Видео

At 9 minutes you discuss affective consciousness, Bauer et al; Are you saying it is not a dualism but a spectrum? Similar to ‘learning’ and ‘teaching’ the concept of ‘me and you’ because a sense of self is already present and can be seen as a prerequisite to learning this?

The other is radically "not me" - she is an absolute other. The other and the me do not form a totality. Nevertheless, the other appears only because I appear, and I appear only because the other appears - but this is not reducing the other to the self- same. This fact arises from infinity, not psychology or being. It invites us into the "nearness" - the "welcome", the "sociality". It is not me welcoming - the welcome, the nearness, the sociality are instructed by infinity. Seing the face of the other brings up infinity. His book "Otherwise than being" is the book to read, as it was written to answer Derrida's critique of "Totality and Infinity". We are both free (Sartre) and "hostage" (of love- election).

Herbert Blumer, the American sociologist, in a paper of his, “The Mass, the Public and Public Opinion” drew a distinction between mass, then a new type of social formation, and other formations like groups, crowds and publics. In a group members know each other, are aware of their common membership, they have a certain structure of stable relationships. Students of a particular module (subject) form groups. Crowds are larger, but restricted within observable boundaries in a particular space. They are temporary and rarely re-form with the same composition. They may possess an identity and share the same mood. People attending a political meeting or rally form crowds. The public is likely to be relatively large, widely dispersed and enduring. It tends to be formed around an issue or cause in public life, and its primary purpose is to advance an interest or an opinion or political change. It is an essential element in a democracy, based as it is on rational discourse and comprising a better-informed section of the population. In Greece there are publics of middle-class educated people who attend even philosophy classes in amphitheaters. Mass captures features of the audiences or spectators of the mass media of communication. They are much larger than groups, crowds and publics. They are widely dispersed. They lack self-awareness and self-identity and they are incapable of acting together in an organized manner to secure objectives. They have a shifting composition within changing boundaries. The interesting thing is that, whereas in traditional mass media, mass did not act for itself but acted upon, the new media that you are using like youtube and podcast and twitter provide the opportunity for people to respond, to act. Finally, community is a social unit that shares socially significant characteristics like place, norms, culture, religion, values and customs. Thus, we can talk about the community of Sacramento, California or of the Pomona College.

Very interesting

Total tosh - Human nature is how it is for obvious reasons - the need to survive . . . Any aspect of human nature is thusly arranged to that end, competitiveness and greed mentioned here just two of those . . . The suggestion that somehow Capitalism created these imperatives is one of a long line of bizarre fanciful attempts to perpetuate the obscenity that is Marxism . . . Communism is deadly, simple as that . . .

oh wow yall really let yaselves go. what happened? public philosophy also known as propa-propaganda

t is a great simplification of Hegel's thought, perhaps citing some of Hegel's works would have been better: The phenomenology of spirit and above all The Science of Logic but let's forget it

Please do more videos about Nietzsche. I think only Nietzsche is relevant to discuss now, especially with the new present of gen z, where the negation of past is playing a vital role and I think need of discussion about nietzche is necessary in our present culture.

Please do more videos about Nietzsche.

Can you please do a video about Nietzsche and the relation to his work on the idea of iconic. How the history and iconic works. I usually think the iconic played a main role in creating passion. Hence relating the present to the past( unlikely to Hegel)

Seems like Merleau-Ponty forgot to do his philosophy career so he just wrote what Einstein wrote and changed a few words so the teacher wouldn’t notice.

The problem with this approach is that it doesn’t foresee a future where humans are poor saps living in a box, donning VR helmets or jacked into a virtual paradise from which they can’t and don’t want to escape. There is no essence there, just code made by someone to delude the mind in order to make the body produce more and resist less.

Having examined hundreds of conversion stories, I'd say William James is spot on.

Weird way to simply say lack honesty today.

The study of what you don't know for everyone to think about.

With all respect, there is high pitched background noise in this video

READ MARX for help understanding capitalism! The channel DISSIDENT THEORY is a great help. Just as helpful as OVERTHINK PODCAST 📕❤️📕❤️📕❤️📕

READ MARX for help understanding capitalism! The channel DISSIDENT THEORY is a great help. 📕❤️📕❤️📕❤️📕

Much gratitude toward Dave and Ellie for the thought and effort they put in for these presentations. I love the “public” dynamic of the delivery guy arriving in the middle of this.

The world is still enchanted - to those who have what Bergson called "an open soul". Science haven't changed that. We don't know everything, so much is still a mystery.

For some reason I find I resonate with and enjoy French philosophers more than German ones. Even when it's someone I disagree with like Derrida. I don't know if that's just a coincidence or why that is. Nietzsche has been a bit of an exception but he has a voice that unusually jumps off the page in Beyond Good and Evil at least.

Sartre's defense against the fourth charge or Existentialism as Nihilistic feels like a precedent to Zizek's whole "God is dead thus everything is forbidden." which he elaborates on being related to the tremendous burden of responsibility we assume once God isn't a factor.

Here in 2024!

Democratizing philosophy means there’s a dialogue between academia and non-academia with respect for training and respect for human capacity to engage in the process of philosophical generation.

This use of 'public' assumes that philosophy and serious intellectual activity are things that ordinarily happen inside the academy rather than outside it. It reaffirms a norm to the effect that philosophy outside the academy is the exception.

Most philosophy is just too dense for the general public and it takes too much work to go through.

❤

❤❤❤

Thank you for sharing this.

"people of color"? this is the most racist phrase I've ever heard. STOP using this phrase concocted by some idiot, spread by morons.

Public philosophy may rescue our democratic culture, which is under threat.

Yea existential angst isn't what you think it is ....

Great to see such a detailed exploration.

it's interesting that you talk about philosophy as something that happens in the classroom -- obviously both of you are teachers -- but when we're talking about philosophy autodidacts, it has to happen in conversation with friends and peers, and it truly becomes concrete when it's utilized as a framework or put into practice as an ethics

I jumped for a sec I thought someone just knocked on my door LOLLLL !! 😭14:18

what is private philosophy?

Just throwing it out there, the rode dual lav mic setup costs $200 on Amazon right now. I love your guys’ work but this is nigh-unlistenable.

Very happy for your version of "public philosophy"

What an instructive and entertaining podcast! Thanks! I think that the distinction between high culture (unique, challenging and instructive) and pop culture (formulaic, escapist, ordinary) is simplistic. It excludes the rich culture of the rural people - folk culture and also what we call artistic popular culture, elements of popular culture elevated to high culture by composers and poets just like composers of classical music took themes and melodies from folk music. Let us not forget that cultural products that today are considered high culture like the great tragedies and comedies of ancient Athens or Shakespearian theatre were played (taught in ancient Greece) to popular audiences. There was something celebratory in their performance reminiscent of their origin in rural celebrations. Actually, the Greeks turned rituals into theatrical plays and competition into Olympic Games. Speaking of celebrations with lots of fun, carnivals come to mind. They were more spontaneous in the past, more organized as spectacles now with a strong erotic (in dancing) element but also with lots of fun and making fun. I often compare carnivals in our countries with Halloween in Anglo-Saxon countries. Is it Eros vs Thanatos, or celebrating eros and making fun of death? Speaking of making fun of others which is part of having fun, we can make a distinction between making fun of the powerful and making fun of the weak, persons with disabilities and minorities, because there are both. Take anecdotes. The French make fun of the Belgians, many Europeans make fun of the Jews (they used to more frequently), the Greeks make fun of northern Europeans for their naiveté, the Chinese make fun of the Mongols and the Japanese of the Chinese. In your countries there is a great tradition of stand up comedies. There are people who criticize them for their racist jokes that many people find offensive. There is a debate going on in Britain that opposes those who support the freedom of expression in comedies and those who would like the cancellation of racist jokes. A good discussion of why we laugh and a great analysis of jokes is to be found in Freud’s “Jokes and their Relationship to the Unconscious”. For a philosophical discussion of laughter, and fun is related to laughter, there is Bergson’s “Le Rire” (the Laughter).

Immanuel who now?? 😂😂

"Finite I susceptibility to pleasure." My didn't do enough drugs. (I do get his point tho)

Immanuel CONT 😂😂

Thanks for this. I've just been reading some excerpts from Critque of Judgement and came here hoping for some clarification of certain ideas. Was wondering if you had more to say on the following: - What is a concept to Kant? At first, I was reading it as akin to a Platonic Form. But is it social in origin? Is it divine? Is it essential in some way? - I really struggled with the idea of purposiveness. At first, it seemed to be that this was unique to manmade objects, something like an artistic intentionality behind the work. But then he seemed to mention purposiveness in nature too when discussing the sublime and this completely threw me. He also seemed, yes, to identify it as form - so is it something that belongs to the object, rather than the subject? - Finally, I struggled with the idea that the subject who deems something beautiful is seeking to impress this idea on others - this felt like a lot like an interest to me - ie that the subject had an interest in spreading whatever instruction the object could lend to ideas about the good. I may be way off base on all of these points. I found this hard-going and am confused as hell by a lot of it!

She's super clear at explaining all of this, which is usually obscured a bit behind opaque (but not necessarily unnecessary) jargon. I wish she had a lecture series that got webcast somewhere, like Sapolsky's great Stanford series on Neurobiology.

Thank you for this video .. I have been trying to read Heiddiger’s book “Being&Time” but came here to search some lessons to make it easier for me to understand it! I enjoyed this 🙏🏻

Do you do in person crash courses in Philosophy ?

bs"d Very clear! But, re. 'ethical' about a taco, trying to convince someone why they should find the taco delicious, I myself probably would have chosen a different explanation. Once a person says 'delicious' that is leaving the conversation in the sphere of the aesthetic, again. Each person is born with, and continues to develop, somewhat different taste buds, whether this is genetic or acquired by some environmental or current-life-memory factor. So, the enjoyability of a taco would be a bit too subjective, I would think. If I were trying to give another person an ethical reason to eat a taco, there would be some other arguments. 1. One could say, the taco is in front of you, and nothing else is, and you shouldn't starve because you need to retain functionality to serve G-d or humanity or whatever, and the taco is a very good food source for retaining functionality because it draws from all four food groups, the taco shell as carbohydrate, the meat from the meat group, the cheese from the dairy group, and the lettuce, tomatoes, & onions from the vegetable group. (Except that nowadays some nutritionists no longer think of healthy meals according to the balancing of the four food groups, but many of us still think that way.) Of course, you would not convince me to eat the taco unless it had a dietary approval mark from an authorized member of my faith group, and either the meat or the cheese would have to be fake, but there are very few people in the world with such dietary requirements, so there are many people you could convince. In the days when I was listening to live talks about Kierkegaard (1976-77) I did not know the difference, so I would have eaten the pictured taco with gusto. 2. One could say, when you eat that taco, either you or someone else will pay for it and/or its ingredients, thus supporting the purveyors of the taco or of its ingredients. More tacos will need to be made to make up for its absence (anyhow it does have to be eaten because if it is not eaten, it will spoil) and that will support taco-makers and those who produce the ingredients. 3. One could say, eating that taco in contrast to ignoring it, thus providing impetus for the further manufacture of tacos, may actually boost the economy, which benefits all people in that particular economy. It could even raise the GDP. I like this talk. It is very clear. It will help me to organize different thoughts about what I want to do, as I go through my day, and to decide whether an activity is fitting into the aesthetic, the ethical, or the religious aspect, or two or all of those, and in which ways. Thus I can prioritize better. Thank you very much!

how I can deconstruct this: how are you talking about what you thought someone else was thinking about?

Thank you for this sharing this term and perspective! This term helps me understand relational dynamics in far more nuanced manner! I’m transgender, and being raised to perform a gender identity I didn’t align with gave me the ability to perform more hermeneutic labor than a lot of the cis male counterparts I had growing up, I’m understanding how much more work I need to do here in my relationships.

"Enlightenment coincides with the rise of colonialism and the rise of capitalism". Such adolescent ignorance. "Colonialism", if you mean empires, is as old as human society. But of course you, with your brainwashed critical theory, are interested only in knocking the West, particularly the British empire. What about the Muslim Turkish empire and the USSR empire? They didn't have capitalism. The USSR was the biggest slave state in recent history. Read Solzhenitsyn. Also, capitalism did not come about because of the "Enlightenment". There have always been forms of capitalism throughout history. And by the way, capitalist free markets have lifted more people out of poverty than any other system in history.