วีดีโอ

Wow

Gender Relationship warfare of Boys and Men Versus Girls and Women must be addressed truthfully because of the foundation in connection to zero sum gain that can tear our nation apart in the future. Please address this situation as soon as possible.

Thank you for sharing!

8:43 Two kinds of knowledge? What about, "How did it come to be? (process again). And for what purpose?" I take purpose to be different from function. I guess the first two questions are what questions, and mine are why questions (history, and intention). Universities and Football Teams are just objects (process entities) on a different spatial and temporal scales than a chair or a table. (Chairs and Tables are processes too, when viewed at various scales). On one scale they are practically static, on another the are a blur of energy.)

Wait a minute. Fire doesn't burn cotton. Cotton burning is Fire. Fire is not an object relating incompletely to cotton. its a process that is transforming the cotton. He talks about the East Indian Company as object which is definitely one one to look at it, but I think a better was is to look at it as "Entity as Process" OO is so 20th century. He needs to Haskell. Functions not objects is what the cool kids work with. First order and higher order functions. 4:12 What are his primitives. In a functional ontology, the primitives are Null-ary functions that always return themselves. Yeah. We can always substitute functions for objects. If objects are functions the return values are it's qualities and relations and the arguments are the observers relation to the object. If stand in the same relation to an object (send in the same arguments), you get a consistent return value (time is always and implicit argument). Yes anything he's says about objects can be morphed into functions. And functions capture the dynamic structure of reality much better than objects.

An absolutely brilliant talk . Thank you.

The irony of him not being able to describe what not being able to describe is like as he takes shots at writers 56:00

I was looking for a video on Object Oriented Programming and it's relation to philosophy, so I was a bit surprised when I realized this was actually just a philosophy lecture with no programming at all. That said, I absolutely loved this lecture. He put to words many ideas I've had swarming in my head. I definitely look forward to reading his book now.

44:50 - Wow! Now I know why my teachers always called me weird. I'm an Monadologist.

31:07 - "I'm sorry, our ethics panel is run by AI now, and our ethicist is really more of a quality control position. It would be great if you had an engineering degree."

I’m not convinced that ideas don’t emerge from physical properties, and while yes, physics would be a poor way to gain knowledge of many things that emerge from its rules- that doesn’t make it so they haven’t emerged. When Conway made the game of life, he knew the rules that governed the game- but I’m sure he didn’t immediately know how to make a “glider” or “airship” in that game. Just because a thing is not easily predicted by base rules doesn’t mean those base rules cannot constitute the thing.

Whats the sense of speaking 3 rows of quantum physics ?. A philospher of methaphysics needs that?

Oh here he is! I heard a podcast about the history of Satan a long while ago, but then I couldn't find it again. Searching for "Satan" gives so many useless results. I must make a note about Phil Harlan. He knows his stuff.

"Graham Harman writes about objects. When considering two 'objects' he notes their interaction. For instance, he writes about cotton burning, 'the cotton burns stupidly.' If all objects are ontologically, or in their Being (Sein) 'democratised' or equal, then a certain philosophical ground arises from this proposition. Since these objects are equal, that is to say, the same ontologically, then it follows that they can be interchangeable - ontologically - with any other objects. Objects are objects. Moving from the 'objects' of cotton and fire, interacting as they are through what Harman calls a 'sensual vicar' - another object that is created from the interaction of the two objects, let us apply this proposition to another case. When a Monk in Tibet sets himself aflame, when he self-immolates in protest against China's occupation of Tibet, does the Monk too 'burn stupidly?' Since the Monk and the cotton are in-their-being totally equal, an Object is an Object, the Monk, just another 'object' can be said to 'burn stupidly.' Political ideologies to light to Monks and cotton are all 'objects' for Harman. The object withdraws, as 'we' or 'I' or another object can never fully know its being. This is a proposition he picks up from Martin Heidegger the Nazi philosopher. Harman associates himself so much with Heidegger that he says he is more of a Heideggerian than Heidegger himself. Given Heidegger's support for the discrimination and even extermination of Jews and other (objects), we can deduce via Harman's object-oriented ontology that he would, at an ontological level (that is at the level of Sein) find no problem with Nazi ideology, for it is simply another object that withdraws and relates with other objects. We must then ask, given Harman's fetishising of Heidegger and his objectification of everything, does 'the Jew burn stupidly?' That is to say, does the life of the Jewish person under the object of Nazism represent a mere interaction of equal objects via a 'sensual vicar?' ... Does the Jew get gassed stupidly under the object of Nazi philosophy which is entirely equal to the Jew and interacts with the Jew through the sensual vicar of another object that being the gas - the gas supposedly I would imagine an object that interacts with the Jew that's being killed and the gas chamber through a sensual vicar creating another object - everything is ontologically equal - what are the political consequences of that?" Eilif Verney-Elliott, Graham Harman's Object-oriented ontology, 2013.

lol what nope

“Why should we define Realism as a reality existing outside the mind, is the mind the only thing with an outside?”

There is no such thing as object-oriented ontology; it is an oxymoron. There are no Tool Beings. A tool is not a being. There are no Art Objects. There are only Art Beings, Art Works. Objects do not exist. Object-oriented ontology is an oxymoron because objects are not beings but Harman ontologises objects, and at the same time, objectifies beings manufacturing beings into objects (which we witnessed at Auschwitz which is the absolute apt attunement and attainment of Harman's obliterating-obliviating object-oriented ontology) ; paradoxically, Harman was an authentic nazi philosopher unlike Heidegger who never objectified being knowing that beings are not objects (unlike Hitler and Harman who saw beings as objects, beings as things, to manage and manipulate). There are no objects in the world. Rather, it is humans who turn beings into objects in order to objectify, obliterate, and obliviate beings. Neo-nazi Harman makes Heidegger look like a liberal! Object-oriented ontology is Nazi Philosophy par excellence (and so apt for our fascistic age of Trump and Putin who both practice object-oriented ontology on a daily basis turnings beings into things to destroy).

I really enjoy the simple way Harman explains his thoughts. But I cannot understand his fourfold structure. If we already have a defined Object as something that lies deep in realism, how can it be that there is also the sensual Object. The real Object seems to be behind everything we interact with it, and doesn´t leave enough space for another object behind. The sensual Object of Husserl seems to me to be a whole other Idea, how can these two Ideas of Object get into the same Philosophy?

The love of wisdom is a process and wisdom is a result; therefor, philosophy emphases process over result. Both are needed and so is the truth that a process always produces a true result WRT that process. Always! How many other truths are there like this? This point of view made the ongoing deceptions of parts in our society rather easy to see...the result is looked at first and given emphasis, and it's usually altruistic on the individual level, and gainful for the group. The education system where teachers have altruistic motives, the result is switched from learning to producing good workers, which is good for the group; or health care, where doctors are mostly altruistic, the goal is health, and is now big business, ditto for foreign aid. A process is adopted and at the same instant there is a subtle shifting of the goalposts, with cost being the reason I think. Doing this excludes other solutions and acts to marginalize some of the actors...because that one result is demanded...and the actual true process to achieve the result looks or is made to look funny and so disregarded (but actually works). Choice is removed. We understand the business behind it and acknowledge the altruism, but can't see the individual vs group dichotomy, the switch in the result. An example are tractors, which are supposed to save work, but tend to destroy or alter ecosystems, so that in the long term much more work is created. The soil micro biology is marginalized, and this is seriously bad for a ground up ontology (as opposed to top down). Mess with the bottom layers and the upper layers disappear, not the other way around. Now a huge amount of resources are needed to "fix" the process: it becomes a system of problem solving instead of problem prevention, which of course is much more lucrative. I'm not saying it happened deliberately or purposely, like Adam Smith's invisible hand it appeared and was then taken advantage of. Much of society has been repeated enough so that it becomes obvious that something is not working (large cities for instance, or fast food) and I think this is because the philosophy behind it is wrong. Even more seriously, people seem to be getting messed up, more angry and fearful, and perhaps this is the reaction to a lack of choice. Far from being depressing, this shows the problem and how to fix it.

So basically the value added for workers in poor countries are underestimated by net imports and net exports? That means poor countries can’t rely on exports to become richer. Very interesting video.