2020-03-11
22 分钟Thanks to everyone out there that supports the show on Patreon, patreon.com, slash, philosophize this.
Thanks to the people that contribute what they want for the back catalog of the show on PayPal.
And thanks to everyone out there who's leaving a comment,
leaving a review, helping to keep philosophical conversations like this going between people.
Could never do this without you.
So we've talked multiple times on this show about this ongoing debate between 20th century political philosophers.
This specter that always seems to be looming of nature versus culture,
Socrates versus Protagoras, Rationalism versus Relativism.
These thinkers so often seem to be faced with a choice between the essentialism of the Enlightenment or the nihilism of later modernity.
But nonetheless, even after having this conversation so many times, there always still seems to be hope for us.
Because something no doubt every person listening to this as already considered by this point is,
why does it got to be one or the other?
I mean, this seems like a really easy problem to solve.
Why can't it be a little bit of both?
Why can't it be nature and culture?
Now, something it's important to understand is that it's one thing just to say that, you know,
to offer up that theory when you're having coffee with your friends and to get nods of approval
because it sounds so delightfully tolerant.
But it's quite another to be a philosopher sticking your entire career and reputation on it, and then beyond that,
trying to find a way to justify where exactly we should draw the lines between nature and culture.