History 7b - history podcast review

On a previous review I wrote about Berkeley's History 7B American History after the Civil War, came an anonymous comment criticizing the lecturer, Jennifer Burns, for being so general and so inaccurate in detail. I can see where this critique comes from and I have to admit that many of the lectures in the series were not exatly to my liking. The course did, however, open up American History for me, which previously was largely unknown to me.

Especially good were a couple of lectures about important court cases (see previous reviews in the list below) and also the last lectures, when Burns arrived at my life time, where I had many more references. This started with an excellent (in my humble opinion, but also according to DIY Scholar) lecture about Barry Goldwater. Although Goldwater lost the election to Lyndon B. Johnson and the conservatives he represented seem to be defeated, Burns shows this stream in American politics actually got reaffirmed, even if it took until the Reagan era to really gain power.

This is especially instructive, when you look at Europe, which I know so much better. Also on the old continent the old conservatives had to give way, for some time to a progressive elite, but the sentiments they represent seem to root so much deeper in the populace and eventually they rule most of the time. This goes for all of the countries in Europe I am familiar with. Also in Israel, ever since the rise of Menachem Begin, you can see a conservative nationalistic stream take power. General indeed. In accurate on details? Probably, but I feel I gained a lot of insight.

More History 7b:
American Civil Rights Movement,
Whittaker Chambers,
Scopes Trial,
US History - from Civil War to Present.

TED Lennart green

Here is the occasional tip from TED. This time illusionist Lennart Green from Sweden. Just for fun, but mark how casual he does his act. Reminds me a bit of Tommy Cooper.



More TED
Benjamin Zander,
Jill Bolte Taylor,
Karen Armstrong,
Ben Dunlap. (highly recommended)

7th son book 2 - J.C. Hutchins thriller review

Have I said I am not particularly fit for listening to fictional podcasts? Well, be that as it may,  J. C. Hutchins's podnovel and thriller 7th Son was a podcast I could not stop listening to. I have hundreds of podcasts on my playlist, many of which I want to review on this blog. 7th Son was already reviewed, but I simply could not stop listening to it. The thriller had taken me in and I spent a couple of days finishing book 1 and book 2. (legacy feed)(current feed)

It rarely happens anymore, I am so taken in with a podcast, that even when I am done reviewing it, I continue to listen. What is it with 7th son that did it? What makes it all the more a mystery is that neither am I too good at listening to fictional podcasts, I am not much of a fan of the SciFi and thriller genres. The thriller genre, however, works with cliffhangers, and if you are caught, the thriller is working for you. 7th son managed to catch me, surprise me, keep me engaged and what is most important, had me identify with the main characters.

The main characters are the seven men that one day find out they are clones and must set out to stop their original. Hutchins works the thriller masterfully and had me surprised on many instances, but also invested sufficiently in the psychology of the clones, especially the 7th clone. It should not come as a surprise therefore this listening sensation is going to be published as a book soon and a movie should be expected. In the mean time, I am on to book 3.

More narration and fiction podcasts:
7th Son - book 1,
Night's Knights,
New World Orders,
Namaste Stories,
Forgotten Classics,
Celtic Myth Podshow.

Regenerative Medicine - Stanford podcast review

Stanford has released the third podcast lecture series on the subject of Stem Cell Research and it is called: Replaceable You. This will be about regenerative medicine, which is more widely set up than the previous Stem Cells: Policy and Ethics and Straight talk about stem cell. This series consists of four two hour long lectures of which I have heard, so far, the first two. These lectures are given by a new lecturer: Professor Jill Helms.

This series until this point does in one way more and in one way less than the previous. Helms gives, at least until half way, much less attention to ethical and legal issues and seems intent on continuing to do so. She happily tries to assume that her whole audience is in favor of Stem Cell Research and get the normative angle off the table. As if being in favor means you are not interested in addressing ethics. That is a deception

On the other hand, she very effectively explains in a much wider range what Stem Cell Research means and this is where the lecture series is significantly adding to where professor Christopher Scott in the previous series left off. Stem Cell Research and technology are part of the scheme of regenerative medicine. In stead of supplying the maligned body with prostheses, or leaving it to heal itself, which mostly gives useless scar tissue, the goal is to allow man to grow anew, like newts that grow back entire limbs in case they lose them.

More bioethics:
Straight Talk about Stem Cell Research,
The Ethics of Stem Cell Research,
Human rights and the body,
Life and bio-engineering - podcast review,
Bioethics without Christ, please,
A useful map into Bio-Ethics,
Stem Cell Research: Science, Ethics, and Prospects,
Stem Cells - Biology and Politics.

Why don't I give ratings to podcasts?

There are several places where you can go for podcast reviews (directories, podcasts and blogs). A lot of those have a rating system, just as you see with reviews of books, movies and so many other products. On-line reviewing seems to beg for a rating system, yet I feel very uncomfortable to apply such over here. I cannot bring myself to use one and I think I must explain why.

There are enough relatively objective standards one could measure podcasts by. Audio quality can be very easily rated. One could give an indicator to represent the informative and entertainment value, but I think you cannot add these up. One element may compensate for the other. One element may be more important than the other, or so strong in particular situations, it saves (or ruins) the whole thing. Most of the university lectures have rather poor audio and little entertainment value, but they are so good. Most of the radio shows turned podcast, are great on audio levels and entertainment, but yet can be so bland and predictable, I feel they are not so good.

I have noticed, not just with myself, some podcasts do it for you. What is more, whatever podcast does it for me, may not do it for somebody else or even for me at another moment in time. What I am getting at is that podcast quality is fluid and when starting to compare, it becomes more fluidly so. I am so interested in history, I may enjoy a rather poor podcast in history more than an outstanding one about physics - or just the other way round, it may make me more critical of history podcasts and enjoy a rather mediocre on about physics. And for you it may be different in a whole range of other aspects.

However, when you read my impression, you can get a feel of what I like, you get an impression of what the podcast does and you will get an idea, enough idea I suppose, whether it is worthwhile for you to check the reviewed podcast out. And a rating of 4 out of 5, or 3.5 doesn't make any difference. Only, maybe, an extreme rating, but most of the time, you can't give them, otherwise the whole system is moot. So what remains are those that are trumped by the content of the review anyway. Hence, I concentrate on writing about podcasts, say about them what I have to say and leave it at that. That is all you need.

More about the blog:
About Anne is a Man,
What to write about a podcast?,
When do I write in my blog?,
When do I listen to podcasts?,
Time to start again.

Fear and Trembling - Kierkegaard

Several podcast have, over the last months, enhanced my interest in Kierkegaard's work. His existentialism, in which the individual experience is strongly valued, even if it goes against convention, common sense and; ethics as well, is not so easy to get a handle at, though.

The main source for this work and related stuff, to embed it properly, is Berkeley's lecture series Philosophy 7 (Existentialism in Literature and Film), but also this podcast is not so easy to handle. The lecturer, Hubert Dreyfus, is an adorable man, but he allows tangents to come up in class, strongly interacts with his students, whom we cannot hear and whose remarks he doesn't repeat. Worst of all, no matter how frequent he has delivered this course, he seems to be constantly in search of his quotes, and unable to find them at the right moment. So there is a stretch, in spite of the very rich content.

Other podcasts come to the rescue. I have noticed this many times before. University lecture series demand a certain entry level and proceed at high speed, but with some preparation one can keep up. For this series there is fine support material to be found with BBC's In Our Time (Kierkegaard stream) and also a recent issue from Philosophy Bites (Kierkegaard).

So what is it with Kierkegaard and his work Fear and Trembling? The main point is delivered with the story of Abraham who has to sacrifice Isaac. His conviction (or choice for that matter) to go out and do what God has asked of him, goes against all generalities of his symbolic universe. Isaac is his only son, so this is great loss. It goes against his family values, it goes against the values of his new religion and it goes against the promise of God, Isaac will be the father of a great people. In short, to have to sacrifice makes no sense at all and it is by all practical means the hardest thing to do. To believe it needs to be done and go and do it, is an act of pure faith. To have such faith requires immense deep conviction. To be able to make such a choice, demands the most intense existential drive. At the same time, this is totally personal, since it is bereft of all interest, logic or even justification.

To have such faith seems to Kierkegaard the greatest of things and I guess any one, would love to live his life with such strength. What, however, distinguishes this faith from sheer folly? How can you be sure that what you deeply and inexplicably feel is not madness. It could be plain psychosis in stead of true conviction, calling, or the voice of God for that matter. That is what makes it problematic. The podcasts won't solve it, but definitely help to grasp the complexity of this work.

More on Philosophy 7:
Hiroshima mon amour,
Existentialism - Philosophy 7

More In Our Time:
Tacitus,
John Donne (The Metaphysical Poets),
The Arab Conquests,
BBC's In Our Time (podcast review),
General review of In Our Time

More Philosophy Bites:
Machiavelli,
Rousseau,
Life on the Scales,
David Hume,
Several issues of Philosophy Bites.