Overthink is a philosophy podcast featuring fresh takes on perennial themes. Hosted by professors Dr. Ellie Anderson (Pomona College) and Dr. David Peña-Guzmán (San Francisco State University), each episode does a deep dive explaining a key concept through accessible conversation and sassy humor. Overthink also often features other experts as guests.
Website: overthinkpodcast.com Facebook: facebook.com/Overthink-podcast-105420885026249 Apple podcasts: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/overthink/id1538249280?uo=4 Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/4aIlXHTDz5vrc78DyjFg66 Buzzsprout RSS: feeds.buzzsprout.com/1455199.rss Find us on Instagram and Twitter at @overthink_pod
Have you both explore samsara philosophy (buddhism and jainism) understanding of intensity. Just explore that escipally ancient nalanda university mahanaya thinkers .
A basic method of continental philosophy is the iceberg model of common sense. Another basic method of continental philosophy has a suspicion of representational theory of truth. However, it seems that the iceberg model embodies a representational theory of truth by holding that common sense reflects implicit beliefs and social structures, etc. So I must continental philosophy must be self-contradictory.
With respect, I would have preferred a reading of the Daodejing that takes into account its political and cultural context and its intended audience (political leaders/kings/warlords).
Daodejing 36 is, among other things, military advice to a leader. In order to expand (your rule) you first have to contract, as in gather your power. The last two lines fit well with the rest because they make the military context a little more obvious.
@00:30 My first time watching this channel, subbed. Thanks for explaining Hegel so clearly. Now I'm very shocked to discover Hegel's notion of Spirit revealing itself in time sounds very much like the medieval Christian notion of humanity being witness to the Logos unfolding itself. Very interesting, thanks for this!
The last two lines are parallel. The fish and the ruler must both be CAUTIOUS. The previous stanza established that failure follows strength. To display weapons is to invite war and one’s own death.
"Before receiving there must giving" might also be interpreted as: "in order for somebody to receive,first somebody else must give," i.e., as referring to an act that necessarily involves two agents
By presenting a series of oppositions, Lao Tze implies a flux, from one state to another, and change as the only constant. By extension, at the 'middle' of a given flux, one must be neither one nor the other; in other words, 'nothing', which is otherwise difficult to express or define. I think of this as analogous to the mathematical concept of limits, where zero or infinity can only ever be approached, but never reached.
Question: does he suggest that the "middle" has a value? For example, is it the same thing that the ancient Greeks thought of as "moderation in all things", which they saw as the most desirable state of mind? Or is it more like a mathematical concept, like "the average of a set of numbers"?
Makes me think of people who virtue signal. They may not fully believe what they are virtue signaling, but more than likely, they are doing so to appease whatever group they are a part of. When one does this, they lose their dignity because they are acting in an inauthentic way to get approval from society to feel a sense of validation and worth. The meaning of their existence is based on the virtues espoused by someone else and not their own values.
This interaction was wild to me. In the video's intro, they talk about how part of the purpose of this video is to show you their thought process when they hear an aphorism. Then, presenter 1 reads part of the aphorism to presenter 2. Presenter 2 gives their thought process on interpreting the quotation. Presenter 1 basically says, "Nope, not correct. You know why? Because of this other translation that I didn't read." Presenter 2 says that they were providing their thought process regarding the initial quote provided. Presenter 1 gets defensive and says that's why they read the alternative translation. Why not just give the alternative translation from the outset? Seems like presenter 1 wanted to have a "gotcha" moment or something. Maybe I'm reading too much into this and the two have a way of communicating that is foreign to me. But, at best it seemed to lack tact. At worst it seemed rude and dishonest. At any rate, big fan of their solo content.
Hahaha I agree. About midway through I kind-of caught on to this sense of self-emphasis on their individual perspectives on the text, rather than it being a productive, dialectic conversation about what the texts imply on a broader nature. But I suppose such is the nature of an ‘unprepared’ discussion as they prefaced. This video seemed more like a raw conversation between two intellectual friends simply sharing their thoughts
I'm excited to see you cover more philosophers across traditions!! Curious if you plan to cover Fernando Pessoa's writings! There's some recent philosophical work on Pessoa by Jonardon Ganeri, Bartholomew Ryan, and others. Also Leo Strauss's theologico-political problem - something I've been thinking about of late.
Dear Professor Thank you for your valuable tips on how to approach reading philosophical texts. I found them very insightful. However, I noticed that one important aspect was not mentioned: the significance of understanding the political and societal context of the time in which the philosopher lived. I believe that considering these dimensions can greatly enhance our comprehension of the philosopher's ideas and arguments, as they are often deeply influenced by the issues and challenges of their era.
Just one simple critique of the Aristotelean distinction between matter and form by Merleau Ponty uprooted and exposed what I had unwittingly accepted as the totality of perception. Merleau Ponty is like therapy for those of us in the western intellectual tradition who state truth claims without considering epistemic humility. Thank you.
Can you please explore this question : Is there any possibility of existence as to where a unique tupe of Electromagnetic radiation comnects the local " component (?)within our brains to the non-local conscious somewhere in the universe? As this type of field, could also be characterized as a "subcarrier" ( physics and electrical engineering).
Episode covers a lot of interesting ground (so to speak), though much of the discussion hinges on "social scripts," which (in my unsolicited opinion) is fine and works well enough. I am curious how meaningful that term is without exposure to Saussure, semiotics, and structuralism (and maybe even Bourdieu and his conception of semiotic fields). Maybe you have covered these topics in earlier episodes, but the discussion might serve to support an understanding of this pivotal term. At one point I was in the awkward situtation you mention of trying to pass someone on the street or in a corridor, where I was heading in the opposite direction of another person and, in trying to avoid one another's progress, we inadvertently kept stepping in each other's way, until we stopped, smiled (awkwardly) and gestured with our hands which way we intended to go before doing so. The funny thing was, in this one encounter, the person I had this experience with smiled and said, "It was a pleasure dancing with you." This brought a smile to my face, widened theirs, and they managed to turn the awkward situation into a chance and passing pleasantry. While this could be an example of improvisation that is discussed, my best speculation as to why it dispelled awkwardness beyond the person's "charisma" is because they were able to contextualize our activity into terms that roughly associated to our encounter... the fact that it went from a "me/them" situation into an "our" is likely also significant. Thanks for your fine work here
I would like it if you did a video on the Pre Socratics and things like figure/ground and the Anaximander fragment. Do you think that the dialectic of Hegel and the figure/ground thinking of Dasein are integrally related?
Very interesting to hear about this imbalance because as an architect I have had a (superficial) contact with mostly continental philosophy. Every architect has heard of Heidegger, Bachelard and Foucault, but not necessarily of analytical philosophers. I assume that is partly because we consider perception more important than logic.
I just found this podcast today as I prepare to teach on deconstructionism. Very well done and helpful! I wonder if you have considered doing a video on Theological Aesthetics? It's an area I'm passionate about and there just isn't enough out there on the topic!
