A few weeks ago, I published an essay on Substack titled The End of Analytic Philosophy. In it, I agreed with Liam Kofi Bright that analytic philosophy has perhaps come close to becoming a degenerating research programme, leaving even many of its practitioners with a pessimistic outlook on its future. But the post was not at all meant to be depressing, for I offered a successor paradigm: naturalistic philosophy. A philosophy strongly continuous with, and often collaborative with, the sciences in order to make progress on our field’s most pressing problems.

I was a bit worried about coming out as a ‘non-analytic philosopher’, since most of my peers happily use the label of analytic philosopher for themselves. I was therefore happy to see the overwhelmingly positive reactions that made my essay go somewhat viral on substack and gained me a ton of new subscribers. However, this also brought with it a new bar for my writing, making me go from an experimental week of daily posts to much less frequent posts. Now, I had a good excuse, since I was committed to several deadlines for writing projects I had to finish, but really I was afraid of failing to live up to the new bar I had set for my blog.

This is amusing, really, since blogging is usually seen as a kind of no-holds-barred, free-flowing, let-your-thoughts-spill-out-on-the-page kind of activity. But just like with academic writing, it is easy to set oneself the goal of continually surpassing one’s previous writing, which can admittedly be very valuable - that is unless it completely paralyses one.

Here, I want to follow up on my essay on analytic philosophy by highlighting a central flaw of analytic philosophy. While some of my readers are fellow philosophers or have read enough philosophy to be sufficiently familiar with the methods and goals of analytic philosophy, many are not. To the layperson who has heard of the divide between analytic and continental philosophy, analytic philosophy may simply represent clear and rigorous argumentation, whereas continental philosophy is associated with obscurity, metaphors, and unclear if any arguments. So coming out against analytic philosophy could easily be read as being against clear writing - which is, of course, not what I am against at all.

Reading my previous essay, one might have come away with the conclusion that analytic philosophers do not draw sufficiently on, and have too little familiarity with, what goes on in the sciences. While that is true, it is not sufficient reason to reject analytic philosophy or to distinguish naturalistic philosophy as a third kind of philosophy altogether. More conservatively, one might read this argument as amounting merely to a call for analytic philosophers to learn more about science where it bears on the philosophical questions they are interested in.

But the opposition between naturalistic philosophy and analytic philosophy runs deeper than that. There is a fundamental flaw in one of the central goals and methods of philosophy, namely the analysis of concepts.

With the linguistic turn in the twentieth century, philosophers became less concerned with the world and more concerned with language. How do we use concepts? How do they represent things in the world? How can sentences be true or false? What is the meaning of particular words? Analytic philosophy as a discipline moved away from its origins in natural philosophy that once combined philosophy and science, and became something closer to linguistics… though, surprisingly enough, without actually engaging all that much with linguists. Indeed, one might have expected the linguistic turn to lead to a different merger altogether. A merger between linguistics and philosophy. But there are only a few attempts to really make this happen, such as MIT’s joint Department of Linguistics and Philosophy.

In many areas of analytic philosophy today, the central questions concern how we should define particular terms.

In the philosophy of medicine, for instance, the central debate is about how we should understand terms like ‘health’, ‘disease’, ‘pathology’, and the like. How do analytic philosophers usually approach this problem? They do so by introspecting, by asking themselves about the intuitions they have concerning these concepts, and by trying to come up with a definition that comes as close as possible to providing necessary and sufficient conditions. Commonly, philosophers assert that these intuitions reflect not only how they themselves think about particular terms (examples from other areas of philosophy include consciousness, knowledge, and morality), but more generally how competent language users in our society think about and use these terms.

If this makes you raise an eyebrow, you are entirely justified. If we are interested in what the folk mean when they use a term, why should we consult the intuitions of one particular person, rather than engage in the kind of research lexicographers and linguists are engaged in?

This problem was recognised by some analytic philosophers, and it led to the birth of what is now called experimental philosophy. Rather than taking for granted that some philosophers have privileged insights into how a concept should be understood (a method that has been hopelessly unsuccessful, given that philosophers only rarely agree with one another in the literature, leading to endless debates justified by appeals to intuition) experimental philosophers draw on the tools of experimental psychology to probe the public on how they understand concepts.

A central criticism by analytic philosophers of experimental philosophy has been that its psychological methods are flawed, since ordinary language users themselves poorly understand the proper conditions under which their terms are used. Instead, it is claimed, this requires the expertise of a trained philosopher engaged in introspection. On the face of it, this criticism has some merit. Yet, one would expect analytic philosophers, over time, to at least approximate consensus on the many questions concerning how particular terms should be understood. Largely, the opposite is true, with philosophers continually trading in intuitions.

Another criticism of experimental philosophy has been that it is not really philosophy at all. But this reflects an ambition present from the birth of analytic philosophy: the attempt to draw a sharp boundary between philosophy and the rest of intellectual inquiry. This ambition is precisely one of the reasons analytic philosophy has come close to becoming a degenerating research programme. Instead of distinguishing itself by its goals, philosophy attempted to distinguish itself by its methods. Yet, even here, this ambition failed. Scientists regularly reflect on how their terms should be defined, and even if philosophers think they do so poorly, they often do a better job than the philosophers criticising them. After all, the goal of scientific concepts is not to capture folk intuitions, but to reflect progress in the sciences and aid further progress still - however unintuitive the resulting concepts may be. Consider, for instance, the embarrassing criticisms of Dawkins’s The Selfish Gene for using the term ‘selfish’ incorrectly.

Who cares?

Language continually evolves to help us communicate better with one another and to capture genuine patterns in reality that are worth communicating about. Analytic philosophers, however, often give the mistaken impression that there is some single, true meaning to terms like ‘selfish’ or ‘health’, rather than recognising them as polysemous concepts with multiple meanings that reflect the different purposes for which we use them. Further analysis will not resolve such conflicts. To the dismay of analytic philosophers aiming for a perfectly precise language of clear argumentation, many of our terms are polysemous by design.

Don’t even get me started on the many ways in which terms can be defined differently to serve the interests of particular political ideologies, such as freedom, equality, justice, and so on. To think that conceptual analysis could provide us with the one correct definition of these notions is, unfortunately, a chimera.

Ultimately, analytic philosophy stands at a fateful crossroad between two very different goals. If it takes the path of trying to understand the meanings of terms, it will be absorbed into psychology, linguistics, and lexicography, even if philosophers continue to play useful roles within these fields. If analytic philosophy instead returns to the goal of trying to understand the world and our place within it, there is no alternative to a naturalistic philosophy that sees itself as strongly continuous with the sciences.

On such a naturalistic view, for example, our understanding of ‘health’ should not consist in a mere analysis or even an experimental survey of what medical practitioners mean when they use the term ‘health’, even if this is confusingly how the term ‘naturalism’ is used within the philosophy of medicine. Rather, it involves identifying a real pattern in nature, shared by biological organisms, that can play an important role in theorising within the life sciences. Or so I have argued in my academic contributions to the philosophy of medicine (see some references below).

Obviously, I favour the naturalistic road, but the alternative path leads no less to a view of philosophy that is strongly continuous with science. The artificial separation of philosophy from other parts of inquiry serves no purpose other than to insulate ourselves from the very tools and methods that could help us to make progress on the philosophical questions we care most about.

If you enjoyed reading this post please like, share, and subscribe. It helps a lot to reach a wider audience. I am also interested to read your thoughts in the comments, regardless of whether you agree or disagreee. I try to respond to all.

Share

References

Veit, W. (2022). Health, Agency, and the Evolution of Consciousness. Ph.D. thesis, University of Sydney. https://hdl.handle.net/2123/29836 [Download]

Veit, W. (2025). Health and Disease Concepts Cannot Be Grounded in Social Justice Alone. Croatian Journal of Philosophy. 25(73), 99-119. https://doi.org/10.52685/cjp.25.73.7 [Download]

Veit, W. (2021). Experimental Philosophy of Medicine and the Concepts of Health and Disease. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-021-09550-3 [Download]

Veit, W. (2021). Biological Normativity: A New Hope for Naturalism? Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-020-09993-w [Download]

Veit, W. (2018). Existential Nihilism: The Only Really Serious Philosophical Problem. Journal of Camus Studies 2018, 211-236. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.26965.24804 [Download]

My goal was simple. While Camus is usually seen as the least philosophical among the existentialists - more a novelist than a philosopher - I argued that he is, in fact, more philosophically rigorous than his existentialist brethren, and that his arguments are compatible with more analytic and naturalistic philosophy.

The article grew out of an essay I wrote during a semester abroad in a seminar on existentialism at the University of Helsinki, through the EU’s Erasmus programme. I was especially grateful for this opportunity, as it was the first and only class in continental philosophy I took during my entire philosophical education. While many universities in Germany are historically oriented and offer plenty of classes on continental philosophers such as Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Hegel, and the like, the University of Bayreuth, where I completed my undergraduate studies, was entirely analytically oriented. But, of course, like most undergraduates studying philosophy much of what I had read before going to university was not work in the analytic canon. And while I am usually seen as an analytical philosopher today, I hope to have made clear in my essay on the end of analytical philosophy that I do not consider myself as such, instead categorizing myself as a naturalistic philosopher.

Naturalistic philosophers, I pointed out in the essay, are often more appreciative of continental philosophy and other traditions, such as Asian philosophy, as seen in attempts to naturalize Nietzsche and Buddhism (see for instance the work of Brian Leiter for the former and Owen Flanagan for the latter). And it is no different here.

If we look at the world through the lens of science - one governed by physical laws and biological regularities - there does not appear to be any role for purpose or meaning in a cosmic sense. While we might value certain life projects, this does not mean that they are objectively meaningful or that there is some true, authentic way in which life should be lived. Yet, we strive for this deeper meaning in a meaningless world, which Albert Camus diagnosed as the Absurd condition of our existence.

As an atheist naturalist philosopher, that message struck a chord with me - doubly so in my formative years, when I was asking myself what I wanted to do with the rest of my life. What matters? What should I do? Is this life path enough to be happy? Add to that the cold, dark winter months of Helsinki, and I joined many other Finns in suffering from seasonal affective disorder. One could hardly be in a better state to write about existential nihilism. I even watched Bojack Horseman and Rick and Morty during this time, which could hardly be more nihilistic shows, and even ended up making it into my article.

Unlike other existentialists who sought to escape life’s meaninglessness, Camus faced it head-on, urging us to live in spite of it, committing neither actual nor philosophical suicide. If you want to learn more about Camus’ solution to the “only really serious philosophical problem” please take a look at my article.

Thank you to everyone who tuned into my live video! Join me for my next live video in the app.

Get more from Walter Veit in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Many of us as children may have wondered what’s going on inside the mind of an animal – what are they thinking and feeling? Most animal researchers study science because of their fascination with animals, but for a long time scientific norms made it impossible to even raise the question of animal consciousness without losing scientific credibility.

Fortunately, those days have ended, thanks in large part to pioneering work by scientists such as Donald Griffin, who argued from the 1980s to his death in 2003 that animal minds should be a topic for scientific study.

We are philosophers who study consciousness, and in our recent research we worked with other scientists to explore what the world might be like from the point of view of corvids, the family of birds that includes ravens, crows, jays and magpies.

“Birdbrain” used to be a common insult but corvids have such surprising intelligence that they are sometimes described by scientists and journalists as “feathered apes”. But we wanted to go beyond intelligence. To do this we examined five dimensions of their experience by combing through studies on their behaviour, cognition, brains, emotions and consciousness.

Corvids’ eyes have incredibly sharp resolution that allows them to navigate while flying at high speeds and to find potential sources of food. Their hearing is excellent, perhaps unsurprising for songbirds, allowing them to even distinguish reliable from unreliable group members by assessing and remembering their alert calls.

They also have a good sense of smell, which they use to help them find nuts and other food they have hidden. Unfortunately, we do not know how their smell compares to a lot of other animals, because there are not enough studies on corvids’ sense of smell yet.

Emotional lives

Corvids show cognitive biases, similar to humans. They have negative moods and show signs of pessimism after observing similar states in others.

But they also show positive moods after successfully using tools – just like humans. And they can also show neophobia – wariness of new objects.

Even if you come with treats to give them, corvids are reluctant to fly close to someone they haven’t met before, but are confident with humans they know well – another common human trait.

It is common for people to only attribute emotional lives to mammals, but corvids show that we should study the emotions of birds in more detail.

Integrated experiences

We humans have one stream of consciousness. But birds lack a corpus callosum, the structure that connects the two brain hemispheres in us and other mammals.

Their brain halves show a lot of division of labour, such as using their different eyes to focus on different tasks. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean that their experience is split into two selves – it could suggest a kind of partial unity different from our own.

Perhaps their consciousness is more like split-brain human patients who have had their corpus callosum cut to reduce the effects of seizures. When two pictures are presented in their respective left and right visual fields, these people will draw what they see on the left side with their left hand, whereas they will verbally describe what is on the right, giving the appearance of two selves in one body.

Consciousness across time

Corvids show remarkable abilities in their sense of self across time. Because they often hide food (scientists call this caching), they can remember not just where they hid food, but also what kind of food it was and how long ago they hid it – which is relevant for more perishable foods such as insects, compared to longer-lasting nuts.

Here their memory far outstrips our own or, for that matter, most other animals when it comes to hiding objects, with some corvids caching and remembering over a thousand food items in a month for later consumption. No human would be able to remember that many hiding spots.

Corvids can even plan, collecting and storing a tool such as a spoon for future use.

A rich sense of self

They not only recognise themselves in mirrors, but also understand other minds. Research has shown corvids go back to remove cached food and hide it elsewhere if they know they have been observed – but only if they have stolen from others in the past.

Male jays will watch the feeding behaviour of a female they want to court, so they can bring their preferred food. Even more solitary corvids, such as ravens, seem to have well-developed social skills, which scientists used to think were largely restricted to mammals.

In all of this, there is still a great deal of uncertainty. Learning about the minds of other animals requires a great deal of inference from sparse and often ambiguous data. But we believe that there is scientific evidence for rich conscious experiences in corvids. For most species, it is a lack of research, not a lack of capacity, that keeps us silent on what their subjective experiences are like.

This research also has implications for corvid welfare. Understanding what the world is like for an animal means understanding what feels good and bad for them. Their good memories may mean they suffer longer from a negative experience, neophobia will mean novel objects should be introduced slowly, their social abilities mean they should be housed in groups. Giving them tools could allow them enriching experiences.

All this should be taken into account when deciding how to care for these birds when kept in cavity, and how to minimise welfare risks in other interactions with them.

References

Veit, W., et al. (2025). Dimensions of corvid consciousness. Animal Cognition. 28(35). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-025-01949-y [Download]

Unsurprisingly, panpsychists resisted my charge that their view constitutes a potential case of pseudophilosophy, just as creationism is a pseudoscience. However, in a recent post, the panpsychist who I have previously engaged with, tellingly reveals an anti-Darwinian attitude shared perhaps by the majority of philosophers in treating consciousness as binary. This is a common attitude shared by many philosophers who have refused to take Darwin seriously because of his radical implications for philosophy. It is here that we can see the close relationship between panpsychism and the pseudoscience of creationism once more.

Let’s dissect his essay, which summarizes the vagueness discussion about consciousness well.

This episode is on the following article, which you can access below:

Veit, W. (2021). Scaffolding Natural Selection. Biological Theory. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13752-021-00387-6 [Download]

Share

PODCAST INFO:

Podcast website: https://walterveit.com/podcast/

Spotify:

Apple Podcasts:

RSS: https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/4364098/s/226484.rss

YouTube Full Episodes: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLV0j8uiNxfku6--y2dho5VPUX3gpyqdnD&si=osLPm4EHx9BLiURN

YouTube Clips: https://www.youtube.com/@DrWalterVeit/shorts

SUPPORT & CONNECT:

Substack:

Twitter: https://twitter.com/wrwveit

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/walterveit/

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-walter-veit-745a1a117/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/WalterVeitOfficialPage/

Medium:

https://walterveit.medium.com/

Veit, W. (2021). Scaffolding Natural Selection. Biological Theory. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13752-021-00387-6 [Download]

Share

PODCAST INFO:

Podcast website: https://walterveit.com/podcast/

Spotify:

Apple Podcasts:

RSS: https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/4364098/s/226484.rss

YouTube Full Episodes: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLV0j8uiNxfku6--y2dho5VPUX3gpyqdnD&si=osLPm4EHx9BLiURN

YouTube Clips: https://www.youtube.com/@DrWalterVeit/shorts

SUPPORT & CONNECT:

Substack:

Twitter: https://twitter.com/wrwveit

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/walterveit/

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-walter-veit-745a1a117/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/WalterVeitOfficialPage/

Medium:

https://walterveit.medium.com/

Veit, W. and Browning, H. (2024). Feminism and Enhancement. Routledge Handbook of Feminism and Technology. London: Routledge, pp. 37-55. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003275992-4 [Download]

Share

PODCAST INFO:

Podcast website: https://walterveit.com/podcast/

Spotify:

Apple Podcasts:

RSS: https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/4364098/s/226484.rss

YouTube Full Episodes: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLV0j8uiNxfku6--y2dho5VPUX3gpyqdnD&si=osLPm4EHx9BLiURN

YouTube Clips: https://www.youtube.com/@DrWalterVeit/shorts

SUPPORT & CONNECT:

Substack:

Twitter: https://twitter.com/wrwveit

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/walterveit/

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-walter-veit-745a1a117/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/WalterVeitOfficialPage/

Medium:

https://walterveit.medium.com/

Veit, W., Earp, B.D., Faber, N., Bostrom, N., Caouette, J., Mannino, A., Caviola, L., Sandberg, A. & Savulescu, J. (2020). Recognizing the Diversity of Cognitive Enhancements. AJOB Neuroscience, 11(4), 250-253.

PODCAST INFO:

Podcast website: https://walterveit.com/podcast/

Spotify:

Apple Podcasts:

RSS: https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/4364098/s/226484.rss

YouTube Full Episodes: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLV0j8uiNxfku6--y2dho5VPUX3gpyqdnD&si=osLPm4EHx9BLiURN

YouTube Clips: https://www.youtube.com/@DrWalterVeit/shorts

SUPPORT & CONNECT:

Substack:

Twitter: https://twitter.com/wrwveit

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/walterveit/

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-walter-veit-745a1a117/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/WalterVeitOfficialPage/

Medium:

https://walterveit.medium.com/

PODCAST INFO:

Podcast website: https://walterveit.com/podcast/

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/24OwJWeaWyJqqdfxirnlUU

Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/walter-veit-podcast/id1716794567

RSS: https://anchor.fm/s/ed331d30/podcast/rss

YouTube Full Episodes: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLV0j8uiNxfku6--y2dho5VPUX3gpyqdnD&si=osLPm4EHx9BLiURN

YouTube Clips: https://www.youtube.com/@DrWalterVeit/shorts

SUPPORT & CONNECT:

Twitter: https://twitter.com/wrwveit

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/walterveit/

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-walter-veit-745a1a117/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/WalterVeitOfficialPage/

Medium: https://walterveit.medium.com/

PODCAST INFO:

Podcast website: https://walterveit.com/podcast/

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/24OwJWeaWyJqqdfxirnlUU

Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/walter-veit-podcast/id1716794567

RSS: https://anchor.fm/s/ed331d30/podcast/rss

YouTube Full Episodes: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLV0j8uiNxfku6--y2dho5VPUX3gpyqdnD&si=osLPm4EHx9BLiURN

YouTube Clips: https://www.youtube.com/@DrWalterVeit/shorts

SUPPORT & CONNECT:

Twitter: https://twitter.com/wrwveit

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/walterveit/

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-walter-veit-745a1a117/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/WalterVeitOfficialPage/

Medium: https://walterveit.medium.com/

PODCAST INFO:

Podcast website: https://walterveit.com/podcast/

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/24OwJWeaWyJqqdfxirnlUU

Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/walter-veit-podcast/id1716794567

RSS: https://anchor.fm/s/ed331d30/podcast/rss

YouTube Full Episodes: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLV0j8uiNxfku6--y2dho5VPUX3gpyqdnD&si=osLPm4EHx9BLiURN

YouTube Clips: https://www.youtube.com/@DrWalterVeit/shorts

SUPPORT & CONNECT:

Twitter: https://twitter.com/wrwveit

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/walterveit/

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-walter-veit-745a1a117/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/WalterVeitOfficialPage/

Medium: https://walterveit.medium.com/

PODCAST INFO:

Podcast website: https://walterveit.com/podcast/

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/24OwJWeaWyJqqdfxirnlUU

Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/walter-veit-podcast/id1716794567

RSS: https://anchor.fm/s/ed331d30/podcast/rss

YouTube Full Episodes: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLV0j8uiNxfku6--y2dho5VPUX3gpyqdnD&si=osLPm4EHx9BLiURN

YouTube Clips: https://www.youtube.com/@DrWalterVeit/shorts

SUPPORT & CONNECT:

Twitter: https://twitter.com/wrwveit

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/walterveit/

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-walter-veit-745a1a117/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/WalterVeitOfficialPage/

Medium: https://walterveit.medium.com/

PODCAST INFO:

Podcast website: https://walterveit.com/podcast/

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/24OwJWeaWyJqqdfxirnlUU

Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/walter-veit-podcast/id1716794567

RSS: https://anchor.fm/s/ed331d30/podcast/rss

YouTube Full Episodes: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLV0j8uiNxfku6--y2dho5VPUX3gpyqdnD&si=osLPm4EHx9BLiURN

YouTube Clips: https://www.youtube.com/@DrWalterVeit/shorts

SUPPORT & CONNECT:

Twitter: https://twitter.com/wrwveit

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/walterveit/

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-walter-veit-745a1a117/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/WalterVeitOfficialPage/

Medium: https://walterveit.medium.com/

PODCAST INFO:

Podcast website: https://walterveit.com/podcast/

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/24OwJWeaWyJqqdfxirnlUU

Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/walter-veit-podcast/id1716794567

RSS: https://anchor.fm/s/ed331d30/podcast/rss

YouTube Full Episodes: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLV0j8uiNxfku6--y2dho5VPUX3gpyqdnD&si=osLPm4EHx9BLiURN

YouTube Clips: https://www.youtube.com/@DrWalterVeit/shorts

SUPPORT & CONNECT:

Twitter: https://twitter.com/wrwveit

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/walterveit/

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-walter-veit-745a1a117/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/WalterVeitOfficialPage/

Medium: https://walterveit.medium.com/

PODCAST INFO:

Podcast website: https://walterveit.com/podcast/

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/24OwJWeaWyJqqdfxirnlUU

Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/walter-veit-podcast/id1716794567

RSS: https://anchor.fm/s/ed331d30/podcast/rss

YouTube Full Episodes: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLV0j8uiNxfku6--y2dho5VPUX3gpyqdnD&si=osLPm4EHx9BLiURN

YouTube Clips: https://www.youtube.com/@DrWalterVeit/shorts

SUPPORT & CONNECT:

Twitter: https://twitter.com/wrwveit

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/walterveit/

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-walter-veit-745a1a117/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/WalterVeitOfficialPage/

Medium: https://walterveit.medium.com/