of Harvard, Oxford, and Tufts, to “Cognitive Cruises” on sailboats and the fields and orchards of Maine, and to laboratories and think tanks around the world. Along the way, I’ve Been Thinking provides a master class in the dominant themes of twentieth-century philosophy and cognitive science—including language, evolution, logic, religion, and AI—and reveals both the mistakes and breakthroughs that shaped Dennett’s theories. Key to this journey are Dennett’s interlocutors—Douglas Hofstadter, Marvin Minsky, Willard Van Orman Quine, Gilbert Ryle, Richard Rorty, Thomas Nagel, John Searle, Gerald Edelman, Stephen Jay Gould, Jerry Fodor, Rodney Brooks, and more—whose ideas, even when he disagreed with them, helped to form his convictions about the mind and consciousness. Studded with photographs and told with characteristic warmth, I’ve Been Thinking also instills the value of life beyond the university, one enriched by sculpture, music, farming, and deep connection to family. Dennett compels us to consider: What do I really think? And what if I’m wrong? This memoir by one of the greatest minds of our time will speak to anyone who seeks to balance a life of the mind with adventure and creativity. Reviews and endorsements A delightful memoir from one of our deepest thinkers. Kirkus (starred review) Always an enthusiastic learner with an insatiable curiosity, Dennett’s amiable autodidacticism illustrates a life of the mind intertwined with the rich home life of a true Renaissance man. Highly recommended. Booklist (starred review) About the author Daniel C. Dennett is University Professor Emeritus at Tufts University and the author of numerous books, including Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking, Breaking the Spell, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, and Consciousness Explained. He lives with his wife in Cape Elizabeth, Maine. /episode/index/show/986c45f0-7b3e-43f8-aa02-6e8b855cab37/id/29880868

Christopher Bollas 01/30/2024

Anna O. 01/26/2024

Carl Rogers 01/14/2024

review of Risking Intimacy by Lauren Levine 01/03/2024

review of Risking Intimacy by Lauren Levine Lauren Levine Risking Intimacy and Creative Transformation in Psychoanalysis Note: I had planned to interview Dr. Levine about her book. Leading up to the date we had agreed on, I was struggling with what to talk to her about. Timothy Williamson notes the gladitorial or adversarial nature of philosophical discussion. I certainly had some critical commentary on Dr. Levine's book, but I also prefer to be reparative, as opposed to carpy-suspicious, as a reader (Sedgwick). And it was my sense that in Dr. Levine's particular intellectual culture, sharp-edged criticism can be considered inappropriate, and even lead to cancellation (cf. Jon Mills's criticism of relational psychoanalysis). In an email to Dr. Levine, I indicated my dilemma as we approached the date. After mentioning that I did indeed have some potentially inappropriate (for some cultures) questions about her book, I realized there was a huge open question: she would probably want to know what they were. Not wanting to be patronizing--and hoping that perhaps she would actually say my questions were all perfectly fine--I listed them. But soon thereafter, I got an email from Dr. Levine saying Dr. Levine she did not, in fact, want to participate in the podcast interview about her book. It felt Karenesque of her and it felt like I was being canceled for daring to be critical, to engage in critique. As Jon Mills will testify, this seems to be a problem with Levine's intellectual community: a strategy of ostracizing or refusing to speak with people who want to ask challenging questions. Stephen Mitchell himself seemed never to criticize any psychoanalytic theorist. His mission was to affirm every psychoanalytic theorist, to show they they improved in some slight way on every previous theorist. {Although as Barry Farber has emphasized, his validating ways did not extend outside the rich, prestigious, supposedly intellectual faction which houses themselves in psychoanalytic institutes. Mitchell ignored Carl Rogers (probably because he never read him or certainly never took him seriously). For "relational psychoanalysts" if you are in their group, they flatter each other; if you are outside or want to ask challenging questions, they shun and cancel. Contrast this with Judith Butler who stresses the importance of "checking in with other perspectives [and] responding thoroughly to reasonable questions." So in an experiment, I did a podcast about her book, without her, without the author. I want to do these about books (for example, books in which the author is, say, deceased. Or the author is alive but in prioritizing their time, is unable to speak with me. This gave me my first opportunity. In this podcast, I review the negative, possibly out-of-bounds (as culturally defined) thoughts I had regarding Dr. Levine's book. I'm also re-producing the offending email: BEGIN EMAIL On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 11:40 AM August Baker wrote: Thank you for sharing your thoughts. As for me, after sending my email and before getting your reply, I was feeling increasingly uncertain about whether we had enough overlap or shared reality to have a productive talk. Your email made me feel better about it, but I am still uncertain. My last list was based on impressions, prior to a final review of the book. I need to do a complete, close read of the book and propose a new list. I tried to distinguish between "practitioner" vs. "academic," but I now think those were the wrong labels. And anyway as you point out, you are an academic as well as a practitioner. I don't know how to label what I am talking about. Perhaps I can best express the difference by paraphrasing one of my prior interviewees, Timothy Williamson. He describes a particular cultural approach to how people should best talk to an author about a book. I do not think it is the same cultural approach you have ("cultural" here referring here not so much to "practitioner" but to the culture of the intellectual school or paradigm you are a part of. What to call that school? I don't know. Perhaps "early 21st century psychoanalysis.") In Williamson's cultural milieu, discussion of a book is, he admits, something like gladiatorial combat, or like the adversarial system in litigation. It is an interlocutor's role to give their most sharp-edged responses to an author. The interlocutor argues against the author. "A feel-good slogan is that discussion should be constructive, not destructive. It sounds like a platitude, but imagine telling city planners that they should always build houses and never knock them down." It's not about practitioner vs. academic. I was wrong in labeling it such. It's not about Left vs. Right either. I interview both Left and Right. It is one of the things I explicitly try to do: get a wide range of political standpoints. It's not about philosophy versus other fields either. I don't know a good label for it, but perhaps we could call it "critical" versus "reparative." Some authors have this "critical" approach. They expect me and want me to give my most sharp-edged criticisms. This is true whether I interview a Left-leaning philosopher like Martha Nussbaum or a Right-leaning economist like Deirdre McCloskey. On the other hand, when I interview a psychoanalyst such as yourself--or such as Christopher Bollas whom I interviewed recently--I get myself into a more reparative frame of mind. It just seems to me a matter of being culturally sensitive. The trouble is that with your book, I fear there is not enough overlap between us. Your strength is your clinical vignettes; yet I am not a clinician, and the one thing I know about clinical work is that I don't know enough to talk intelligently about it. On the other hand, there are many areas where you and I have a different worldview. Yet I don't see a way to discuss those issues in a culturally-appropriate-enough way. I can tell you a few of the ways that we are simply on different wavelengths. There are many, but four come to mind immediately. (1) politics. You write: "We are currently in the midst of a terrifying sociopolitical backlash by the radical right to suppress our stories, to silence and whitewash the white supremacy and racism embedded in our history and culture. We must face our legacy of chattel slavery and the slaughter of Indigenous people on which our country was founded." I discussed this with Peter Brooks in a podcast I am publishing online today. I simply don't agree with you here. In my fantasy, if I try to empathize with you, you (correctly) view yourself here as taking a strong, righteous political stance, and as a matter of personal integrity, you don't want to back down off of it. From my perspective, and I think you will find this offensive (and hence, I don't think it is productive to talk about it) there is much more to the story of the U.S. than slavery and the slaughter of indigenous people, and what you are doing is taking recourse in paranoia and splitting. For numbers 2 and 3, consider the following quotations: "Julia and I begin to weave together a shared narrative history about her early life, especially with her mother ..." "the rewriting of the family narrative seemed to open psychic space ..." "creating a share narrative of his traumatic history" "Coming to terms with the “lack” in parenting and the pain it caused is allowing ... "he needed me to feel the depths of his pain, to not abandon him like his parents when he pushed me to the brink, (2) Parenting. I appreciate your narrative of your personal struggle with your son. It gives me goosebump, and I admire and respect your parenting and your writing about it. On the other hand, I have a very different perspective, having worked much with parents who, to my understanding, were great parents but for whom their narratives did not turn out so well. Their children did not flourish, and they need to deal with that pain, as well as the stigma that I think is implicit in your own view. Namely, that if the parent does parenting right, the kid will turn out well and happy. This is the flip-side of the other psychoanalytic worldview, which I also bristle at, namely that if the adult is unhappy, look to the childhood and especially the parenting. (3) the importance of narrative. I personally think that narrative is over-emphasized. See my podcast with Peter Brooks. Essentially, summing up (2) and (3), when you write to a psychoanalytic audience, is it not true that you can simply assume as a default that psychoanalysis cures by re-parenting? That the basic story one learns in analysis is "I was a beautiful soul, but X was very bad."? All psychoanalysts will agree that that is not the whole story, but nonetheless it is the strongest current, and exceptions seem to me to be of the sort that prove the rule. That's fine, but many people outside of psychoanalysis do NOT share this view. And it seems suspicious that tales of cure so often follow the same path, especially when we know that we should be suspicious of narratives. (4) Regarding the relational school, I have two issues (again, neither of which seems suitable or appropriate for us to talk about), (a) there is an understandable but irksome tendency to write its own narrative in an self-serving and insular way. Barry Farber, for example, argues convincingly that much of the supposed revolutionary thoughts of relational psychoanalysis were anticipated by none other than Carl Rogers. Yet Rogers is never given his due. There is an intellectual arrogance to relational writing, as though Rogers were too much a lightweight to credit. (b) Relational writing seems to neglect analytic hate in Winnicott's sense. Relational analysts show a great deal of hate, but this doesn't seem to be talked about much. It is talked about a little, but again as the exception that proves the rule. I do not think that any of these four are appropriate for our conversation. They are what I would talk about perhaps if I were adopting Williamson's cultural approach. I will do a final read-through of your book to see if I can find some common ground for us for a productive conversation. --August END EMAIL ENDORSEMENTS As you can see below, others--indeed, those supposed to know--feel very differently than I: ‘In this exquisite new book, Lauren Levine captures the finely nuanced tapestry that emerges when an analytic dyad takes shape; the interweaving of two different narratives of self that come together, engage with each other, distance each other and ultimately form the subject matter of the analysis that unfolds. With brilliant clarity, and detailed and forthrightly honest clinical examples, Levine demonstrates how the collision of the patient’s and the analyst’s preferred life stories demands the analyst’s, at times painful emotional honesty, in re-opening dissociated pockets of enlivening engagement and creativity.’ Jody Messler Davies, NYU Postdoctoral Program, Stephen Mitchell Center for Relational Studies ‘In this powerful and creative volume, Risking Intimacy and Creative Transformation in Psychoanalysis, Lauren Levine explores the healing power of stories as they touch our vulnerabilities, our strengths and resilience, intrapsychic and sociocultural traumas. Levine beautifully explores the transformative value of sharing our stories with a listening, witnessing other, bearing witness to our wounds, our shame, and our collective sins.’ Galit Atlas, author of Emotional Inheritance; NYU Postdoctoral Program in Psychoanalysis ‘Risking Intimacy and Creative Transformation in Psychoanalysis is a wonder, a collection of essays whose honesty, integrity and authenticity challenge us and teach us, making us more vulnerable and hence more alive than we were before reading. It provides a relational blueprint to the intricacies of our deepest fears and fantasies about the psychoanalytic process as well as an openness to the insidious impact of racism and sociopolitical trauma. It is extremely rare that such a broad range of the human experience is taken on by any author; it is a rarity indeed for it to be done with such brilliance, thoughtfulness and creative care. This is a most welcome book, which should be read and re-read for the often painful aliveness it brings to the therapeutic encounter.’ Steve Tuber, author of Attachment, Play and Authenticity: Winnicott in Clinical Context ‘In this moving and incisive work, Lauren Levine reminds us that storytelling has both dangerous and curative dimensions. We often use stories to evade our own traumas and hide from self-awareness the gaps in our personal narratives. This has also been true of the field, in terms of the stories psychoanalysts feel comfortable engaging in our various models of the psyche. With an emphasis on the sharing of stories as the key to transformative mental healing, Risking Intimacy and Creative Transformation offers a powerful introduction to the insights of a relational psychoanalysis that can address the racial and cultural traumas of the 21st century.’ --Michelle Stephens, founding executive director, Institute for the Study of Global Racial Justice, professor of English and Latino and Caribbean Studies, Rutgers University ‘Lauren Levine explores the creative potential of what might be called story living. She captures how shared stories build relational and political transformations. But only, as Levine carefully details, when patient and analyst together confront personal inhibitions and cultural prohibitions that render stories normotic and deadening. Levine theorizes and clinically animates the ways in which we not only “tell ourselves stories in order to live,” as per Didion, but also how we tell stories to change the order of living.’ Ken Corbett, NYU Postdoctoral Program in Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy ‘Lauren Levine’s highly creative work, Risking Intimacy and Creative Transformation in Psychoanalysis, marks the evolution of relational theory as a space of increasingly wonderful complexity. Her clinical and theoretical approach stresses the role of imagination and novel forms of clinical interaction. In this work, weaving film, poetry and dance into compelling psychoanalytic stories, we see both clinical and theoretical movement and expansion.’ Adrienne Harris, NYU Postdoctoral Program in Psychoanalysis and New School for Social Research BOOK BLURB Risking Intimacy and Creative Transformation in Psychoanalysis In this compelling book, Lauren Levine explores the transformative power of stories and storytelling in psychoanalysis to heal psychic wounds and create shared symbolic meaning and coherence out of ungrieved loss and trauma. Through evocative clinical stories, Levine considers the impact of trauma and creativity on the challenge of creating one’s own story, resonant with personal authenticity and a shared sense of culture and history. Levine sees creativity as an essential aspect of aliveness, and as transformative, emergent in the clinical process. She utilizes film, dance, poetry, literature, and dreams as creative frames to explore diverse aspects of psychoanalytic process. As a psychoanalyst and writer, Levine is interested in the stories we tell, individually and collectively, as well as what gets disavowed and dissociated by experiences of relational, intergenerational, and sociopolitical trauma. She is concerned too with whose stories get told and whose get erased, silenced, and marginalized. This crucial question, what gets left out of the narrative, and the potential for an intimate psychoanalytic process to help patients reclaim what has been lost, is at the heart of this volume. Attentive to the work of helping patients reclaim their memory and creative agency, this book will prove invaluable for psychoanalysts and psychotherapists in practice and in training. AUTHOR BLURB Lauren Levine is joint Editor-in-Chief of Psychoanalytic Dialogues. She teaches and presents both nationally and internationally, and has published articles about sociocultural, racial and relational trauma, resilience, and creativity. Dr. Levine is faculty at the NYU Postdoctoral Program in Psychoanalysis, and the Stephen Mitchell Relational Study Center, where she is codirector of the One Year Program in Relational Studies. She is visiting faculty at the Institute for Relational and Group Psychotherapy in Athens, Greece, and the Tampa Bay Psychoanalytic Society, and supervisor at the Institute for Relational Psychoanalysis of Philadelphia. Dr. Levine is a psychoanalyst in private practice in New York City. /episode/index/show/986c45f0-7b3e-43f8-aa02-6e8b855cab37/id/30276058

Boston University Mental health counseling and behavioral medicine 01/03/2024

Boston University Mental health counseling and behavioral medicine Thoughts on a degree-granting "program" at BU, called "Mental health counseling and behavioral medicine." I took some classes there but eventually quit because it was so ridiculous. What is "mental health counseling"? U.S. states wanted to regulate who could become a psychotherapist, and, given the incredible demand, a variety of academic departments wanted to be able to offer degrees that would pass legislative muster. Medicine was first, but also nursing. Then schools of social work: the MSW degree suffices. Then psychology departments created something called a PsyD, different from a PhD. There is also pastoral counseling I believe. Finally, there was this little field called "counseling" which was essentially career counseling, then school counseling. Historically, it is part of the broad attempt by the middle class and managerial class to maintain order, and maintain their privileged status. Counseling attempted to get people into jobs. Then to keep students non-delinquent. Well, career counseling departments wanted also to take advantage of the huge demand for psychotherapy. So they got legislative permission to create this new "mental health counseling" program. Soon, of course, mental health counseling dominated and over-ran career counseling. Career counseling now consists of one course in the BU program, and it is a course that is demeaned: take it in the summer, take it over some weekends. The BU MHCBM program apologizes for having to offer it. What is "behavioral medicine"? Somehow "behavior medicine" became part of the title of BU's program, but it represents only one course in the curriculum too. A hypothesis is that it was thought that "behavioral medicine" would make the program seem more appropriately housed on the medical school campus. Behavioral medicine teaches how counselors can assist physicians: helping physicians by taking over the work of getting people to stay on their doctor-prescribed plans (adhere to the prescribed regimen). At BU, there are two Mental-health counseling programs: this one in the medical school campus and the other in the Charles River campus. The version at the medical school is scientistic and run by some limited individuals, philistines. The worldview is one of neoliberalism. It is more than just whether people have jobs or are non-delinquent. People are diseased if they do not cope with--are unhappy in--neoliberal society. People need to learn to submit to authority more happily; they need to learn to follow rules. And the program itself embodies this worldview in parallel process. Faculty do not themselves set the curriculum; they defer to a higher power known as CACREP, which is an accreditation service. Whenever therer is a difficult choice, the reply is that "this is required for our accreditation." When accreditation is not specific enough, the faculty then bring in "consultants." When in doubt, hire a consultant to deflect any responsibility from yourself. Students are treated like they are in the military. The program is more hierarchical than anything I have been a part of. The faculty members insist on being called "doctor," and it is forbidden to treat them as anything other than Gods. (It must be that some of the faculty have backgrounds in the military. Or they think that they are following a medical school model of trying to break people down arbitrarily, a sort of right of passage showing one's ability to tolerate BOHICA.) Criticism is wholly discouraged. One should only find the positive in whatever one's classmates say. One should never challenge the faculty. Any failure is judged to be a lack of the "comportment" required to be a counselor. (The most important thing for becoming a psychotherapist in this neoliberal world is to be someone who will happily sacrifice their integrity for the sake of arbitrary rules. You can't say they are wrong: cf. the requirement to follow insurance rules). Faculty teach and model a polite exterior ... comportment ... professionalism ... regulated narcissism and s/m hate. Plus there's the de rigeur "we are professional helpers; the problem with our profession is only that we tend to give too much; we have to mutually remind ourselves to remember to practice self-care!" Laurie Craigen, Rachel Levy-Bell, Steve Brady, Thom Fields, Rory Berger-Greenstein, Navolta. /episode/index/show/986c45f0-7b3e-43f8-aa02-6e8b855cab37/id/30701973

transgender 12/14/2023

gender 12/01/2023

Žižek. Freedom 11/13/2023

Žižek. Freedom Slavoj Žižek Freedom: A Disease Without Cure We are all afraid that new dangers pose a threat to our hard-won freedoms, so what deserves attention is precisely the notion of freedom. The concept of freedom is deceptively simple. We think we understand it, but the moment we try and define it we encounter contradictions. In this new philosophical exploration, Slavoj Žižek argues that the experience of true, radical freedom is transient and fragile. Countering the idea of libertarian individualism, Žižek draws on philosophers Hegel, Kierkegaard and Heidegger, as well as the work of Kandinsky and Agatha Christie to examine the many facets of freedom and what we can learn from each of them. Today, with the latest advances in digital control, our social activity can be controlled and regulated to such a degree that the liberal notion of a free individual becomes obsolete and even meaningless. How will we be obliged to reinvent (or limit) the contours of our freedom? Tracing its connection to everything from capitalism and war to the state and environmental breakdown, Žižek takes us on an illuminating and entertaining journey that shows how a deeper understanding of freedom can offer hope in dark times. Table of Contents Preface Acknowledgements Introduction: Move your Buridan's Ass! Part I: Freedom As Such Chapter 1: Freedom and its Discontents i) Freedom versus Liberty ii) Regulating Violations iii) Freedom, Knowledge, Necessity iv) Freedom to say NO Chapter 2: Is There Such a Thing as Freedom of the Will? i) Determinism and its Ragaries ii) Rewriting the Past iii) Beyond the Transcendental iv) Pascalean Wager Chapter 3: Indivisible Remainder and the Death of Death i) The Standpoint of the Absolute ii) The Death of God iii) Suicide as a Political Act iv)The Failed Negation of Negation Appendices I 1 Potestas versus Superdeterminism 2 Sublation as Dislocation 3 Inventing Anna, Inventing Madeleine 4 The Political Implications of Non-Representational Art Part II: Human Freedom Chapter 4: Marx Invented not Only Symptom but Also Drive i) Instead of... ii) Progress and Apathy iii) Dialectical Materialism iv) Yes, but... v) How Marx Invented Drive Chapter 5: The Path to Anarcho-Feudalism i) The Blue Pill Called Metaverse ii) From Cultural Capitalism to Crypto-Currencies iii) Savage Verticality Versus Uncontrollable Horizontality Chapter 6: The State and Counter-Revolution i) When the Social Link Disintegrates ii) The Limit of the Spontaneous Order iii) The State is Here to Stay iv) Do not give up on your Communist Desire! Appendices II 5 “Generalized Foreclosure”? No, Thanks! 6 Shamelessly Ashamed 7 A Muddle Instead of a Movie 8 How to Love a Homeland in our Global Era Finale: The Four Riders of the Apocalypse i) De-Nazifying… Ukraine, Kosovo, Europe ii) The End of Nature iii) DON'T Be True to Yourself! iv) Whose Servant Is a Master? /episode/index/show/986c45f0-7b3e-43f8-aa02-6e8b855cab37/id/28619393

mental imagery 10/22/2023

PhilosophyPodcasts.Org

TOPICS