I didn’t go to college and I’m not well read , yet I really enjoy this channel! For some odd reason now that I’m letting go of my self limiting beliefs Im really wanting to learn more and learn things I’ve never thought of before. I look forward to watching more of your videos ❤
It's rare for me to find a podcast that makes it into my regular rotation. Especially philosophy podcasts, as I have tried many and none have stuck. Just wanted to say this podcast has already became a must listen as soon as the episodes are released! Really enjoy your personalities and the way you're fusing classic philosophy with many modern topics.
I perceive David as intelligent, funny, and genuine. Ellie is badass smart and sweet. You both are doing great! The information has helped me make sense of things and question seemingly normal things in life (hyper individualism). Keep it up ❤
i appreciate the parts of your podcast where you fly off the cuff and apply your own individual perspectives in regard to another source. honestly this is what philosophizing is. ❤️ i dont know if you know yourself but you certainly know what you know.
David. I don't know you at all, and have only become acquainted with your productions during the last few days. But from the start I was impressed by both your and Ellie's relaxed manner - you both make philosophy fun but with underlying seriousness. And although you clearly have opinions, you don't push them - and that is how it should be. David; your perception of yourself is more accurate than the impression you think you give. Best wishes to you both.
I see Dave and Elle as "self-amused humour " meaning humour related to their chosen domain of philosophy within the context of their self. This rather than humour directed at others,, as would be mocking another rather than laughing with another. Both speak with legit academic knowledge of the subject at hand. The ghost of Ellie's past acting experience is alive in her enthusiastic manner. I can understand why she from time to time like to read Hegel. He is one of if not the greatest true scholars in and of the history of philosophy. One who enjoys real academic philosophy like Ellie certainly finds comfort in his high intellect. I enjoyed the discussion around the complex of the 'self"., recently began to transfer thoughts over into a novel. The first paragraph opens with a stranger asking an older man a question. ( the scene is a large train station) . Then for three thousand words, the conversation is about the self ( not ego) and of perceptions of others towards the old man he has encountered along his journey. The young man's initial thoughts of the older man sparked off this train of thought. So I can see where Ellie is intending to write a whole book related to the self. As I can't leave it alone to get to the second chapter. The self is indeed a whole book. Halfway into the podcast, I was about to start commenting as I could not help but think of Descartes and how he was very relevant to philosophical knowledge ... then bingo Ellie got into him so it calmed me through to the end. I very much agree with Davids's thumbs up to the philosopher who challenged Einstein and Descartes. One through philosophical meditation can indeed find that space of mind he is referring to. Thanks again!
As always, loved your podcast and the dynamics in your discussion. :) I learned about some names I wasn't very familiar with, despite my interest in (mostly continental) philosophy. One topic that I sadly don't think could be discussed openly (due to both legality, as well as cultural stigma), is how the philosophical concept of self-reflection and identity relates to the psychedelic (and disassociative) experience. One characteristic of it - which makes many people claim benefits - is the depersonalization and deep disassociation that comes with it, and the ability to see and reflect upon own actions (and actions and identity of others) without personal attachment and getting rid of many cognitive filters. I won't claim any enlightenment or relate it to the philosophies or religions of Southasia like some do (partially due to actual similarities, and partially due to the history of counter-culture from the 60s), but it's definitely an interesting tool that goes beyond traditional philosophical dialectic - whether Hegelian slave-master dialectic, Sartre's look, etc. Are there any contemporary, serious philosopher academics that have written about this topic?
I'm often amazed at how little people "know thyself," no matter how accomplished. There are people who are cruel who think they are kind. It makes me worry that I might be as bad as they are. Colin McGinn still thinks he is a "good guy."
Dr. David R. Hawkins in one of his books wrote that the only true form of knowing is being. You can never know your true Self, because it's not an object that can be perceived. When you wake up in the morning, before the mind starts working and the "I" thought appears, you are. You are prior to the thoughts. In deep sleep, body and brain are inactive, so consciousness can not declare "I am", but when you wake up, you know you are, and that you also were in deep sleep. How to discover who you are? One method is through negation. You discard everything that is not you. Everything that is subject to change and can be observed. Body is constantly changing. Thoughts change, personality and character changes. You observe everything that changes and finally you ask the question: Who, or rather what, is the witness of this constant change? What does not change and is always there?
without having had listened further on, I feel like I have to disagree with Morrin (Moren?) here: i dont think the distinction between perceived and perceiver is as clear as they think, and really even if there is a clear distinction, the two play different roles and in that sense you can try and further your knowledge of yourself qua object. on the first point, im tempted to point to Robert Pippin's understanding of how Hegel is a successor to Kant's philosophy of the self: making the transcendental unity of apperception the key to Kant's philosophy, Hegel furthers this centrality of the "I" in the creation of the object by opposition to the self, by embracing the duality of self and object, but by making the object essentially the construct of the mind. so when i form an opinion about a purple mug, my own judgements of the purpleness and shape of the mug, or even my affective ties to said mug play an essential role in my perception and knowledge of it. in this sense, perceiver = perceived. concerning the second point, perceiving and being perceived are active and passive actions. understanding yourself is the active endeavour to furthering your knowledge about yourself as an object of knowledge. denoting the self as an object of knowledge here, i do not mean to say that self-knowledge is restricted to our attributes which do not act, rather that by attempting to understand ourselves, we impose our own paradigms of understanding onto ourselves and imagine (i think imagining ourselves is key here, because it is not a "true" object in the sense that is an extensive rendition of ourselves, but it is "true" in the sense that it adheres to our beliefs) ourselves both as recipients of actions, and as active agents, but always with the idea that we act and are acted upon through the criteria which we take for granted as "being" us. sorry if this was rambling and didnt make too much sense! love the thumbnail of the video btw
My inner philologist cringed at James's "sciousness." I got thinking about conscience being the french for consciousness, and decided that James should've used the word science, for this inwardlooking consciousness. Also, if one is a Star Wars nerd, this sounds like, "chissness," or the species being of Grand Admiral Thrawn's people.
I was in the marines. I know how to hunt and fish. I am a certified wilderness paramedic. I worked as a heavy equipment mechanic for five years. I owned a cafe in the city for ten years and i know how to cook. Now it’s time for me to explore the human condition before i begin this stupid van life journey i got talked into
Self-knowledge is a Hermetic quest (cf. "Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition" by the philosopher Glenn Alexander Magee). To know oneself means to understand oneself through all the various "layers of Being", formally classified in Hegel's Encyclopedia, namely (and put it simply) : to have a knowledge of Nature (Physics, Chemistry, Biology), but also to know one's own sociobiological, anthropological, psychological determinations (this is the realm of Subjective Spirit). Also, one has to know and understand one's own society, the Times we live in, and the world of Objective Spirit at large (Economics, Sociology, Politics, Geopolitics). Finally, the realm of Absolute Spirit (Art, Religion and Philosophy) reveals and manifests the Truth about oneself ("music is a reflection of Self", as Eminem says !), about others and about Spirit. And to know all these aspects, even vaguely, means to know God (the process of Being becoming conscious of itself). And to know oneself as God ! The reason why so many people fail to understand themselves (or the world) is because the knowledge about anthropology (namely : race-realism) has been left outside the sphere of "politically correct topics of discussion". But the sociobiological determinations of man are very important (cf. Spinoza and the unity of Man and Nature) in order to understand psychology, society, art and religion.
One thing to consider here is that we want to believe in you (both). There are people who believe in Trump. Is there perspective correct? Please continue to be who you are.
You two are a really good duo, like the two guys in the Car Talk on NPR. But, on TH-cam, your voice sounds squeezed, perhaps cutting off the lower frequency timbre. On podcasts, could hear the wonderful color of your voice with bass. When Professor personally makes an appearance, maybe, the lighting could be adjusted a little bit to draw out 3D features of your facade. Like a good actor, the presentation performance is really something. Professor Pena-Guzman sounds like using lots of high rising terminals. Is that from some holdover from his mother-tongue, or something else? Professor Anderson sounds like using a standard dialect, like Anderson Cooper.
I didn’t go to college and I’m not well read , yet I really enjoy this channel! For some odd reason now that I’m letting go of my self limiting beliefs Im really wanting to learn more and learn things I’ve never thought of before. I look forward to watching more of your videos ❤
It's rare for me to find a podcast that makes it into my regular rotation. Especially philosophy podcasts, as I have tried many and none have stuck. Just wanted to say this podcast has already became a must listen as soon as the episodes are released! Really enjoy your personalities and the way you're fusing classic philosophy with many modern topics.
I perceive David as intelligent, funny, and genuine. Ellie is badass smart and sweet. You both are doing great! The information has helped me make sense of things and question seemingly normal things in life (hyper individualism). Keep it up ❤
i appreciate the parts of your podcast where you fly off the cuff and apply your own individual perspectives in regard to another source. honestly this is what philosophizing is. ❤️ i dont know if you know yourself but you certainly know what you know.
David. I don't know you at all, and have only become acquainted with your productions during the last few days. But from the start I was impressed by both your and Ellie's relaxed manner - you both make philosophy fun but with underlying seriousness. And although you clearly have opinions, you don't push them - and that is how it should be. David; your perception of yourself is more accurate than the impression you think you give. Best wishes to you both.
You both guys show us how it is possible to talk about deep topics of philosophy in a funny, sharp, and contemporary way. Great work!!! 👍
I love this channel. I want to know more about philosophy and these conversations are great for helping me do that.
Thank you for featuring a primarily audio and text version for some of us who find audio podcasts problematic. ✌
I see Dave and Elle as "self-amused humour " meaning humour related to their chosen domain of philosophy within the context of their self. This rather than humour directed at others,, as would be mocking another rather than laughing with another. Both speak with legit academic knowledge of the subject at hand. The ghost of Ellie's past acting experience is alive in her enthusiastic manner. I can understand why she from time to time like to read Hegel. He is one of if not the greatest true scholars in and of the history of philosophy. One who enjoys real academic philosophy like Ellie certainly finds comfort in his high intellect.
I enjoyed the discussion around the complex of the 'self"., recently began to transfer thoughts over into a novel. The first paragraph opens with a stranger asking an older man a question. ( the scene is a large train station) . Then for three thousand words, the conversation is about the self ( not ego) and of perceptions of others towards the old man he has encountered along his journey. The young man's initial thoughts of the older man sparked off this train of thought. So I can see where Ellie is intending to write a whole book related to the self. As I can't leave it alone to get to the second chapter. The self is indeed a whole book.
Halfway into the podcast, I was about to start commenting as I could not help but think of Descartes and how he was very relevant to philosophical knowledge ... then bingo Ellie got into him so it calmed me through to the end. I very much agree with Davids's thumbs up to the philosopher who challenged Einstein and Descartes. One through philosophical meditation can indeed find that space of mind he is referring to. Thanks again!
As always, loved your podcast and the dynamics in your discussion. :) I learned about some names I wasn't very familiar with, despite my interest in (mostly continental) philosophy.
One topic that I sadly don't think could be discussed openly (due to both legality, as well as cultural stigma), is how the philosophical concept of self-reflection and identity relates to the psychedelic (and disassociative) experience.
One characteristic of it - which makes many people claim benefits - is the depersonalization and deep disassociation that comes with it, and the ability to see and reflect upon own actions (and actions and identity of others) without personal attachment and getting rid of many cognitive filters.
I won't claim any enlightenment or relate it to the philosophies or religions of Southasia like some do (partially due to actual similarities, and partially due to the history of counter-culture from the 60s), but it's definitely an interesting tool that goes beyond traditional philosophical dialectic - whether Hegelian slave-master dialectic, Sartre's look, etc.
Are there any contemporary, serious philosopher academics that have written about this topic?
We've got an episode for you
www.overthinkpodcast.com/episodes/episode-41
I'm often amazed at how little people "know thyself," no matter how accomplished. There are people who are cruel who think they are kind. It makes me worry that I might be as bad as they are. Colin McGinn still thinks he is a "good guy."
i love this podcast
Thank you 4 this! 🤔
I love you both so much!!😭❤️
Dr. David R. Hawkins in one of his books wrote that the only true form of knowing is being. You can never know your true Self, because it's not an object that can be perceived. When you wake up in the morning, before the mind starts working and the "I" thought appears, you are. You are prior to the thoughts. In deep sleep, body and brain are inactive, so consciousness can not declare "I am", but when you wake up, you know you are, and that you also were in deep sleep.
How to discover who you are? One method is through negation. You discard everything that is not you. Everything that is subject to change and can be observed. Body is constantly changing. Thoughts change, personality and character changes. You observe everything that changes and finally you ask the question: Who, or rather what, is the witness of this constant change? What does not change and is always there?
"Know of all thy self, darling," says my cat. I leave for a minute and he's tangled up in a ball of yarn on the floor.
Excellent presentation 🙂 Can you recommend an author who deals with the methodology of philosophy? That is, key terms in philosophy during research?
without having had listened further on, I feel like I have to disagree with Morrin (Moren?) here: i dont think the distinction between perceived and perceiver is as clear as they think, and really even if there is a clear distinction, the two play different roles and in that sense you can try and further your knowledge of yourself qua object. on the first point, im tempted to point to Robert Pippin's understanding of how Hegel is a successor to Kant's philosophy of the self: making the transcendental unity of apperception the key to Kant's philosophy, Hegel furthers this centrality of the "I" in the creation of the object by opposition to the self, by embracing the duality of self and object, but by making the object essentially the construct of the mind. so when i form an opinion about a purple mug, my own judgements of the purpleness and shape of the mug, or even my affective ties to said mug play an essential role in my perception and knowledge of it. in this sense, perceiver = perceived. concerning the second point, perceiving and being perceived are active and passive actions. understanding yourself is the active endeavour to furthering your knowledge about yourself as an object of knowledge. denoting the self as an object of knowledge here, i do not mean to say that self-knowledge is restricted to our attributes which do not act, rather that by attempting to understand ourselves, we impose our own paradigms of understanding onto ourselves and imagine (i think imagining ourselves is key here, because it is not a "true" object in the sense that is an extensive rendition of ourselves, but it is "true" in the sense that it adheres to our beliefs) ourselves both as recipients of actions, and as active agents, but always with the idea that we act and are acted upon through the criteria which we take for granted as "being" us. sorry if this was rambling and didnt make too much sense! love the thumbnail of the video btw
❤
My inner philologist cringed at James's "sciousness." I got thinking about conscience being the french for consciousness, and decided that James should've used the word science, for this inwardlooking consciousness. Also, if one is a Star Wars nerd, this sounds like, "chissness," or the species being of Grand Admiral Thrawn's people.
I was in the marines. I know how to hunt and fish. I am a certified wilderness paramedic. I worked as a heavy equipment mechanic for five years. I owned a cafe in the city for ten years and i know how to cook. Now it’s time for me to explore the human condition before i begin this stupid van life journey i got talked into
10/10 thumbnail
Wow... nurture minds}° Maiz Lingo: imagine creating a sentence out of a word ; then to rain upon your students.
Self-knowledge is a Hermetic quest (cf. "Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition" by the philosopher Glenn Alexander Magee). To know oneself means to understand oneself through all the various "layers of Being", formally classified in Hegel's Encyclopedia, namely (and put it simply) : to have a knowledge of Nature (Physics, Chemistry, Biology), but also to know one's own sociobiological, anthropological, psychological determinations (this is the realm of Subjective Spirit). Also, one has to know and understand one's own society, the Times we live in, and the world of Objective Spirit at large (Economics, Sociology, Politics, Geopolitics). Finally, the realm of Absolute Spirit (Art, Religion and Philosophy) reveals and manifests the Truth about oneself ("music is a reflection of Self", as Eminem says !), about others and about Spirit.
And to know all these aspects, even vaguely, means to know God (the process of Being becoming conscious of itself). And to know oneself as God !
The reason why so many people fail to understand themselves (or the world) is because the knowledge about anthropology (namely : race-realism) has been left outside the sphere of "politically correct topics of discussion". But the sociobiological determinations of man are very important (cf. Spinoza and the unity of Man and Nature) in order to understand psychology, society, art and religion.
One thing to consider here is that we want to believe in you (both). There are people who believe in Trump. Is there perspective correct? Please continue to be who you are.
You two are a really good duo, like the two guys in the Car Talk on NPR. But, on TH-cam, your voice sounds squeezed, perhaps cutting off the lower frequency timbre. On podcasts, could hear the wonderful color of your voice with bass. When Professor personally makes an appearance, maybe, the lighting could be adjusted a little bit to draw out 3D features of your facade. Like a good actor, the presentation performance is really something. Professor Pena-Guzman sounds like using lots of high rising terminals. Is that from some holdover from his mother-tongue, or something else? Professor Anderson sounds like using a standard dialect, like Anderson Cooper.