Reflections on PEL 2017 (Part One) by Partially Examined Life

To what extent has our podcast changed in reaction to current politics? Mark, Seth, Wes, and Dylan reflect back on our year, discuss how we select texts, and give some thumbnail sketches of potential topics.

Attention: Only the first 45 min of this discussion will be posted for the general public. If you like PEL at all, consider just becoming a PEL Citizen or supporting us via Patreon and get the whole thing now.

Want to hear future PEL episodes about Charlie Brown? Pink Floyd? Joan Didion? Neal Gaiman? Maybe more philosophy-adjacent texts following what we did with Darwin and The Wealth of Nations? Or quit with the pop culture already and get to Malebranche, Von Mises, and Mill!?

When we talk about something that isn’t philosophy, what are we doing exactly? Trying to pull out the philosophical issues, or treating literature qua literature and film qua film? Do we care what the author says about the work? If he or she denies any philosophical intentions, are we doing wrong by reading it into the work anyway?

Wes talks about his forays into film analysis (check out this, this, this, and especially this), Seth kvetches about the poor job modern movies do in treating philosophical issues, Mark talks about reactions to our American Indian episode (read the blog post on this), and Dylan explains the St. John’s way of treating any text intelligently.