Skepticism Towards Forbidden Courses and Controversial Figures

13min Snip

00:00

Play full episode

Summary

Transcript

Episode notes

The chapter involves a conversation where skepticism is expressed towards the credibility of reported events and a particular author, with reflections on experiences at a forbidden course. It discusses branding a group as 'forbidden,' the lack of diversity at a university event, and characters like Peter Bogosian engaging in intellectual activities at the University of Austin. The narrative transitions to critiquing political views, satirical humor in publications, and touches on various topics like feminism, morality, and grand strategy.

We dig into the biggest rivalry in Tamler’s profession, analytic vs. continental philosophy. Are analytic philosophers truly the rigorous, precise, clear thinkers they take themselves to be? And is continental philosophy really just a bunch pretentious charlatans spouting French and German gibberish and writing obscure prose to mask the incoherence of their ideas? We look at a nice paper by Neil Levy that goes beyond the stereotypes and tries to describe and explain the differences between the two schools. Plus, The University of Austin (sic) is back in the news and we have a report from someone who attended one of their Forbidden Courses. This should be so easy but the article has us deeply conflicted about what to make fun of. [Important update: Trixie is on a 5 day streak of no accidents and is a perfect little sweet girl.]

Links:

An American Education: Notes from UATX by Noah Rawlings

Levy, N. (2003). Analytic and continental philosophy: Explaining the differences. Metaphilosophy, 34(3), 284-304.