Sunday, March 6, 2016


Plato’s Kitchen 2016 – Calendar and Facilitators

March 2        Mike--Proximity & Profundity (Yuval Harari Sapiens)

March 30     Chris--Science & Ethics  (Sam Harris The Moral Landscape)

April 27       Andrew--Teju Cole Open City

May 25         Charles--Josef Pieper Only the Lover Sings: Art and Contemplation

June 29         Terry

July 27          Dan

August 31     Paul

Sept. 28        Roy
Oct. 26          tbd

Nov. 30         tbd


Tuesday, October 20, 2015


Andrew will lead our October 28 discussion of two Books:

The Good Story: Exchanges on Truth, Fiction and Psychotherapy by J.M. Coetzee and Arabella Kurtz

Love and Lies: An Essay on Truthfulness, Deceit, and the Growth and Care of Erotic Love by Clancy Martin

Suggested focus is on Coetzee/Kurtz chapters 4-8, and Martin chapters 3-4.  PDF scans are in the PK DropBox.

Martin’s new book, Love and Lies: An Essay on Truthfulness, Deceit, and the Growth and Care of Erotic Love, is moving and funny but not, in my view, dark. It’s actually very optimistic, though maybe not in the way one would expect from a book about love. “To choose to fall in love is, we might think, in some way to fabricate or even to falsify love,” Martin writes. “But that’s the very notion I’m combating. I want to challenge the idea that love forces itself upon us with all the strength of truth.” He expands his argument by examining Plato, the Kama Sutra, Nietzsche, Freud, Adrienne Rich, Simone de Beauvoir, James Joyce, and dozens of others, as well as his memories of his personal experiences with his wife, two ex-wives, and three daughters. I asked Clancy some questions about love and lies via e-mail.

One of the quotes in your book is from Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche—“Love is mutual loneliness, and the deeper the loneliness, the deeper the love.”

     Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche recognizes that we are alone, and that the need for love is a mutual recognition that we are alone. Both the desire for and the desire to love—giving and receiving love—spring from this profound, unavoidable, so often avoided fact about human life. We are alone. I can’t get into your head and you can’t get into mine. Many of my memories and thoughts and feelings remain entirely private to me. But it is precisely this fact that informs our need for love. In some ways, the more I love you, the more urgent my need to know you and to reveal myself to you, the beloved, becomes, and so our separation becomes that much more intense. In Freudian terms, it’s as though we all desperately wish to climb back into the womb. And I don’t think we should underestimate the profundity of Freud’s insight on these questions, even though it’s the tired, tiring fashion lately to take him less seriously than we used to do.

     Adrienne Rich wrote that “the liar leads a life of unutterable loneliness,” and what she meant was, when we hide our thoughts and feelings from each other, we are interfering with the possibility of intimacy. I think there’s a lot of truth to that, in extreme cases. She also admits that the search for “the truth” about each other—whatever that might mean—has to be a gentle, tentative, slow, even furtive process. When we read a novel we feel less lonely, if it’s a good novel. Why? Because, despite the fact that it’s fiction—in a way, a pack of lies—we feel we are seeing into someone else’s mind. We feel, Ah! I’m not alone in feeling this way, in thinking this way, in suffering or enjoying or noticing this. For me, the process of growth in intimacy between people depends not so much on “truth” and “lie” as it does upon a kind of creative project of building love together, of writing the story, I suppose, of your relationship, your love affair, your marriage, and trying to write it together. When two people are each writing a totally different story, then the relationship falls apart—and we can all think of lots of examples of this. I do feel less alone when I am with my wife, when we’re talking, when we travel together, when we watch a movie together or read a book together—all the very, very fun things a couple can do together. But I also see that Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche is right. The deeper and deeper I fall in love with her, the better and better I know her, the more acutely conscious I am of the fact that she is ultimately unknowable to me, as I am to her, and I have to accept that. It hurts, but in a good way. It makes me want to take care of her, and I think it makes her want to take care of me.

Thursday, September 17, 2015


For me, there's no topic much more applicable, or interesting than the nature of belief. It hits at the core of issues in epistemology,  philosophy of mind, ethics, and psychology.  I have selected three readings for September 30th (see DropBox):

The first piece is a seminal piece for this topic, written in the late 1800's by British philosopher W.K. Clifford. The big idea is his axiom “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence.” I have included only the first section of this essay, The Ethics of Belief.

The second piece is often read in tandem with Clifford: William James' A Will To Believe. In this address to a Harvard audience, James is far less dogmatic than Clifford, holding that there are times when one must, in essence, choose her beliefs (i.e., in cases where evidence on both sides is insufficient). James held to philosophical pragmatism, the view that we choose our beliefs, essentially, based on what is convenient for us. 

Finally, there are a few pages by New Zealand philosopher Jonathan Bennett, underscoring the widely held contemporary view: one cannot chose to believe, because beliefs are involuntary psychological states of affairs. 

All the best, and I'll see you in two weeks.

Sunday, August 16, 2015


The Culture of Narcissism  -  Christopher Lasch, W. W. Norton & Co., 1979

“…the culture of competitive individualism …has carried the pursuit of happiness to the dead end of narcissistic pre-occupation with the self”.

“..the culture of narcissism … arises from the contradiction between the promise that we can “have it all” and the reality of our limitations.”

“…the devaluation of the past, superficially progressive and optimistic, proves on closer analysis to embody the despair of a society that cannot face the future”.

 “Everything conspires to encourage escapist solutions to the psychological problems of dependence, separation and individualism, and to discourage the moral realism that makes it possible for human beings to come to terms with existential constraints on power and freedom’.

“The best defenses against the terrors of existence are love, work and family life.  The best hope of emotional maturity appears to lie in recognition of our need for and dependence on people who nevertheless remain separate from ourselves and refuse to submit to our whims”.

“Narcissus drowns in his own reflection. The point of the story is not that he falls in love with himself but, never understanding that it is his reflection, he lacks any conception of the difference between himself and his surroundings.

Our discussion will focus on how well Lasch’s 1979 description fits culture and society in our time.  It is hard to argue that we do not live in a narcissistic society.  How much of this is intrinsic to human nature?  How much is it, as with the loss of reticence, the inevitable result of democracy, capitalism and science in a post-Nietzsche, post-Freud world?  To what extent do each of us feel and acknowledge that we are narcissistic?  Do we feel a sort of emptiness?  What can we do to gain more meaning in our lives?  Lasch says most of what we are doing is making matters worse.  Terry: how do we have an inner life that is not simply navel gazing?  Dan: is it about gaining Brooksian character?  Charles: is it about regaining reticence?

I recommend reading the whole book.  But if you are pressed for time, at least read the Preface, Chapters I and II, and the Afterward.   And, as always, feel free to post comments/emails in advance.  See you at Mike’s Wednesday 26th.


Tuesday, June 23, 2015


Our July reading is a carry-forward from 2013: Rochelle Gurstein’s “Repeal of Reticence” (1996).  I am suggesting chapters 9-11 (pp. 227-308), although Gurstein’s early chapters make an elegant historical case for why emotional subtlety, psychological reserve, and personal privacy claim a powerful place in our interior lives, in spite of the modern penchant for absolute disclosure. I invite you to read the excerpt without appeal to current politics or partisanship.

"Our public sphere, which should have displayed and preserved the grandeur and beauty of our civil ideals and moral excellences, is instead inane and vacuous when it is not utterly mean, ugly or indecent." 

                                                          -- Rochelle Gurstein, "Repeal of Reticence"