Episode 330: A Fact-Based Podcast (Gogol's "The Overcoat")

Introduction

0:00Very Bad Wizards is a podcast with a philosopher, my dad, and psychologist Dave Pizarro, having an informal discussion about issues in science and ethics. Please note that the discussion contains bad words that I'm not allowed to say, and knowing my dad, some very inappropriate jokes. You did the right thing. No, I didn't. The thing I thought was right, but not what people think is right. Well, maybe you're turning into people. But I don't want to be people.

0:30The Great Enhoss has spoken.

0:35Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

0:43Who are you? Who are you? I'm a very bad man. I'm a very good man. Good man.

0:54They think deep thoughts, and with no more brains than you have. Pay no attention to that man.

1:05Anybody can have a brain.

1:09You're a very bad man. I'm a very good man. Just a very bad wizard.

VBW Madness

1:16Welcome to Very Bad Wizards. I'm Tamler Summers from the University of Houston. Dave, your boy Luca is hurt, so there's only one contest for you to care about now. VBW Madness. The final four topics for our listener-selected episodes. We're down to that. And it looks like Solaris is going to take down Apocalypse Now, and Invisible Cities is grinding out a win against Cormac McCarthy's last two books. So let me ask you, who you got? Well, let me say that I would have predicted not this.

1:49I know. I would have predicted the opposite. Me too. Man, it's so close. I think my money's on Solaris, and for the only reason that I think that our listeners really want to make us do more shit than we are prepared to do. I think the fact that Solaris beat Apocalypse Now means it'll probably beat Invisible Cities. I kind of agree with you. But there is one irregularity that there's nothing I can really do, but I forget which one this is true of.

2:22But one of them, I think it's the Solaris Apocalypse Now. I mistakenly made it a free post for everybody instead of just for our $10 and up. So there's way more votes for that than for the others are like at $150, and this one's at like $300. I can split them by tier so we can see if there are these class differences. Yeah, right. Like the Russian rank system. Exactly. All the free people who voted are like titular counselors.

2:52Yeah. So speaking of that, one of the benefits of getting knocked out of the VBW Madness tournament is you go back into the pile of things that we might choose to do anyway.

Gogol's The Overcoat

3:04And today, the winner of that contest is Gogol's The Overcoat. Nikolai Gogol's just kind of indescribable, weird, and really fun and at times beautiful story. So that's what we'll talk about in the second segment. But first. But first. Philosophy. Philosophy. See, I thought you'd be super happy. Like you'd be just like so excited to get to our opening paper because the opening paper that we are going to talk about is by Brian Francis.

3:35Do you know who that is at all? Hadjever. I don't. So, Philosopher's Forthcoming in Philosophical Studies, so it says. Which is, yeah. It's good, right? It's a very good journal. Like, I tried to publish a lot of my work, you know, back when I wrote articles in Phil Studies. Never got one in. Yeah. This got in, though. Brian has something on you then.

Fact-Based Discipline

3:56Philosophy as fact-based discipline. Colon. 200 philosophical facts. Look, we've been just going to town on a bunch of psych studies for the last, you know, 10 years or really since we started. You know, and probably more just because there are more of them and they're usually more interesting than philosophy. But the last two weeks, okay, now we're aiming our satirical laser at my own discipline. And, you know, whatever my problems with the last article was,

4:31the, you know, monogamy is impermissible paper, there was something about that one that, like I said, it might read at times like an alien reporting on, like, human race. There was something, if not joyous about it, that's probably too strong, but benevolent about that paper. So, like, I feel like it was good-natured fun that we were doing, maybe even if it didn't sound like that. This one, though, is just, like, I don't even know what to say about this. Like, when you put this in Slack, I was like, I don't know where to begin with this.

5:04It's a paper that is sanctimonious and, like, kind of very proud of the profession of philosophy. And it combines those traits, the kind of sanctimonious, the kind of, look, I'm not going to be ashamed of the fact that we are a fact-based discipline. And then when you actually look at the facts, it's just mind-boggling. It's just like the dumbest fucking thing. And then to combine this kind of attitude of I'm better than you, I honestly, like, I was, like, my mouth was, like, hanging open.

5:34I couldn't fucking believe it. Like, it's crazy. I don't know what to say about it almost. What did you think? It's pretty amazing. Yeah. I mean, I had thoughts. Like, I thought this was a SoCal hoax. Yes. Do you think it might be? I don't think so. I feel like people aren't doing that as much because who is this mocking? The people I would want to mock, maybe. But I would think this is too unfair. Yeah. Okay. I want to read the intro. Yeah. Set the context. So it starts off by saying, I'm probably the only philosopher in the world who holds,

6:06one, that there's tremendous agreement amongst philosophers on the truth values of many substantive philosophical claims. Two, there is enormous fact-based progress in philosophy. Three, philosophers frequently succeed in the aim to acquire communal knowledge of substantive philosophical truths. And four, there's plenty of genuine philosophical expertise regarding the truth values of substantive philosophical claims. It's not dissimilar to something I sometimes say about morality, where, like, you say, oh, look, there's a lot of disagreement, like, but that's what gets the press. Like, most people agree on a whole bunch about morality.

6:37I don't know that it works for this. But more importantly, I'm confused as to whether he thinks, but, like, does he think these are

Expert Testimony

6:45the result of philosophy? Because it just sounds like some pretty basic assumptions that you need to make to, you know. Just like have a language. To have a language. And I want to be clear, because he says, in the appendix, I list 200 straightforward facts directly about philosophical matters that virtually all philosophers know and non-philosophers don't know. So, what we're about to read are facts that virtually all philosophers know, but then non-philosophers don't know.

7:16So, it's probably, you know, like, you could imagine someone doing this for physics, and they would talk about some fact about the theory of general relativity, where they all know it, they're physics professors or whatever, experts, and we don't, because we're not, right? So, these are the ones, just to give you a flavor of some of the philosophical facts, beliefs can be positive, negative, trivial, controversial, silly, serious, short-term, long-term, and concern just about any topic. Most people don't know that.

7:47Some beliefs are true, while others are false. That's one that ordinary, like, people really have no idea. You need to be, like, in an upper-level philosophy class to learn that. Okay, evidence can be positive or negative. Positive evidence for a belief B is evidence that suggests B is true. Negative evidence regarding B is evidence that suggests B is false. It's sometimes called counter-evidence. Oh, thank you, thank you. I was wondering, does he mean counter-evidence? Ah, it is sometimes called counter-evidence.

8:17People use that word, and I just, like, I never knew what it was until, you know, like, my third year of grad school. Which, isn't that just a definition? Yes. There's so many that are just, like, this is fact number eight. One's overall evidence is the combination of all one's evidence regarding that belief. Eh, disagree, disagree. Well, you just don't know. Like, you're not a philosopher. Oh, damn it. You got me. I thought overall meant half.

8:48I thought it meant, like, a third of all your evidence. What gets me, by the way, already for some of them, is the very uncharacteristic use of, like, fuzzy language. Like, for the first one, beliefs can concern just about any topic. Yeah. It's like, that seems like something's so non-analytic to say. Right. Like, just about, he does address that earlier, so we can go back and read that. But, of course, yeah. But that's exactly, like, why, I honestly think, you know, there's probably 70 of these that are just basic tautological truths about language that, of course, everybody knows that because they speak English.

9:30And then there's some like this. One person can doubt what another believes, another disbelieves, another wonders about, another assumes, et cetera. Like, what would it be to not know this fact? Like, what kind of, like, mental state would you have to be to deny or just not know whether one person can doubt what another person believes or disbelieves? It's super weird. It's like, you have to be in a coma to not, like, say, well, yeah, sure, but why are you saying that? Yeah. And he doesn't just mean that we're incapable of explicitly declaring what it is that we believe.

10:06Yeah. Like, he just thinks that this is something that you don't believe until you get the sufficient training. And that these are the building blocks on which philosophy works. Again, and that most people don't know. A belief can be neither practically useful nor evidentially rational. Yeah, obviously. Right. In some cases, suspension of judgment is temporary. Other times it is permanent or nearly so. Or nearly so. There's so many of those things, too, because I think what he's really worried about is people responding to him with.

10:40You like counter arguments? Yeah. And so, like, he caveats a lot of these, like, even well beyond where they would need to be just to avoid that. But, like, at the expense of a lot of them with the stuff with evidence, it's like, you don't have to be a philosopher. I mean, you don't have to be anybody. You don't have to be a scientist. You don't have to be anything. Yeah. Here's a – this is fact 108. And I just, like, I can't believe this is serious. Like, I like your so-called thing. I think it might be that. So, this is fact 108 that virtually all philosophers know, but most people don't know.

11:14One of the most important things about expert testimony is this. You need to figure out what testimony is trustworthy. Roughly put, testimony is trustworthy when it is reliably right. But it's just, like, again, so many of these things are just true because of the structure of the English language. Like, these are what those words mean. Right. And in some cases, he'll say, like, on one reading of this word. Yeah. And then he'll give it.

11:44Like, on one common sense usage of it. This is like, you know, like Russell and Whitehead tried to provide, like, a foundational basis for all of logic. Yeah. Except for, this is, like, the bizarro version of it where, like, they took, like, 300 pages to prove one equals one. And this guy's just spitting out 200. How far we've fallen. It's the anti-progress. This is fact 104. This is a fact that you have to take philosophy classes to know. Oh, God. This one killed me. In order to separate the true experts from the people who only think they are experts, it's often helpful to look at their credentials.

12:20Do they have a master's degree or PhD in the relevant field? Do they do actual research that gets published in professional peer-reviewed journals? I hope you've learned that from me. Maybe some of, like, but that I didn't really get until, like, a super advanced, like, third-year course that is, like, 70% of people fail. You have to first just ask, like, do they have a master's or a PhD? And then, hi, what about, like, peer-reviewed journals? If they don't, do they often cite and thoroughly discuss research published in professional peer-reviewed journals when making claims they say they have expertise on?

12:58This has nothing to do with philosophy. He's giving you an out. Like, look, I'm not saying you had to have a PhD or, like, or publish yourself. But, like, when you're writing whatever paper you're writing that requires citations, are you citing me specifically? Like, yeah. Which, by the way, what an insular little bubble to live in where you can't say that, like, some fucking bushman in the Kalahari who knows how to collect water in, like, the otherwise arid, terrible, like, environment of a desert, that you can't call him an expert.

13:29Well, no, you can. You have to first figure out, does he have an MA or a PhD in the field? When he's offering me some sweet elixir of life, I'm going to be like, do you at least cite peer-reviewed people? I can't take it. It's also just, it can't be stressed. Like, this has nothing to do with philosophy. No. What epistemology class do they teach you? Just check if they have an MA or a PhD, and then, you know, like, are they citing people enough? Then he'll go on these, like, little benders of having, like, four or five in a row that are all the same.

14:04Yeah. So, like, the next ones are, like, one tricky problem with expert testimonial evidence is that just because someone's an expert in one domain doesn't mean they're an expert in other domains, even closely related ones. That's 105. 106. One tricky problem with expert testimonial evidence is that for some culturally sensitive topics, we can be fooled into not asking or actively ignoring the relevant genuine experts. Wait a minute. Is this AI? I don't think so. Those two, one tricky problem with, like, you can't see chat GBT spitting that out. I don't think so. But that's the ideological one is the second one.

14:36One tricky problem with expert testimony is that for some culturally sensitive topics, we can be fooled into not asking or actively ignoring the relevant. He's asking about race and IQ. Race scientists, yeah. We can be tricked into actively ignoring them. Yeah. In spite of their MAs. In, like, phrenology. I'm surprised he didn't, like, add after that MAs or PhDs that, like, ranking schools is important. Yeah.

15:06Right, right.

15:09Yeah, it sucks for him that you're at Cornell and you have these problems. And then there's ones that are just kind of weird and, like, almost, like, meant to be a pep talk or inspirational in some way. Even when you are following the beliefs or advice of someone you consider an expert, you usually are still the one in charge, being autonomous and holding the reins of your intellectual life since you are the one choosing which experts to follow, if any. This is like getting to self-help levels.

15:40I'm in charge. I'm in charge. Okay, good. I'm in charge. I still hold the reins of my intellectual life. Like, what the fuck is that? So, a while ago, you know, when we were talking about, what's his name, Fraudster from the Netherlands. Oh, Stapel? Stapel, yeah. We were talking about how, like, he sat down with, like, a glass of wine and just, like, a blank sheet of Excel and, like, just started punching numbers in. Which is better than all this p-hacking stuff. So, like, I didn't think that there could be an analog in philosophy of just opening up a spreadsheet and typing things in with a glass of wine.

16:18But it seems like he was like, all right, you got to get 200 of these, cracks his knuckles, pours himself a Merlot, and just starts typing. Yeah, but, like, it's almost weirder than that. Like, his thing was like, okay, I get it. Like, he's fabricating data to, like, get published and get grants and all of that. Like, I don't totally get what this is. You know, most of them are true by definition. Some are just weirdly reflective and caveated to death. And some of them are attempts at gatekeeping, I guess.

16:48There's no real rhyme or reason to it. And it's just astonishing to me that these are presented as facts that virtually all philosophers know. Like, I don't think there's a single one that that could be true of. Virtually all philosophers know and most non-philosophers don't know. Like, I don't know. Is there a single one where that's actually true? Well, you know, MAs and PhDs. I guess you wouldn't know, right? Yeah, that's true. I don't know. So, I guess one of the things that confuses me is that he doesn't think that this is the output of years of philosophy.

Philosophy vs Science

17:22He just thinks that these are the foundational facts that philosophers use. Because, like, he's not arguing that these are the things that, through the philosophical method, we've arrived at as facts, right? It's not like science in that, well, we didn't used to know water was H2O, but now we do because we did science. Well, I think he does want to say that. Because some of them are like 126, in order to be respectful in a disagreement, which often will make it much more pleasant, efficient, and illuminating for everyone, you can do two things. One negative and one positive. A, do not get angry or mock, belittle, misconstruer, or insult those who disagree with you.

17:55B, soften the blow by emphasizing to them one or more positive features of their false beliefs. That's what Socrates would always do. Yeah, I think it was David Lewis in 1983. It's also so not, like, what philosophers would do. I know, yeah. They're the most vicious sons of bitches in the whole world, like, looking to, like, tear down the person up there. If you attempt to morally justify your action, A. I love how he has to say that. Yeah, yeah. That's the true contribution to philosophers, is to just add letters for no reason.

18:29I know, yeah. If you, at T1, attempt to just, then you are typically trying to point out the good moral basis you have doing A.

18:39I mean, like, you probably, your little non-philosopher mind probably can't fully comprehend that. Exactly. Yeah. Or Adderall. I could see that it would be kind of blowing your mind. So, in terms of, like, what you just said as to, he's not trying to claim it's like, oh, we didn't know water was H2O and now we do. Yeah, yeah. He says, I think contrary to that, he says, because the facts are more or less hidden, the facts are hidden, we miss the similarities of philosophy to hard sciences.

19:09Although there is longstanding disagreement on many philosophical matters, the same feature is found in physics. Physicists could construct a pole similar to the Phil Papers one in such a way that it would show profound disagreement in physics. Even so, many philosophers would respond that although there is serious disagreement in physics, philosophy is different in that there is so little agreement. And so, these 200 facts are meant to kind of respond to that. But again, unlike the physics analogy, there are not facts that any normal person wouldn't know for the most part.

19:44And there's definitely not facts that are taught only to philosophers. Like, you only have to be this initiate in order to understand them. Like, they're usually not taught at all. Yeah. I think at some point he says, well, like, wouldn't it be crazy if, like, science textbooks started off by just talking about all the things they disagree with? But no, they don't. They start with, like, all of the things that we know for sure. Why don't philosophy textbooks start this way? Like, in some ways, this is the more alien piece because I think we occupy, like, a different understanding of the things you call facts, the things you think philosophers know and non-philosophers don't know, the way you present arguments.

20:25It's weird. We should read his response to my big issue, which is that non-philosophers don't know this. So, he says, many philosophers will balk at ignorance. He does this thing where he capitalizes, like, six words, and those are his theses. And ignorance is the one that most non-philosophers don't know these facts. The alleged problem with ignorance isn't that it's vague with its targeting the moderately educated adult, which allows for quite a bit of a range. No, that's not the issue.

20:56Philosophers are often quantifying over vaguely defined groups of adults. Again, that wasn't the issue. Instead, the problem is supposed to be that a clear majority of those moderately educated adult non-philosophers are easily disposed to accept virtually all of my 200 claims if just prompted. So, ignorance capital is false, the thesis. And, see, this is more philosophy. If ignorance is false, then the transition mentioned in epistemic and practical happens in few moderately educated adults.

21:29And so, these theses are mostly inapplicable, even if true. Okay. I'm sorry to say it, but the objection to ignorance is inaccurate. Usually wildly so. Wildly inaccurate, this objection. In order to get a handle on ignorance, epistemic, practical, consider an apt analogy. Alex is ignorant of the majority of differences amongst depression, trauma, stress, anxiety, and sadness. These are distinct states, but she is clueless about their important differences. She is depressed and traumatized, stressed, anxious, sad, pretty much like most people do with partial facility.

22:05She definitely expresses some truths, such as, Joe is pretty sad this week. However, she doesn't have the five distinct conceptions in her mind under one reading of conception. If she, I don't know what that's all about. So, that's the analogy that, like, you know, someone who might use the word depressed or whatever in all these ways. But that's just, well, A, I doubt that it's that clear cut how to separate all those things, for one thing, right? Yeah, like, I don't even, where do I even start? So, assuming that there are clear cut ways, then, okay, cool.

22:38Then you could just literally insert any fact and, like, it would be doing some work. You could insert any five, like, you know, do you know the difference between nimbus clouds, cumulonimbus clouds, cirrus clouds? You know, some people will just look up and say clouds. So, yeah, of course, that's true. But, like, how, by analogy, does this have anything to do with the quality of these 200 things that are... And here's another. The two cases, philosophy and baseball, are similar. Any baseball fan has a partial grasp of what the stats slugging percentage for hitters and earned run average for pitchers are.

23:09It's like, no, anyone who uses those terms knows exactly what those are. This is a terrible analogy. This is, it's a correct analogy for your thing, but not. But when you talk to them about those stats, you realize their grasp of them is surprisingly weak. Despite the fact that they can often talk competently and informatively using the vocabulary and some familiar... Who talks about ERA without knowing that ERA has, like, earned runs over nine innings? Like, who doesn't know that? There's also, like, of all the problems, too, calling this list of things facts offends me in just other ways.

23:45Because a lot of them are just, like, just sort of normative advice stuff. We're like, so 175 through 191 all start off as useful rule, colon. Don't forget the fact that one's evidence is sometimes, in key cases, unrepresentative. Useful rule. Don't make mistake making quick judgments on one's immediate evidence for having a good basis for belief. Useful rule. Like, those aren't facts. If it's a useful rule, it's a fact. It might be a fact that it is a useful rule.

24:16Yeah. Well, that's all he's claiming.

24:20But a rule is not a fact. I mean, here's one also like that. Open-mindedness is often a good thing because it allows us to acquire new, useful knowledge. But it has to be used carefully as it can easily lead to our agreeing to false beliefs, too. This is analogous to someone who doesn't get the difference between trauma and anxiety. Or, like, honestly, like, I feel like we're being mean to it. But, you know. I was talking to two philosophers about this and that we were going to talk about it. And Sean Nichols said, don't be mean.

24:51But, like, come on. This is good for Brian Francis. We're engaging. We're engaging with the relevant literature. Because you know why? You, at least, my friend, have a PhD in philosophy. And you know. Yeah. I mean, I think, like, the hard part for him is that I, as a philosopher, have some problems with this. Because, I don't know. I looked at your CV. I don't see an MA or a PhD in philosophy. And combine that with the fact that says just because someone is an expert in one field, that doesn't mean they're an expert in another field, even a closely related field.

25:26So, thanks to this list, I now no longer trust you at all. 200. 200. I feel like some of these could have been collapsed and some of them should have been divided. I would like, if a listener is more sympathetic to this than I am, to send me three out of the 200 facts that you think fits the criterion of virtually all philosophers know this and most philosophers don't know. So, three out of the 200, I don't think you can do it because I don't think there are three that meet those criteria.

26:03All right. Well, this paper does not make it into the list of 200 things that we know as facts. I do think maybe it's a hoax, but it would be a Gogol style hoax. Like, you don't know what exactly is satirizing, what's going on exactly, what's real and what's not. They're like boring aphorisms, some of them, you know? Yeah, there's definitely like, you know, like eight categories of them, like true by definition, true because we speak the language, like not conceivably false, actually, just based on how we use language, tautological.

26:36Then there are some which are, yeah, sure, you know, but they are like empirical claims, but they're kind of obvious. They're ones that are entirely psychological claims, like what intelligence means and the difference between having intellectual, psychological, or moral wisdom. And it's like, they seem like reasonable beliefs about how things work, but like they're certainly not facts. No, and certainly not facts that like philosophers know and non-philosophers don't know. Then there's a bunch about knowledge. So, there's like the pseudo problem group, true belief that doesn't amount to knowledge is possible.

27:12Yeah, and then, you know, we've talked a lot about the gatekeeping group. Then just like open-minded, be open-minded, but not too open-minded, you know? Like just things like that.

27:24All right. At least he knows 200 things that I don't. That's true, but, you know, go back to school. It's not too late.

Break and Patreon

27:31All right, we'll be right back to talk about Go-Go's The Overcoat. Go-Go's The Overcoat.

28:04Go-Go's The Overcoat.

The Overcoat Discussion

28:34Welcome back to Very Bad Wizards. This is the time of the episode where we'd like to take a moment and thank all of our listeners who reach out to us, who communicate to us, who email us, tweet at us, all the different ways you get in touch. If you'd like to do that, you can email us, verybadwizards at gmail.com. We still read all of our emails. You can tweet at us, at peas, at tamler, or at verybadwizards.

29:05Lately, we're not spending that much time on there, so one of the more unreliable ways of getting in touch with us. You can join the Reddit community where there are discussions going on intermittently up there. You can follow us on Instagram. I've got to remember to post all the episodes on Instagram. I've been blanking on that, but that is a nice way to find out what the latest episode is when I do remember. Also, those go to Facebook, so you can like us on Facebook as well.

29:37One thing that really helps us is if you subscribe and give us a five-star review on Spotify or Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen to your podcasts. That helps other people who might be interested in the show find it. I looked at Spotify reviews for the first time in a long time, and it seems like there are a lot there. Same with Apple Podcasts, so we really appreciate it. And you can follow me on Letterboxd, Tamler Summers. I post little reviews, capsules, of all the movies that I have seen lately.

30:12If you would like to support us in more tangible ways, the best way you can do that is to join our Patreon. We have a growing and thriving Patreon community, and that's what keeps the lights on for us. It's really exclusively what pays the bills here at Very Bad Wizards and allows us to do the things that we do. And we try to reward your generosity with a ton of bonus content. We are in the midst of the Lotus Eaters, the Lotus Eaters, our deep dive into Homer's Odyssey.

30:43We're going two books at a time, and we have just finished the episode for books 15 and 16, so we're two-thirds of the way through. That's been a lot of fun. I've really enjoyed that, and I hope you have, too. Of course, there is The Ambulators. The Ambulators. Our episode-by-episode breakdown into what I consider to be the greatest TV show of all time. If you set aside David Lynch and Twin Peaks, because that's kind of its own thing. At $10 and up, you can vote in VBW Madness, and we are down to the final matchup right now.

31:19This has been a tournament of 16 topics, and we are down to Invisible Cities by Italo Calvino and Solaris, both the novel and the Tarkovsky movie. So that's the final matchup. At $20 and up, you can ask us a question every month, and we will respond in video form for you, audio form for all of our bonus-tier listeners. So if you haven't done so already, please consider becoming a Patreon supporter.

31:50We really appreciate all the support. Thank you so much. Let's get back to the episode and Gogol's The Overcoat. All right, let's get to our main segment. This is Nikolai Gogol, his 1842 short story, The Overcoat. Quite celebrated story. Nabokov called it the best short story ever written by a Russian. And it's about the life and death of a titular counselor.

32:20His job is to just copy things, and he loves that job, in spite of the fact that he's constantly made fun of and doesn't do anything else in his life besides that and doesn't make very much money. But at a certain point, he has to get a new overcoat. And then when he does, that kind of opens him up into a new world of, like, desire and lust and sexual attraction, maybe, and drinking and interaction with the outside world and going out at night. And, unfortunately, it doesn't last.

32:53The overcoat is taken from him. And soon after, like, a very Kafka-esque kind of journey through the various bureaucracies that he tries to get this addressed, he dies. And then, according to reports, comes back to life and starts stealing everybody else's overcoats, including this general, this big, powerful, important person who had really treated him poorly when he appealed to him for help.

33:24But there's a lot of, you know, ambiguity about what exactly happened and what didn't. All right, that's just the shortest possible summary that we're going to get into all of those things. But what stood out to you about this story? This is our second Gogol story after the nose. Yeah, well, what did you think of it? First of all, I had no idea it was going to turn into this ghost story at the end. But there's just a couple of turns that it takes, which I'm learning Gogol likes to, like, just turn things fairly quickly into it being a kind of different story than you thought you were going to read.

33:55Two, I'm obviously not an expert in Russian literature. And I believe, like, it's not hard to believe that Gogol influenced, you know, all of the other ones after him. Dostoyevsky. Yeah. And, like, I'm trying to get a sense of, like, what it is about this era of Russia. Like, the bureaucracy, the neuroticism. Like, because they're not all similar. It's not like all those stories, but they're capturing something about, like, either the Russian character at this time and place that I don't know. In the institutions.

34:26Like, the structures. Yeah, the structure, I think, is the big, big deal. But, yeah, I loved it. I really enjoyed it. What about you? Yeah, it's funny. It's weird. I think Gogol is, like, a one-of-one. Like, I don't know who to compare him to in terms of the style of the story. Yeah, like you say, the abrupt shifts. I think, like, Kafka came to mind in this particular story just because, you know, this poor guy who's going up against these forces.

34:57But Kafka is more, A, it's a little bit more coherent as a whole piece. It doesn't jump around in different kind of styles. And it's just a little more kind of full of anguish, even though Kafka can be very funny. Like, there's a kind of anguish, an existential anguish beneath the, which I don't necessarily feel here. You don't know what it is exactly. You just can't pin it down. It's like you try to, and it squirms out. Like, even, like, individual sentences won't have, like, an internal logic sometimes.

35:28They'll start one way and then end the other way. And that way it reminds me of the paper we did in the beginning, but, yeah. Right. And with Kafka, you know kind of what you're in for. You're in for a sort of surrealist, like, treat. And, I mean, I haven't read enough Gogol to know this, but, like, in the ones we've read, it's like, it's absurd in, like, an even more absurd way because you don't always expect the absurdity. No, right. And then sometimes it'll get very serious and sentimental and very poignant, like, with the co-worker who, you know,

36:00has made fun of, what's his name, Akaki, Akakievich, that, like, it makes him, like, look into, like, the black heart of, like, the inhumanity of man, you know? Like, you know, then there's this other thing about the narrator. Like, what is the narrator? You know, we would have this question about some of Dostoevsky, like, and Brothers Karamazov, like, but this is, like, all over the place. Like, sometimes he's omniscient. Sometimes he's kind of opinionated and cynical. Sometimes he can be sincere and generous. Like, he can be forgetful.

36:32Like, he's like, oh, I can't remember, like, you know, where this address was. And sometimes he can just be like, I didn't really care enough to look into that part. I know. Sometimes you're like, wait, was this a co-worker? No, no, it can't be, because he knows about, like, his early life and his mom, you know? Yeah. It's whatever he needs. Yeah. Like, to convey a particular... And it seems like, depending on his mood, like, the narrator, like, how he's telling the story. So that's super interesting. I think it's interesting that, like, we're going to try to talk about some interpretations,

37:02but it resists any kind of fully coherent interpretation, either at the level of basic facts, like, what's happening, I guess, especially at the end. Like, is it a real ghost? Is it not? Is it the two thieves? But then also, like, just what's the satirical target? What's the moral? Is there a lesson here? Because sometimes it does seem like it's taking aim at that Russian rank system and the bureaucracy. But then also, it can be equally kind of,

37:34I don't know, mean to Akaki, Akakievich and the tailor. But then it can also, like, right after that, be very charitable and kind of generous towards them. So here's one thing that I wanted to, like, run by you as, like, my vibe after reading this a couple of times, which was, it's definitely pointing, like, a critical finger at this hierarchical Russian bureaucracy system that was around during this time. But there is this strong sense of fate

38:04that I get where, like, he was fated to have the name, he was fated to be born even with an expression on his face that made him a titular counselor. But, like, he was happy. He was fine. Yeah. Like, he was, like, in his role. He was, like, doing well. So much so that only every once in a great while did, like, betray that he might have been bothered by the insults. But other than that, he barely even noticed. And only when they interfered with his copying. His copying, right. And then the minute that he gets a little bit

38:34of a taste of what it must be like to be a rank or two above, his whole world goes to shit. And you could almost read it as, like, he stepped out of his foretold station in life and paid the price for it. Or you could see, like, he got a taste of it. Or you could say that's just the evilness of this kind of system. I don't know. Yeah. I mean, like, you could say he was in Eden. And when he got the new overcoat, he left Eden. You know, that was, like. The overcoat was the apple. The overcoat was the apple.

39:04Yeah. No. I mean, so I had the same thought. I think this is a read of it. That this is a guy whose life was internally happy. Like, he may be impoverished, but it was happy. And he was, like, free from all the kind of craving and insecurity and, like, dependence on the external world beyond just the ability to just copy things. And then when he copied, he was in this, like, perpetual flow state. And he would go to bed with a smile on his face thinking about copying the next day.

39:36And then, yeah, the overcoat turned him into a potentially, like, normal person with urges and desires and, like, having friends and drinking. I don't think he moved up any stations. It's almost like he joined his own station, right? Like. Right. Well, that's the thing. Like, it makes it sound like he's the lower class. But he's, you know, like, this is a decent post in society. He's not, like, one of the lowest cast members of society. He is very. It's very low on the ranking. And the way he describes it is he was what is called

40:07an eternal titular counselor. And, like, people sneer and cheer. No upward mobility. Yeah, no upward mobility. So, but either way, whether it's rising in rank or whether it's just having friends and thinking about other things besides copying, like, he is introduced to a new world of craving and desire. And you could think of it as in the Christian context and Jewish context of leaving the Eden, but also in a Buddhist context. Like, he now has this desire satisfaction problem that he didn't really have before. And that's going to lead him to be vulnerable

40:40to the external world in a way that he wasn't before. But then the reason he wanted a new overcoat wasn't out of vanity. It was the North Frost. Like, he needed one. He needed one, and he didn't have enough money to just get one without having to think of it. So what it created in him was this, like, six months or however many months of doing everything necessary, like, not eating, not using candles at night, like, sacrificing even the ability to copy.

41:11Yeah, because he didn't have the light. And constant thinking about the prices of cloth and whether he would be able to afford the right kind of fur. He had to settle for cat.

41:23And yeah, this was just, again, faded. And the weather plays a large role in everything. And the weather is famously uncontrollable. But it's not uncontrollable that if you live in St. Petersburg, you're going to need a new coat at some point. Like, he's almost 50 years old. So if you think of it like that in conjunction with the interpretation you were laying out, then it's kind of, like, tragic. It's, like, it was temporary. Like, you had to leave the garden. You had to join the world of Dukkha and desire and craving and aversion.

41:54And then, like, how does the potentially supernatural, like, ghost story part of it relate to that as well? So it's, like, it's super hard to get a handle on. Yeah. It almost turns into Edgar Allan Poe. Yeah. Although with a little more comedy, you know? Like a little Scooby-Doo mixed in with, you know, like the ghost, like, sneezing from the snuff box.

42:19Yeah, yeah. So I'm sure you know this, but there is some scholarly controversy about the ending, whether there was anything supernatural going on at all. Yeah. Well, let's wait to talk about it then.

Story Interpretation

42:32Okay.

Story Interpretation

42:32Well, first of all, whenever we do these Russian stories, like, the right translation is important. And the reason it became so salient so early on is that there are these plays on the names that he's born into. So I was looking at, okay, what do these names mean? So his, like, his last name, like, is a word for a shoe in Russia. But then I was like, Akaki, Akakievich, which is the patronym. So his dad was named Akaki as well. And they're like, yeah, this was probably just a poop joke.

43:04Like, this was a play on Kaka. So, like, what's hilarious and absurd is that a guy would be named Akaki, Akakievich, which sounds so much like poop poop. Yeah. Yeah. So one of the things that, you know, you say that he was fated to have that name because that's what the narrator says. But then when he describes it, it doesn't sound like he was fated to have it at all. It's like the mom wanted to give, like, a different name and they turned to, like, three pages in a calendar and they didn't like those names. So then they just ended up naming him Akaki, Akakievich.

43:36And then the narrator says, we have told it so the reader could see for himself that it happened entirely from necessity and that to give him any other name was quite impossible. But, like, nothing about that story suggests that. It seems completely arbitrary, actually, that he was given that name aside from the fact that that was, you know, the father, maybe the patronym is the father. But, like, yeah. Right. Well, that's where I don't know also where, because, you know, one of the conventions in these Catholic countries is to name the child after the saint's day that falls on the day they were born.

44:07And so she's going through the calendar and she's reading these names and the mom is like, no, that won't do. I don't know if those are, like, particularly bad names or was she just, like, not happy with them? Are they, like, ridiculous names in context? But even if they are or aren't, like, she still didn't have to give him Akaki if she didn't want to. She could have chosen a different name. No, no. But faded. He's faded to it. She wasn't. He was faded to that name. Well, right. In the sense that any child is when their parents name them, I guess. But I feel like he's making a bigger deal out of the fate part of it

44:40and then undercutting it. That's how I... I think what he means is his character was going to end up matching it so well that, like, you cannot conceive of him as having another one of those names. Yeah, I mean, see, to me, I see this as another quirk of the narrator. He's just like, I'm going to tell you this was, like, strictly necessary. Like, everything logically follows. And then I'm going to tell you a story where that's not at all the case. That she's like, all right, I don't like these names, so I guess I'll give him the dad's name. You know, that's the thing about the narrator is you don't get when he's making fun of you, when he's being serious, when he's being just going on some weird digression.

45:13But then, like, you hear about him and you hear that everyone's kind of mean to him and they don't respect him and they say that he's, like, sleeping with his landlady or that she beats him. Then there's this passage where he says, only when the joke was really unbearable, when they jostled his arm interfering with what he was doing, would he say, let me be, why do you offend me? And there was something strange in the word and in the voice in which they were uttered. Something sounded in it so conducive to pity that one recently appointed young man

45:43who, following the examples of others, had first allowed himself to make fun of him, suddenly stopped as if transfixed. And from then on, everything seemed changed before him and acquired a different look. And then he talks about when people would still make fun of him and he would think of those words and then add, I am your brother. And the poor young man would bury his face in his hands and many times in his life, he shuddered to think how much inhumanity there is in man, how much savage coarseness is concealed in refined, cultivated manners.

46:14And God, even in the man, the world regards as noble and honorable. That's, like, out of a different story. Like, I'm like, this could be the main character. This guy right here who has this, like... Yeah, like epiphany. Realization of the humanity of his, like, fellow, you know, office worker who has been this little gray man who nobody thought about his feelings until this one moment. Yeah. Like, sparked empathy in his soul and also just, like, some kind of self-reflection and interrogation. Like, what are we doing here?

46:45What... Yeah, connection to all humanity, you know, as brothers. And there's something is very sad about this poor guy being like, leave me alone. Like, what are you doing? Like, why do you have to do this, you know? Yeah, so vulnerable the way... Let me be. Why do you offend me? It's like I was sad reading those words. I know. And then, like... But that's really one of the very few times where it kind of pulls at your heartstrings in any sincere way in the entire story. Yeah, but so then he... We hear about, like, his day-to-day life and how much he loved his work. And I just loved the description of this.

47:16This is where you think he's in this kind of flow state. He served with love. Delight showed in his face. Certain letters were his favorites. And when he came to one of them, he was beside himself. He chuckled and winked and helped out with his lips so that it seemed one could read on his face every letter his pen traced. So he's, like, merging with the copying, you know? Outside this copying, nothing seemed to exist from him. Yeah, and then when he gets home, he would just eat but not really care about what he was eating and then start copying and then go to sleep with a smile on his face.

47:47Thinking, what would God send him to copy tomorrow?

Akaki's Life and Death

47:50So flowed the peaceful life of this man who with a salary of 400 was able to content himself with his lot. And the one time that, like, a superior who sort of, like, felt bad for him, like, because, you know, presumably there is some upward mobility in these bureaucratic ranks, like, gave him another task. And he was like, stress the fuck out about it. He's like, no, can we just go back to copying? Thanks. Yeah, and that's another big theme, actually, that I didn't mention but certainly noticed is this idea of copying an imitation. Like, at one point later in the story,

48:21the really important person who is kind of the last straw does the thing that leads him to die by dressing him down in his office. He then goes out and has a very similar night to the one that Akaki had, like, going to a party, having a little champagne and then just getting mugged on the way home. So there's a lot of these, like, reflections and copies that's clearly, I don't know, like, what to say about it except that it's a constant theme, I think, in the story.

48:51Yeah, yeah, that's good. But then the northern frost. See, they blame their weather, the St. Petersburg. Yeah, so his coat is bad and, you know, the narrator says, like, that people would make fun of it. They would say, it's not even an overcoat, it's a housecoat. It's a housecoat, yeah. That's so bitchy. And then, yeah, there's kind of a comic scene of him going to this tailor through this kitchen where there's so much smoke with this German wife who's, like, cooking and you can't see, he has to stumble his way through the smoke to the drunk tailor

49:22or he wants him to be drunk. Yeah, hopefully he's drunk, yeah. And the tailor just says, like, this can't be fixed. Yeah, which is just, like, rocks his world. He's like, wait, what? Come on, you could fix it. Like, he was wondering how many of his whatever little rubles he was going to have to pay to, like, replace the cloth and the tailor's just like, this is beyond repair. And, like, I believe him. Like, it doesn't seem like the tailor was trying to scam him. Not at all, yeah. He seems like he takes a lot of pride in his work in spite of his certain anti-German prejudices.

49:54Yeah, that's why the sort of eating the apple thing doesn't totally work because he wanted to avoid getting a new overcoat at all costs. This was necessity, I think, for him. He's like Adam. He had to eat the apple because that fucking bitch gave it to him. Yeah, exactly. It's all fucking bitches, man. And so this is where he, like, he has to come to terms with the fact that, like, now it's going to cost, not 150, like Petrovich said, but, you know, he's pretty sure he could get it for 80 rubles.

50:24I like that he's a little savvy. Like, he kind of knows when to approach the tailor and how much he really wants. Yeah, and that's important because or else he really is a cutout, like, not much of a character. An imbecile. Like, a holy fool, but not even quite attain that. Yeah, and very two-dimensional, too. Like, we need to know that he's, like, not dumb. He's not, like, he's aware that there are things like negotiations. He's just found, like, the perfect activity for life. It's, like, an utterly fulfilling activity.

50:57So he's, like, begging him to fix it. He's, like, no, no, you can't. So then he's trying to figure out, how the hell am I going to get these 80 rubles? We hear that he has, over however many years, saved up half of that, like, 40 rubles. Yeah. Just from being frugal. Yeah, so that's good. Yeah. So, yeah, so he has to cut back on all these expenses, which seem like more, like, necessities, you know? I know. But he gets kind of beatific, you know, as he's doing this. When I read this the first time, I thought, oh, this is actually good for him,

51:29maybe. Yeah. Truth to tell, it was a bit difficult at first to get used to such limitations, but later, it somehow became a habit and went better. He even accustomed himself to going entirely without food in the evenings, but instead, he was nourished spiritually, bearing in his thoughts