/lit/ - Literature

>>6384749
What's the one that you like the most?

Try out:

University of Oxford Philosophy Lectures
http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/podcasts

BBC In Our Time (Philosophy)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01f0vzr

>>6384749
>followed by every attack on that philosopher's character that our existing history allows.
That always bothers me.
>let's waste time and effort on the least interesting part of the philosopher so we can boost our own egos and stroke our ideological penises

>>6384754
Podcast wise, I haven't found any I really like.

Lecture wise, any of the many lecture series recorded and made available by Hubert Dryfus. He's a great communicator of complex ideas and is himself a well respected philosopher. It would probably be fair for me to say that I've learned more about philosophy from him than any other single person.
Also he's just a nice old dude so he's pleasant to listen to.

>>6384758
Thanks I'll check them out

Philosophy Bites
History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps
Free courses from Yale (Kagan's one on death is good), MIT, Berkeley, etc.

Yeah, partially examined life fucking sucks. Pretty sure it gained popularity by virtue of being the first to do it. I've noticed that most philosophy lectures are awful and spend most of the lecture on biography rather than the ideas.

>>6384790

If they're focusing mostly on biography that's because you're listening to a dumb topic like a 40 minute lecture on Locke.

>Every time rockets are brought up you don't have to hear the speaker go on a 3000 word tirade about the fact that Wernher Von Braun was a nazi, or have them ask you if this fact makes his work as the father of rockets questionable.
>Every time Being and Time is brought up you are morally required to listen to a 3000 word tirade about how heidegger was a nazi and you must ponder whether or not this makes his life work null.

This us just my most encountered example of this shit, but it happens with everyone who wrote even one not politically correct thing down in their notebook even if it was 500 years ago.

Since when is it the norm to assume that only people with your certain general moral sentiments can make intellectual advancements? Is this not the most anti intellectual meme that's ever been propagated in 'intellectual' circles?

Try the Joe Rogan Experience. That shit's bananas, son.

>>6384794
Are you saying Locke is a dumb topic or that 40 minute lectures on philosophers are dumb? Because I agree with the latter.

>>6384813
UFC, Fear Factor, and now a psychedelic guru.

I like making fun of the dude, but it is genuinly impressive that he manages to stay relevant without getting pathetic.

>>6384797
That isn't that way outside of the US and maybe some parts of the EU like France. In my ass backwards third world country anyone bringing that stuff up wouldn't even get refuted, people would stare at him as if he had just brought up their skateboarding skills.

>>6384830
Don't forget that he is/was a comedian and actor.

>>6384749

Stick to audio books. Rip the sound from newly posted lectures and old graphic-free documentaries and interesting hour long interviews from yesteryear.

>>6384831
Isn't it illegal in a handful of European countries to even deny the holocaust or fly a Nazi flag? Austria I know of at least.

>>6384838
Yeah, I mentioned France but the north is mostly like that. Still, in academic circles you can still discuss an author without caring about what he did in the 30's to 70's decades. Otherwise Germany would lose most of its star power.

>>6384797
For the most part, it's a reflex that people feel the need to voice in order to distance themselves from the "bad" idea (in this case Nazism). So if you talk to some lit students about Celine or Hamsun, occasionally somebody will say "he was a horrible person, but..." and this is a kind of distancing act. "I read him, but because of the way people are quick to make snap judgments, I want to assure you that I don't agree with his personal views."

With Heidegger it's a bit different. His work is not always enjoyable to read for people who don't read much ontological philosophy, so when confronted with his reputation as a great philosopher, they also have an opportunity to both dismiss him and champion themselves as "progressive" for doing so. He was horrible and there is a kind of childish reaction you have when you find out just how out of the way he went to abuse his power as a Nazi rector, but it is still a childish reaction in the sense that it says nothing about his philosophical work or readers or lecturers of his philosophical work, no matter how much some people may want it to.

>>6384797
To be fair, there is a slight difference between Science and Philosophy here.

Science is objective, a rocket designed by Hitler will fly just as well as a rocket made by Jesus (provided they have degrees in aerodynamical engineering or the like).

Their personal philosophy does not in any way the main characteristic of their rocket, i.e wether it can fly or not which after all comes down to pure numbers and equations detached from any opinions.

Philosophy however is in many ways entangled with feelings, the human condition etc. Its main characteristic is not clearly distinct from the opinions of its philosophers, at least not in a non-accademic setting. So the layman it makes sense to ask "Is this guy right or does he just want to justle me into his ideology?"

>>6384797

As much as I agree with you

>>6384890

This fellow raises a valid point. It's not as concrete a line as with science.

>>6384758
Is there an easy way to rip audio from the BBC site?

>>6384906
I use a Podcast app, but try this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/iot/all

That list includes non-Philosophy stuff, but it's the only link I could find for downloads.

>>6384749

I love them, personally. I don't know if you're a philosophy student but compared to the posturing, mysticism and ivory towering of most lecturers I've had, PEL are fantastic. They explain the philosophers as clearly (and faithfully) as they can, and argue its merits and flaws honestly from their own point of view, no matter how big the name is. They're always humble about it too. They claim no authority.

The moral character of a philosopher is an obvious part of a work's context which most people interested in philosophers agree is important to the field. Heidegger, for example, is not necessarily wrong about everything for being a nazi, but obviously it's worth discussing considering his work is an attempt at arguing for an understanding of the world and to a lesser degree how to act in it. It's not like he isn't given a run for the money either, considering one of the Seth was doing a phd on Heidegger before he dropped out of philosophy.

>>6384749
Philosophy Now has a pretty good podcast, usually specialist interviews, similar to, but more in depth than, In Our Time. Philosophy Bites is good, maybe better quality than Phi Now. Entitled Opinions is okay. I don't think PEL is all that bad. I don't take them as authorities; it's more like listening in on an informal discussion and borders on the entertainment side of infotainment, but has it's merits. I mean they're too simple and biased for you, but you ask for advice from a bunch of jackasses on here?

just get audiobooks of actual philosophy

better to half-understand something worthwhile than to fully understand something useless

>>6384906
Get some kind of soundwave editor (garage band is easiest, but shittiest. get cool edit pro and download the peter quistgard deetz/extractor files) and then set your recording settings to only record the soundcard, then stream and record. There's probably an easier way, but whatever. I don't listen to BBC stuff.

http://www.philosophizethis.org