Claim OwnershipPhilosophize This!
Subscribed: 118,828Played: 1,613,994
Subscribe
Description
Beginner friendly if listened to in order! For anyone interested in an educational podcast about philosophy where you don't need to be a graduate-level philosopher to understand it. In chronological order, the thinkers and ideas that forged the world we live in are broken down and explained.
144 Episodes
Reverse
3Today we discuss some of the work of Max Weber in preparation for an upcoming series.
Today we begin our discussion of the work of Jürgen Habermas.
Today we begin our discussion of the work of Richard Rorty.
Today we continue talking about the work of Isaiah Berlin.
Today we begin discussing the work of Isaiah Berlin.
Today we begin our discussion of the work of Friedrich Hayek.
Today we begin our discussion of the work of Robert Nozick.
Today we discuss the work of John Rawls.
Today we discuss the work of Hannah Arendt.
Today we talk about the work of Leo Strauss.
Today we talk about the growing dissatisfaction with Enlightenment Reason during the early 20th century.
Today we continue our discussion of the work of Carl Schmitt. Support the show on Patreon! www.philosophizethis.org for additional content. Thank you for wanting to know more today than you did yesterday. :)
Today we begin our discussion on the work of Carl Schmitt. Support the show on Patreon! www.philosophizethis.org for additional content. Thank you for wanting to know more today than you did yesterday. :)
Today we discuss the work of Antonio Gramsci. Support the show on Patreon! www.philosophizethis.org for additional content. Thank you for wanting to know more today than you did yesterday. :)
Today we talk about a famous debate from the early 20th century.
Today we continue our discussion on the work of Deleuze. Support the show on Patreon! www.philosophizethis.org for additional content. Thank you for wanting to know more today than you did yesterday. :)
Today we continue our discussion on the work of Deleuze. Support the show on Patreon! www.philosophizethis.org for additional content. Thank you for wanting to know more today than you did yesterday. :)
Today we continue our discussion on the work of Gilles Deleuze. Support the show on Patreon! www.philosophizethis.org for additional content. Thank you for wanting to know more today than you did yesterday. :)
Today we continue our discussion on the work of Deleuze. Support the show on Patreon! www.philosophizethis.org for additional content. Thank you for wanting to know more today than you did yesterday. :)
Today we begin our discussion on Gilles Deleuze with a special thanks to Felix Guatarri. Support the show on Patreon! www.philosophizethis.org for additional content. Thank you for wanting to know more today than you did yesterday. :)
Download from Google Play
Download from App Store
United States
Great stuff steven! love the show. your amazing...
@15:48: "Criterions"? FFS.
This discussion was a pathetically uncritical review of the ontological argument, prefaced with an equally pathetically flippant criticism of "some" or "most" atheists. Another garbage episode.
@24:14: Ugh. The host seems to think that the problem with conflating correlation and causation is that we're often wrong about the correlation. No. That's not the issue. How did this guy come to host a podcast on philosophy? He certainly has a very weak grasp of logic.
The host thought that was a good counter-argument to Epicurus? What a bunch of garbage.
@36:18: "Central tenants"? This guy hosts a philosophy podcast?
@33:38: "Lied"? No. The past tense of lie is lay.
@38:46: "The foot needs to realize that's what's in the best interest of the body is really in the best interest of the foot." This is a terrible example. It is not only wrong (e.g., amputation), but also a misrepresentation of the philosophy in question, which needn't entail an assessment of best interests.
thank you for this excellent podcast. Thank you.
@47:11: "Tenants"? Yeesh... though still not as bad as his "ekcetera".
@8:59: Someone hosting a philosophy podcast should know better than to misuse the phrase "beg the question" when they mean "raise the question." To "beg the question" is to commit a logical fallacy in which one assumes the conclusion.
Glad there was a disclaimer. This was painfully bad. Skipping far ahead, hoping to hear the improved version.
Y’all are a bunch of little girls for not liking the music
Firstly thank you so much for creating this show it is truly invaluable. If I may note one thing please, I wondered how come the earlier episodes stayed with me better than the later ones. So I went back to those first episodes and listened to them again and realised that it is to do with the speed with which you speak. In past episodes you were speaking slower, more relaxed and it was a very nice pace to keep up with, whereas with time and more confidence you sound faster and faster and its difficult to digest the sentences, please slow down.. Please.. Thank you I am very grateful for the show
This was a brilliant episode Steph. Looking forward to others.
(Re)listening to this in 2020 when the iPhone12 is about to be released and the last 5 minutes of this episode are more relevant than ever.
Grateful for you good and understandable explanations
exactly when i just bought his book and was going to start reading Weber!
really insightful. however, under capitalism we still have the worst on top.
Jumping the gun as I'm only 5min in, but I get so tired of people blaming science for so many of our ills. Science isn't the problem, the application of it is. The current paradigm is a reductionist one and reductionism isn't always the appropriate lense to use. Science can and should also take a holistic view of the world. Science is the best tool we have for keeping our biases and faulty intuitions in check. Applied properly, it dispassionately gets us closer to truth and thereby enables us to make compassionate choices with a reduced risk of unforseen adverse outcomes. Science is only a means to an 'is', but it is up to us to understand what is so we can best determine what 'ought'.