Overthink

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit overthinkpod.substack.comAre you paying attention when you scroll online? In episode 176 of Overthink, Ellie and David draw your attention to attention. They explain why attention is so hard to define and debate the extent to which it should be equated with consciousness. Is attention the same thing as consciousness? Or are there important differences between these concepts? They consider different ways that attention has been classified, from “overt vs. covert” to “effortful vs. effortless” to “voluntary vs. involuntary.” Ellie and David then discuss the commodification of attention and how it has been intensified by the digital era, or what Chris Hayes calls “the age of attention.” How has social media changed the way we attend to the world, to ourselves, and to others? Is our attention still our own? Or has it become alienated? In the Substack Bonus Segment, Ellie and David talk about Simone Weil’s and Iris Murdoch’s ethical approaches to attention.Works Discussed:Jelle Bruineberg, “Rethinking the cognitive foundations of the attention economy”Chris Hayes, The Sirens’ Call: How Attention Became the World’s Most Endangered ResourceWilliam James, The Principles of PsychologyCarlos Montemayor and Harry Haroutioun Haladjian, Consciousness, Attention, and Conscious AttentionThe Friends of Attention, Attensity! A Manifesto of the Attention Liberation MovementHighlight: Spontaneous thinking* Spontaneous thinking refers to what happens in your mind when you are just existing, not performing any particular task. This activates the default mode network in your brain, and you engage in many spontaneous thoughts; you are remembering things, thinking about your values, daydreaming, etc.* There is existential and cognitive value to spontaneous thinking, and it is important in consolidating a sense of self.* The attention economy, by constantly grabbing our attention, stops us from spending valuable time with ourselves. Doomscrolling doesn’t just waste time that we could have spent doing something, but also time where we could have done nothing.Related articles:

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?

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit overthinkpod.substack.com/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit overthinkpod.substack.comHow do new forms of social control under capitalism foreclose the possibility of social critique? In episode 156 of Overthink, Ellie and David take a deep dive into Herbert Marcuse’s 1964 classic, One-Dimensional Man. Marcuse analyzes how 1950s conformism narrows the private space of human thinking, turning us into one-dimensional beings. Your hosts talk about Marcuse’s diagnosis of life under capitalism, and his assessment of how analytic philosophy’s obsession with formal logic encourages conservatism and prevents us from subversive thought. In the Substack bonus segment, your hosts discuss what freedom looks like for Marcuse and how critical Marcuse would be of Overthink.Works Discussed:Herbert Marcuse, One-Dimensional ManStephen Whitfield, “Refusing Marcuse: 50 Years After One-Dimensional Man”Paul Mattick, “One Dimensional Man In Class Society”Highlight: False Needs* Marcuse writes about a classic Marxist distinction between real/vital needs and false needs* Real needs are objectively necessary for humans, e.g. food, shelter, and social contact* False needs include a new phone or clothing from a specific brand* The difference between real and false needs is not always evident to us* We just experience all our needs as the same type of need* Many of our false needs come from external forces that are serving other interests* Advertising for a company will make us want that object, which ultimately benefits the company and not us* Then, the false needs that have been fed to us distract from other, more substantive criticisms

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit overthinkpod.substack.comContent warning: this episode extensively discusses rape, sexual violence, and incest.In episode 154 of Overthink, Ellie and David talk to philosopher Manon Garcia about her book, Living with Men: Reflections on the Pelicot Trial. They discuss the rape case of Gisèle Pelicot and how the subsequent trial of her husband and fifty additional men sheds light on the normalization and acceptance of sexual violence in what is known as ‘rape culture.’ In what ways is the current understanding of consent as ‘permission giving’ harmful? How is heterosexual love often tied to objectification? Why does the ‘boys will be boys’ mentality make it difficult for us to rely on the criminal justice system? And how do we live with men knowing that cases such as these are incredibly common? In the Substack bonus segment, your hosts discuss the politics of language and the risk of eroticization in recounting stories of sexual violence, and they think through where we should go from here in terms of sexual and romantic attachments to men.Works Discussed:Manon Garcia, Living with Men: Reflections on the Pelicot TrialSimone de Beauvoir and Gisèle Halimi, Djamila BoupachaGo to Quince.com/overthink for free shipping on your orders and 365-day returns. Now available in Canada, too. Highlight: Contradiction of Strength versus Weakness* In the Pelicot trial, the defendants were characterized as both strong and weak in their defense* On the one hand, their desire to dominate a woman was portrayed as stereotypically masculine* On the other hand, a lot of the defense relied on their weakness, such as lack of intelligence, education, or maturity* Manon Garcia makes a comparison that the men are both like stallions and animals that cannot control themselves* Garcia also points out that “for them, the sexy they have with their wife, it’s fungible with raping an unconscious old lady” and questions how the defendants could even get aroused