Search Episodes
Listen, Share, & Support
Listen to the latest episode
Subscribe via iTunes
Subscribe via RSS
Become a fan
Follow on Twitter

Support Us:

Please consider making a donation to help make this podcast possible. Any contribution, great or small, helps tremendously!

 
Subscribe to E-Mail Updates

Related Readings
  • Answers for Aristotle: How Science and Philosophy Can Lead Us to A More Meaningful Life
    Answers for Aristotle: How Science and Philosophy Can Lead Us to A More Meaningful Life
    by Massimo Pigliucci
  • Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk
    Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk
    by Massimo Pigliucci
  • Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science
    Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science
    by Massimo Pigliucci
Sunday
Oct292017

RS 196 - Eric Schwitzgebel on "Weird ideas and opaque minds"

Release date: October 29th, 2017

Eric Schwitzgebel

Philosopher Eric Schwitzgebel returns to the show to explore several related questions: His taxonomy of the three different styles of thinker -- "Truth," "Dare," and "Wonder" -- and whether one of them is better than the others. His case for why it's bad to interpret people "charitably." And his seemingly paradoxical claim that we are frequently wrong about our own conscious experience.

Eric's Pick: "Without Sanctuary: Lynching Photography in America" by James Allen

Eric's Blog: The Splintered Mind

Eric's Book: "Describing Inner Experience? Proponent Meets Skeptic" by Russell Hurlburt and Eric Schwitzgebel

Edited by Brent Silk

Music by Miracles of Modern Science

 

Full Transcripts 

Reader Comments (7)

Had to abort ....
Sorry Julia, you are losing me. Excrutiating overuse of the word "like" in every pause is making these podcasts impossible to enjoy. The answer is simple, s-l-o-w d-o-w-n and it all fades away. Intelligent discussions made "dumb" by overly hurried delivery.
Hoping this is constructive feedback?
October 30, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterSteve
Before listening to the episode, I got the vibe that this guy is another liberal professor who's going to offend some SJWs. And he did! He pissed off crazy people, who are like the second-last people you want to piss off after Muslims, because you don't know what they're gonna do. But you don't want to be too deferential to crazy and stupid people either, because, well, they're crazy and stupid.
October 31, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterMax
Hi! I've just recently started listening to the podcast and am enjoying it very much. I have just one comment about the name of the book the guest was trying to title. I am no author so I could not say if that was the best title possible but still I don't think it is offensive because he is not using it to accuse a group of people. There are many definitions to "crazy" and I doubt he is using it to say "a mentally impaired philosopher" but rather "an absurd philosopher". It would be offensive and inappropriate if someone (Dr. Phil comes to mind) says that a person with a real mental problem is "acting crazy" or is "nuts" because it is dismissive and negative. But if I start yelling incoherently and acting out of the ordinary because I'm mad at something, I think it would be fair to say "he's gone crazy." Calling a mentally impaired person crazy is insensitive because of all the negative images and stereotypes already associated with it, but if we just used it better, knowing all its possible meanings (Merriam-Webster also defines it as "full of cracks or flaws", which I think it's cool) there should not be a problem.
That's my thought but I'd like to see what others think.
October 31, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterDaniel
I liked this episode but was scratching my head at the very end. The "crazy spaghetti" mind (which is exactly the type of brain/mind that you would predict on natural selection), and whose ability to accurately self-report is questioned, is implied to be capable of determining a Moral Truth. That seems contradictory to me on a fundamental level. I know the guest said it was straying into an area too complicated to resolve at the end of the show, but I was struck by that contrast. Thanks for producing this show.
November 2, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterMBenson
That is very interesting podcast. Also, downloaded for later listening.

You got one more subscriber.
November 10, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterPawan
We activate services for https://goo.gl/DCK73A , installation and activate key for McAfee security products and to activate call toll free +1-855-550-9333
November 16, 2017 | Unregistered Commenteralex khushi
Julia seems to nail the philosopher type issue pretty well at about 9 minutes in. "Dare" philosophers are really just "shock philosophers" sort of like "shock jocks". Better to be BOTH a Truth AND Wonder philosopher, state what you see as true, but also admit any uncertainty as well as peculiar alternative possibilities. Overly charitable reading of philosophy from different times/cultures does present a problem. Perhaps just make a note of the difference. Maybe title your book "How to be a Zany/Unconventional Philosopher", since this would more accurately describe your work than "crazy".
November 21, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterJameson

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.