วีดีโอ

Thank you! Very well explained! Easy to understand:)

Read Fashionable Nonsense by Alan Sokal. Foucault was a sophist. Hear what Noam Chomsky had to say about postmodernism: th-cam.com/video/9js6LdkRE6Y/w-d-xo.htmlsi=4UjA4oUdVi4Nq7d8

How hegel influenced this work?

Ok sir 🎉

Great video - thank you!!

Thanks!

thank you

Its was very clear, thanks a lot :)

Thank you so much for this!!

This book is absolutely fantastic. Everyone should read it.

a universal history is true and unavoidable - we were just never in a position to realize that reality

Thank you so much for providing an actual overview without talking about the postmodernist claim of a post truth society for one third of the video! Relay useful entry to the book.

Amazing video thanks

reading this1 sounds like torture

I AM a history student from India.........your efforts is very appreciable Thanks for.....

you are the best

Sir , how Collingwood links with past with present ? Can be explain it as According to Collingwood , every historian looks upon past through his own present view and every historian has its own interpretation regarding a particular event Is it true ?

Thank you!

I'm a History student from México, I would love to know what you have to say about E.H Carr or Marc Bloch. thanks

this helped a lot! thank you!

My goal is to read War and Peace one day!

Please keep making videos. Probably you don’t realise the the quality and significance of your videos but in time they will prove to be really valuable.

Your video was really good. As a student of history I must ask you to continue your endeavour

I hope you continue to make videos.

Thank, well done.

Well done, thanks.

I hope you have more videos planned. Thanks.

Very interesting, thank you.

A very nice explanation, thanks.

I like this quote from the video: ““these thoughts are simply beyond the limits of the episteme of the age.” I can imagine a community or review board hearing your story of how you discovered something completely amazing and they respond in that same vein. They understand it’s an innovative idea and has potential for positive change but perhaps because their participation in the existing episteme includes high status and power they might try and dismiss or even silence the new idea lest they lose everything they have worked for and have to walk in the shoes of the man who came to them.

This was so useful thank you! Please do more videos, you're a Bob Ross of literature!

such a clear and relaxing explanation:)

Thank you so much

thank you! This is a great help for my study. 😊😊😊 more vids!

Thank you, sir! Wonderful work and interpretations. It did great help for my thesis <3

Thanks, it was very useful for me

Thanks a lot! Just finished the book and was looking some analysis of the second epilogue. Your video was helpful! It would be wonderful if you could go into more details of it in future videos!

Fellow historian here with my MA in European history. Your command of historiography and methodology is very clear, succinct and to the point. I like that you are breaching the field to the public. Historiography and how we "do" history typically gets lost on the public. A few questions I have if I may and one request. What is the area of focus for your MA and PhD? Any particular research your working on or enjoy? And finally when researching how do you approach interpretation i.e lenses used? My request for a topic is either E.P Thompson or Ranke. Thank you for taking the time to make these videos.

Thanks for this!

Hi! I love your videos.👍👍 Can you do a video about Nietzsche theory of History please 🙏🙏?

Just wanted to let you know I'm citing you for an essay I'm writing on Foucault for uni, thank you for making it so easy to understand!

As you have said the movements of nations are not caused by power or intellectual activity but by the collective activity of all the people. Tolstoy states: “ The movement of nations is caused not by power, nor intellectual activity, nor even by a combination of the two as historians have stated, but by the activity of all the people who participate in the events, and who always combined in such a way that those taking the largest direct share in the event take on themselves the least responsibility and vice versa.” What does he mean by the largest direct share ? Would thousands of soldiers fighting on a battlefield be an example of such a large share of an event so that they take the least responsibility ? Would love to hear your explanation. Already subscribed and loved your video!!

Thanks a lot

Excellent summation. If only Foucault had been able or willing to express himself so succinctly.

Just finished the book a couple hours before watching this. A very philosophical ending that does round up the novel well indeed!

I love the way you speak and explain the subject. Please make more. :)

This was very helpful, thank you! ☺️