วีดีโอ

@@animanoir You’re welcoooommmee

@@johncoltranesethic18 A pre-ontological understanding of being [Sein] is the immediate and tacit familiarity we have with being; our ability to seamlessly use the word being and understand the implications of what it means to understand other beings as being implicated in our own existence. It is pre-ontological because it comes prior to any ontology, and thus prior to the formal recognization (as in literally re-cognizing our experience when we logically and rationally think about it philosophically) of any determinate categories, such as “objects”, “subjects”, “beings”, “spatiality”, etc. I know that’s a really technical way of stating this, and I don’t know if it’s any help. I go into more depth in my Being and Time series where I discuss this over the course of several lectures. The long and short of it: pre-ontological understanding is prior to the formal articulation of specific categories. It is an intuited, lived, and continuous flux punctuated by events of various importance. In our ontological thought, we recognize (an action) certain ontological categories which we use in our philosophical thinking, retroactively “discovering” those categories as having already latently been there. If one is not careful, one can impose the ontological over the pre-ontological, reducing life to a formulaic, rationalistic, and systematic philosophy, minimizing or absorbing the primary nature of pre-ontological experience to one’s daily life.

@gavinyoung-philosophy Thank you i got it🦆. If i may, one last question. When you say "re-cognizing" you mean that the point of cognition is the creation of a piece of the conceptual web that then is integrated in the ontology; in other words a "stopping" of the flow than reintegrated, when active, in the analysis of it?

I just mean that it’s a reflection on one’s own cognition; on the process by which one becomes aware of and is able to articulate one’s own cognition. It is a necessarily logically mediated and categorized way of thinking that acts within certain rational bounds.

Okay. Thank you. Good video and I appreciate the engagement. 🦆💚

@@rcherrycoke7322 Thank you?

@trysaratops Not sure that it’s available online. It was featured in a printed box set by Semiotext(e) entitled “Schizo Culture”, this essay being in the second of the two books, “Schizo Culture: the Event”. Here’s an Amazon link to the box set: a.co/d/3CmwYwv

@@victoralfonssteuck What a great way of expanding Hegel’s thought! You’re totally right that women would nourish the creative spirit (pun intended) within their womb and thus be part of the process. I think Hegel was probably just wed to certain misogynistic values about the value of “active” masculinity to create, as opposed to “passive” femininity. Thanks so much for your kind words as always man :)

He’s pretty technical. The play of forces, dialectic of the One, the terminological distinctions between Notion, idea, and concept, etc

You are totally right! I’m with Deleuze and his critique of Hegel in Difference & Repetition: negation cannot act as a positive motor for historical development and progress. True production and creation, rather than mere negation that subsumes contradictions into a wider and wider domain, is the only way history can unfold.

@@gavinyoung-philosophy th-cam.com/video/wg-z0ENDRBE/w-d-xo.html

can u imagine? this interpretation happening in any academic seats around academic institutions around the world? yet, world runs like this... most people will never get it. imagine... finding and building up your ritualized conscious life (hyper-contemplation) (*not a job but more like 도... really...) so that few words change reality... kinda cool no no?

But you don’t create me. That’s the difference. God’s perfect knowledge entails that every outcome of his initial creation of human beings is known in advance with perfect fidelity. Any illusion of choice we have is merely due to the narrowness of our perspective and inability to grasp the totality of all states of affairs. Because God created us and knew exactly which states of affairs would result from that creation, he is ultimately responsible for any actions that we “freely” make; he has effectively dictated every action, it just appears as if we choose of our own independent volition. We are effectively extensions of God’s will, since every action and state of affairs plays out according to God’s will, which cannot err in describing, predicting, and knowing all states of affairs. Therefore, any “choice” made by any human can ultimately be traced back to God’s creative hand. Perfect foreknowledge prior to any choice means he is responsible for any outcomes of any choice since all things play out according to God’s will, meaning that he both desires it to be as such and created everything prior to that choice in order to ensure a particular outcome resulted.

@@averybloch Thanks man! I’m excited for you to start the Wake! I hadn’t even heard of FWEET till you mentioned it, so thanks for introducing me to it! In terms of TH-cam material, I’d recommend “Relax, It’s Just Finnegans Wake”, which is a nice resource for the thunder words. Also, Anthony Burgess’ program on Finnegans Wake that’s posted here on TH-cam is a gem. That’s basically it tho :/

Thank you! I’ll check those out I learned about a book, Zettels Traum, You might be interested! Since you like postmodernism, German lit and FW, it seems extremely up your alley Supposed to be as hard as finnegans wake or harder, haha Also, have to say it’s cool how much you bring the Germans into those video, haven’t seen others do that with FW at all

@@victoralfonssteuck To talk about “existence” as a formal concept is to describe a state of affairs. A state of affairs consisting of true opposites which simultaneously occupy exactly the same space and time and exist in exactly the same respect (aka a true contradiction) seems entirely nonsensical to me. Like we literally cannot think, perceive, or act without presuming the LONC. I even agreed with Hegel at one point that it was unnecessary to invoke the LONC, and a truly systematic philosophy must deny it to be all encompassing (ie both multiple and one), but then I had my senses knocked into me by a philosophy graduate friend of mine. It seems to me that those who want to point to contradictions that actually exist show their inability to grasp the logical impossibility of a true contradiction: something which both is and is not at the same time *and* in the same respect. The latter part seems to me the real caveat that prevents true contradictions from existing.

@gavinyoung-philosophy thank you for your detailed and thought-provoking reply. I’d like to expand on my position, particularly around contradictions and alternative logical frameworks. First, I believe it’s crucial to differentiate between true contradictions and false contradictions. As I argue in one of my pieces, false contradictions often arise from limitations in our frameworks or understanding. True contradictions, however, reflect intrinsic tensions within reality itself, which cannot be resolved by classical logic but require alternative approaches to be meaningfully addressed. You argue that the logical impossibility of something “being and not being” at the same time and in the same respect prevents the existence of true contradictions. While this holds within classical logic, alternative systems like paraconsistent logic and the framework of meta-consistency allow us to model situations where contradictions exist without collapsing into triviality. These systems do not reject the utility of the PNC outright but challenge its universality. About your critique of existence and contradictions: you state that true opposites occupying the exact same time and space in the same respect is nonsensical. Yet, I think this assumes a static and binary view of existence. In another text, I discuss the Platonic concept of metaxy-the “in-between.” It represents a liminal space where opposites coexist productively, not as resolved contradictions but as simultaneous truths. This mirrors the kind of contradictions we encounter in real-world phenomena, like the wave-particle duality in physics, where the classical dichotomy of “either/or” breaks down into “both/and.” You also mentioned initially agreeing with Hegel’s dismissal of the PNC’s necessity before reconsidering. While I respect your reasoning, Hegel’s dialectical method wasn’t merely a denial of logical consistency but an effort to capture the dynamic movement of concepts and reality. Contradictions in Hegel’s system aren’t inert absurdities but engines of development. To dismiss them as impossible or nonsensical risks ignoring their productive role in thought and existence. My proposal is this: Rather than seeing contradictions as fatal to systematic thought or metaphysics, could we view them as signposts indicating where our current frameworks are insufficient? True contradictions, as I see them, invite us to expand our logic and metaphysics, not abandon them. Paraconsistent systems, meta-consistent frameworks, and even dialectical approaches are all ways of grappling with this richness. One concept I’ve been developing is that of meta-irony, which I explore in other texts. Meta-irony serves as a way to navigate the coexistence of contradictory truths without necessarily resolving or negating them. It’s a mode of thought that embraces the provisional and paradoxical, allowing contradictions to function as tools for deeper understanding rather than barriers to it. Building on this, I’ve also been working on the idea of anti-logic, where we assign the designated value as “false.” Anti-logic doesn’t seek to invalidate other systems of logic but acts as a counterbalance. Ultimately, I believe contradictions -both true and false - are invitations to expand our intellectual horizons. Whether through paraconsistent logic, meta-consistency, or the creation of anti-logics, they compel us to rethink the boundaries of thought itself. I share this perspective not to dismiss classical logic but to enrich our toolkit for understanding reality. It’s because of these shared interests that I plan to become a supporter of your work in the future. I’d love the chance to engage with you and others who are passionate about these topics on a deeper level. Conversations like these, I believe, are where philosophy truly thrives.

@ You know, Victor, your response is extremely compelling. I think you’re right: even within a Hegelian framework, contradictions are mobile nodules signaling and entailing historical development. The concept of metaxy reminds me of Homi Bhabha’s concept of liminal identity he explicates in “The Location of Culture”. Even from a dialectical framework, he focuses on the in-between temporalities opened up by resistance to binaries and codes that are achieved through the resistance of their universality. This indeed is the key benefit to viewing ontology as necessarily fragmentary, incomplete, and open to contestation. Thanks for formulating things so nicely!

@@victoralfonssteuck I had no idea! What does it mean exactly?

@@gavinyoung-philosophy it sounds something like "buttcrack" if you say it in a specific way kkkkkkk in that sentence i wrote something like swety buttcrack kkkk I'm sorry.

@@gavinyoung-philosophy it means something like "Buttcrack" 🤣🤣🤣🤣

@@gavinyoung-philosophy I'm sorry if I'm flooding, maybe there's a anti-curse word filter here, so I'll try again. In portuguese, hegel's name sound something like B U T T C R A C K . In that other coment said something line "I have a swety B U T T C R A C K.

@ Haha love it! I’m holding onto this reference like my life depends on it🤪

@@nath9000 Not a problem! It’s Rilke, one of the great German romantic poets. His Duino Elegies are stunning and would doubtless interface with Hegel nicely :)

@@gavinyoung-philosophy thank you very much! I'll check that out, poetry is very much up my alley and i haven't read any Rilke yet -- although one of my professors recommended i read some of his work last year. since you've replied i'd also like to say that i very much appreciate your videos and community engagement. i'm an undergrad student studying english literature and have leaned towards more philosophy oriented modules as my degree has progressed. last year i wrote an essay on post-structuralist thinkers with a focus on deleuze and guattari and found your videos both comprehensive and engaging. this is my go to channel for thinking. keep up the good work! i look forward to future videos and thoughts.

@ Thank you so much for your kind words! Glad you’ve got to do some work on post-structuralism for your degree! I’ve yet to run into them at all in my university education, but hopefully they’ll change soon. Really glad I could be of some help, and best of luck as you continue your degree!🫶

Good catch! Perhaps a better translation would simply be the cruder “pisser”. Seems like Miller softened the language to bring out the generation-differentiation dichotomy (even though the German doesn’t have the same endings in both words as the English does!)

@@aflatoon_333 🫶

@@xxfishytomatoxx6730 You’re right. As an extemporaneous lecturer, my grammar is often sub-par, but I try my best.

@@lumiii_- Haha I am so glad to hear that you find my content helpful! Glad to be one more Deleuzian friend 😜🫶

Thank you!

linux foundation board members are bought and sold by large corporations . show me how your computations are meaningful praxis and I will eat my shoe

nah you right king

I’m so glad to be of help to you Lexie! Merry Christmas to you as well :)

@@readreadofficial Thanks a bunch! Love your stuff and best of wishes to your 2025 reading too!

@@LittleMakwa Thanks a lot man!

@@addyhadmelike655 Thanks a lot! Just riding waves of inspiration

@@jeewillikers I’m really glad to hear that! I know exactly the feeling you express, so you’ve got a common friend :)

I’m so glad you enjoy them!

@@shannonm.townsend1232 Yup! They’re one of the historic critical theory journals that helped to popularize this stuff both academically and publicly.

@gavinyoung-philosophy thnx for the info, I need to catch up; just recently found out they existed post 90's

@@ElBacanDelgado Hehe I’m glad!

@@dxthehardyzway1997 Indeed, and also the tower of babble and the heights of the Himalayas, followed by the inevitable fall from those heights. Good job picking up on all the references!

@gavinyoung-philosophy speaking of the himalayas, from the last few paragraphs "....for a daughterwife from the hills again. Imlamaya." Love your commentary man, still have to consume your whole 2 hour rundown but already excited for it.

@ Good catch! And glad you’re enjoying my work :)

I’m 20. I’m a sophomore undergrad right now. Thank you😁

@gavinyoung-philosophy you get it at a young age. Im 31 and was much dumber than you at 20. Keep up the good work, we need your insight more than ever.

@ Thanks a lot man :)

Thank you so much!!

Glad you like it! I’ve been digging James lately so I’m definitely gonna get Varieties of Religious Experience, and I have a professor friend who is an expert in hermeneutics and has convinced me to read some Gadamer so definitely that one!