PEL thread

nothing is perfect, but we should encourage people who are earnestly trying to become patrician in good faith, without any sarcasm or cynicism - if it gets more people interested in non scientism modern analytic positivism garbage, and makes fun of richard dawkins, then that's great new imo

3/5 bait

I really like these guys and have been listening to them for about five years now. Listening to a podcast does not mean you can skip reading the text. They aren't trying to be exhaustive. But it's interesting to read the selected work and listen to the podcast. It's great hearing other people grappling with the same problems you are confronted with.
And grappling is really the key word. These aren't professors who know the text well and are telling you about it, they are people who are usually unfamiliar with the text before the reading and you are getting their struggles with the text.

What does helpful mean to you in this context?

>"I only read two chapters of my translation"
That's because most of the big texts they read tackle multiple questions so they choose specific ones to discuss. Also Veeky Forumss completionist attitude towards non-fiction I find baffling.

>ton of episodes locked behind a paywall
Giving them less money a month than you would spend on a single coffee to get access to all of their podcasts plus all of their community is hardly a ripoff.

Rick Roderick's videos on there are god tier

youtube.com/watch?v=3uoWZ_ZYlEM

They just sort of guess at what the author was trying to say by parroting the different chapters/ translations they all read

I don't need that

I'm not telling them to stop, but there is no way I will waste any more of my time with their stuff

painfully accurate

>It's great hearing other people grappling with the same problems you are confronted with.

No, not really. Why not listen to people more learned so you can learn more?

lol they are just some guys that wanted to do philosophy for a living but thought better of it.

You can watch a lecture or read a secondary text that tells you how to interpret the problem but in doing so you are only avoiding having to learn to read and understand philosophical problems.
Philosophy is more than just an accumulation of facts. You will never get very far in philosophy if you rely on other people to tell you what a text means. What I like about PEL is that you can see other people attempting to do what you have to do when reading a text and you can learn from their learning.

If we take chess as an example you can read in a book this position as to being favorable to white or black. It might talk about pawn structure or open files, king safety etc. But all of this is just a pile of facts. How you actually learn to weigh a position is to do the thinking yourself otherwise you won't know anything that's actually useful in the game, you will just think you do. To be good at chess requires you to solve problems yourself. Secondary texts are important but they don't do the work for you. It is the same with philosophy.

t. mark or seth

ahaha

desu tho senpai, i agree with hope those niggas are on here, and if they are - you should do an episode on gass's blue book

entry level meme

this guy is the best youtube/podcast philosopher: youtube.com/user/johndavidebert

if you want something weirder, also check out Bob Dobbs (yep that one):
ionandbob.blogspot.com/