Overthink

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit overthinkpod.substack.comAs Overthink comes to a close, why not take a look back? In Episode 182, Ellie and David tackle the concept of reflection and explain why it is so central to philosophy. What is the value of reflection, and what are its drawbacks? How does philosophy go astray when it treats the self as a product of reflection, and how can phenomenology and existentialism shed light on the proper role of reflection in our lives? Your hosts analyze the myth of Narcissus, discuss studies on reflection among animals such as rats and dolphins, and consider reflection as a visual metaphor for thinking. In the Substack bonus segment, Ellie and David reflect on Overthink and give some final thoughts before its end.Works Discussed:Ellie Anderson, Self-Relation: A Phenomenology of Ambiguity (forthcoming May 2027)Hans-Johann Glock, “Do Animals Have Thoughts?”Dieter Henrich, “Fichte’s Original Insight”Maurice Merleau-Ponty, The Phenomenology of PerceptionGabriel Marcel, The Mystery of BeingOvid, MetamorphosisDavid Peña-Guzmán, When Animals DreamJD Smith et al. “The uncertain response in the bottlenosed dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)”Highlight: Is reflection overvalued in philosophy?* Merleau-Ponty thinks that the way we reflect—as a subject looking out at a world that is distinct from it—is inconsistent with the way our experience works. There is no distinct subject, no private sphere of consciousness, in our everyday existence prior to reflection. Since philosophy, generally, emphasizes reflection, distance, and theoretical abstraction, the world of experiencing is often overlooked.* He calls this wrong view reflective analysis, and associates it with idealism—especially Kant and Descartes. He thinks that reflective analysis substitutes a reconstruction of experience for a description of it.* Philosophy, to Merleau-Ponty, should really be describing experience, not constructing it.

Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue! In this episode, Ellie and David talk about weddings. What kind of celebration is a wedding? And what social function do these festivities serve? Do weddings necessarily legitimize the institution of marriage? Or can weddings be dissociated from this legal institution and its problematic history? As they ponder these issues, your hosts walk you down the aisle of history by considering how early Christians developed their views about weddings by embracing some aspects of Roman weddings while rejecting others as vain and contrary to virtue. They also explore the meaning of weddings symbols that are still with us today and look at how weddings can challenge exclusionary nationalist ideologies. In the Substack bonus segment, Ellie and David talk about the weddings they’ve been to and discuss historical factors that shape our current conception of weddings.Works Discussed:Stephanie Coontz, Marriage, a HistoryLaurie Essig, Love, Inc.Arnold van Gennep, The Rites of PassageBrooke Leany, “Something borrowed: The origins of Christian wedding rituals.”Ellen Rothman, Hands and Hearts: A History of Courtship in AmericaLisa Schwarzbaum, “Mamdani, His Mother and a Movie of Prescient Grace”Jonathan Wolff, “The Value of Ceremonies”Highlight: Performance and Symbolism in Weddings* An aspect of weddings that Habermas discusses is fuss* Fuss is the idea that one purpose of a wedding is to be extravagant and ostentatious in a way that is meant to make a display of the event.* Another aspect is social drama* Social drama is the idea that, at a wedding, you don’t show up as your regular self, but as a persona, by wearing your best clothes, performing a specific role, etc.* Acknowledgement and discussion of these aspects reveals how weddings are performative and symbolic in nature.* Mira Nair’s film, Monsoon Wedding (2001), emphasizes the various performative and symbolic aspects that a wedding often has, and serves as a great example of the discussions that Ellie and David have in this episode. This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit overthinkpod.substack.com

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit overthinkpod.substack.comHello Overthinkers! We hope you enjoy another episode in our Closer Look format. We’d love to hear your thoughts about the episode and any questions or comments you have for Ellie and David :)What does it mean to say that the good life is a life of pleasure? Although you might think of champagne and caviar, Hellenistic philosopher Epicurus actually considered the good life to be more about appreciating the simple things in life and letting go of the things that bring us only temporary pleasure but lead to pain in the long run. Why has Epicureanism so often been misrepresented, and what did Epicurus really say? In episode 160 of Overthink, Ellie and David investigate the teachings of Epicurus in The Epicurus Reader. They explain his four-part cure on how to life a better life, including why we shouldn’t be worried about death. They also offer critiques on his view of justice and its lack of application to political life. How can attaining ataraxia lead us to achieving eudaimonia and living the good life? In the Substack bonus segment, your hosts elaborate on whether or not Epicurus’s argument that we should not fear death is convincing.Go to Quince.com/overthink for free shipping on your orders and 365-day returns.Works Discussed:Brad Inwood and Lloyd P. Gerson, The Epicurus Reader: Selected Writings and TestimoniaHighlight: Epicurus’s Four Part Cure* What’s good is easy to get* The good pleasure, or the absence of pain* What’s terrible is easy to endure* Do not add suffering to our pain; embrace life* Don’t worry about death* Don’t fear Gods or the gods in plural* Ellie and David discuss more about points 3 and 4 in the episode! Namely (1) why would we fear them in the first place and (2) how do we overcome that fear?