Patterson in Pursuit

Do you see the world, or do you see your representation of the world? Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

What's the purpose of meditation? What is the nature of the mind? What is the nature of the self? I got to ask these questions to a Buddhist monk while in Chiang Mai, Thailand.   Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

The most popular resolution to Zeno's paradoxes is to say, "Calculus solves it!" But, as I've written and spoken about before, the logic of calculus might be dubious. Can we really complete an infinite series? My guest this week is Dr. Michael Huemer, who has recently written a book called Approaching Infinity, where he claims that the modern theory of infinities do need to be revised - that calculus does not solve Zeno's paradoxes - and that we have to distinguish between completable and non-completable infinities. Though Dr. Huemer and I disagree on the metaphysics of mathematics, and I have an even more radical position on infinities, we agree that more work needs to be done to place modern mathematics onto sounder footing. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

What's more likely: a precise description of an ambiguous world, or an ambiguous description of a precise world? This is the modernist fallacy: to think that conceptual blurriness correctly describes a blurry world. To me, this is silly and irrational. Ambiguous theories are flawed; they aren't positive arguments for "true ambiguity". Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

Postmodernist philosophy is famous for being paradoxical. Claims like "the truth is that there is no truth" or "everything is relative" are popular - especially among academics. Many proponents are even OK with explicit contradictions in their worldview. To me, a contradiction is a demonstration of error, and not caring about intellectual consistency is a sign of dogmatism and irrationalism. But according to Dr. Stephen Hicks, that's because I have a certain psychological response to contradictions. Postmodernists have a different psychological response, and so they aren't as bothered by inconsistency. Dr. Hicks thinks it's possible to be intellectually respectable while defending internally-inconsistent views. I don't think it's possible. What do you think? Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

Tai Chi master gets beat up by an MMA fighter; Chinese think it was "disrespectful" to demonstrate the truth - the Tai Chi master's "expertise" was a sham. This kind of thing happens all the time in the martial arts and in the world of ideas. "Masters" and "experts" are frequently convinced of their own knowledge and superiority - allthewhile being deluded about the basics of their own subject matter. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

This is my interview breakdown of Episode 33 - my conversation with Dr. Jody Azzouni about the metaphysics of mathematics. The first half of our conversation was about existence, the nature of language, and whether we can say true things about objects that don't exist. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

The economic principle is clear: you cannot borrow money indefinitely to pay your bills. Eventually, the bills come due. You can only delay the inevitable. This is a law of economics, and it applies to every country on earth, including the United States. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

What are the fundamentals of Zen Buddhism? What is the purpose of meditation, or zazen? Is the philosophy or the practice of Buddhism more important? I asked these questions to Keiho Nishigaki, the head monk at the Nan'yoji temple outside of Osaka, Japan. He was kind enough to work me through the basics, in addition to giving me a guided Zen meditation session. Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe

How fundamental is the conflict between science and religion? Is it true that the history of the church is filled with anti-intellectualism and the suppression of scientific inquiry? Is religious fundamentalism to blame for the tension between science and religion? I've got my own suspicions about these questions, but I decided to ask Dr. Peter Harrison, who teaches History at the University of Queensland. He specializes in the topic of "Science versus Religion". Get full access to Steve Patterson's Substack at stevepatterson.substack.com/subscribe