The reason he was given that much time is to make sure that his ideas were clearly introduced to the audience as well as the other debaters. This is because his ideas are still very new, and it is his ideas which are being debated
@@technoshaman101they're dumb ideas that don't bear thinking about at best (easily dismissed) and stimey truth processes at worst (taken are by anyone in position of pedagogy or influence). Anyone who's read badiou understands this.
I had on the auto-generated English captions for the intro and it was quite a treat! It gave the funniest translation of "Slavoj Žižek" in a German accent to English - it translated that to "Slobbers rejected." 😂 Anyway, a stupid but funny little tidbit. Thanks for putting this on yt!
Saying that the subject/object relationship is “just a special” object/object relationship admits the fact that the subject functions as a surplus object amongst a world of objects. What’s “special” about the subject is only it’s status as a phenomenological access point to the world of objects. Knowing this does not split ontology 50/50 between subjects and objects, it merely acknowledges the dialectical relationship between the two.
Why is there a dialectical relationship? Why is the nature of the subject in any way contradictory to the nature of all other objects? The subject is special because it's the phenomenological access point for us as individuals, but that's just an additional property of that particular object, not anything that contradicts the nature of the object or requires a dialectical relationship. To me this relates to the difference between communism and political theories of anarchism/mutual aid. Communism and Zizek see us as individuals engaged in a struggle to relate to each other, nature, and technological change, with the nature of that relationship itself needing to be subject to dialectical critique at all times. In this way communism and Zizek continue the classic western philosophical tradition of putting the individual in a position of needing to constantly be anxious about their identity. OOO in contrast says that there's no point in thinking of it as a struggle to figure out how to relate. You're never going to figure out what the thing in itself is, or what you in yourself are, so you are therefore freed to just BE yourself and naturally find out more about who you are through your life and experiences. When Harmon talks about the importance of animal philosophy I think he is on point, because when you start talking about how animals actually think and behave, you have to throw out the overly individualist Darwinian competitive mentality. Most all animals with significant brains spend lots of time playing, relaxing, and showing mutual aid type behaviors. Harmon also talks later in the lecture about the importance of symbiosis. So we need to stop seeing ourselves through this Darwinian lens where we're supposed to be like animals in this way, but animals aren't actually like that in the first place. Once we can make that collective shift, we can start on an authentic journey of self learning and discovery, as a society and as individual subjects, where we're able to learn who we really are and how we could restructure our environment and society to make the world a better place.
@@Ballosopheraptor My position is not that the Subject is contradictory “to all other objects” but that it is the contradiction generated “through all other objects”. The dialectical relationship is constituted through the generation/regeneration of the Subject.
This is exactly what I've been saying and thinking for a while as well. It was originally going to be the basis of PhD project but unfortunately one must move where the funding lies and there was not much money in this direction. I hope to still explore it regardless once I get the money tho lol
The individual subject is the lens through which all is accessed. That is the entire reason for bringing psychoanalysis into philosophy, to bring the context of the subject's role of perception of the object into its framework to gain distance from the object and reduce the influence of subjectivity as much as possible in order to view the object as purely as can be achieved. If one were to count the subject as an object and took into account all of the attributes, the specific aberrations of perspective within a subject via psychoanalytical means, it could be functionally the same in some cases, but in dealing with human perception itself, performing less than ideally such as when discussing ideological constructs, the subject's aberrations of perception is the very object of discussion. Looking at this debate pragmatically, it is dysfunctional. I agree with Zizek's position, the position that he did not state in this debate, but the one that exists in his writing.
Vielen Dank für das Veröffentlichen der Aufnahme. Ich bin sehr interessiert an OOO, war allerdings bisher nicht in der Lage mir etwas von Harman zulegen zu können und es lesen zu können.
But the understanding…. Hmmm, you know I was going to say that there’s already a pretty established sense of understanding about this, but I found myself stuck 😅
(copied comment from another one) Absolutely. But despite or maybe because of being a Balkan slob he, both in his writing and ordinary thinking, has this associative creative ability and perception. He's a total contrast to Harman who I also love- Harman is a methodical institutional guy who has read and understood a huge amount of philosophy in a clear and thorough way. They make a great pair.
Yes I can understand the perspective of continental philosophy but where does the non human world feature here. Commodity fetishism doesn't cover it. What about the marine world where the human doesn't live? How does human subject object relationship work with marine species communication and mating and interaction?
Absolutely. But despite or maybe because of being a Balkan slob he, both in his writing and ordinary thinking, has this associative creative ability and perception. He's a total contrast to Harman who I also love- Harman is a methodical institutional guy who has read and understood a huge amount of philosophy in a clear and thorough way. They make a great pair.
@@Lmaoh5150 You are not impressing me with pretentious big words. These kinds of theories have no ground, factually or historically. The fatal flaw Harman made -- by fiat - was to flatten ontology.This move has been done before: Freud, Marx, the Protestant Reformers. Once you flatten history, there is no ground to stand on and you will grasp for something, often times corrupting. Grounding an ontology on objects is defacto worship.
@@Chandleresque We might not disagree actually. Do you mean by paganism in its original meaning as in “anything that’s not Judaic?” Because then it’s trivially true that OOO is “paganism”, because it isn’t Jewish, and I would agree
@@xangarabana Es una tendencia filosófica honesta y de buenas intenciones: (1) Buscan una superación de la absurda divisón analítico // continental, (2) ensayan alternativas al subjetivismo post-kantiano (como sugiere Harman con su ucronía de un "realismo alemán"), (3) quieren reavivar la ontología clásica en un tiempo atravezado por el giro lingüístico tanto de Wittgenstein como de Lacan. Comparto todas sus metas, pero no sus medios. Creo que Harman no entendió la metáfora detrás de la crítica que le hicieron al acusarlo de "fetichismo de la mercancía" (es claro que es un uso metafórico, nadie sensato piensa que la intención de Harman es hacer crítica de la economía política), ni tampoco se quedó a gusto con la respuesta de los lacanianos y hegelianos más cercanos a la escuela de Ljubljana. Llegado ese punto, creo que la razón por la cual el realismo especulativo podría aferrarse a algo como la OOO es por un mero afán reactivo o algún criterio puramente intuicionista (este carácter de "no puede ser que el sujeto ocupe el 50% de la ontología"). Habló de muchas concepciones del sujeto, pero nunca lo oí dar en el clavo con lo que Hegel entiende por sujeto (pues para él, subjetividad y objetividad son dos estados o texturas que cualquier ser puede asumir, no son exclusivas al ser humano). Respecto a la jugada hegeliana para salir del subjetivismo, di una ponencia en mi universidad precisamente aplicando términos de Harman para hacer más fácil la exposición.
@@alejandromatos7860 para entender un poco mejor tu postura (dentro de lo poco que entiendo ya de filosofía), ¿tú cómo te definirías filosóficamente o con quién encuentras más afinidades?
They are both trying to explain the same thing, but are stuck on semantics. Other things are not objects to you or to themselves if you are an essential part of them.
Whether you're undermining or overmining depends on your perspective. By claiming some philosophers are going too high or too low he secretly positions himself at the right height... But if you don't believe that society is a real thing, for which I didn't hear a clear argument, you are already overmining if you claim society is a real thing... He claims denying aggregation means you lose emergence... But where else can you get emergence other than from individuals in society, or, from the parts of a "thing"? Even this idea of parasites... the parasites are inside each creature, not outside, in some nebulous total entity... I think he is right about language... But I get the feeling he somehow marries realism, that objects exist independently of mind, with the belief that you have to believe in abstractions to be one, which is ironic. Where is the substance of the Dutch company, or society, or any other abstraction? Clearly they are just the ideas of the mind, which may still be material... because it is material, it seeks immaterial things, to hold steady the endless contingency of things...
So .... didn't karl Popper say something Very similar about objects and their qualities (the bucket theory.of the mind?) . Now I have studied sir karl's work all my life & it irritates me now that I was directed by my study propensity to this here talk. Irritating because of a LOGIC signpost that has brought me to this part-of-the-world where I saw the word "object" & or with the verb word "Ontology". Let's be clear about this. There are many subjectivists being taught today in schools of colleges all over. Most if not all their parrot fashion learning has been a complete waste of time. Fast forward to this our time , n.o.w.; is there something similar being taught which is a dreadful, another waste-of-time? What could it be, what has evaded the best minds and the best students who are only students because of some existent & non-existent knowledge threatening the future? The environment, and the sickness that is starting to glare permanently.... our reliance on a worldwide fossil fuels cultured industry so much so that the truth is that the WISER Older people are more HOOKED ON THE Culture, the fossil fuel IDEA than ever before in the history of civilization. For it is a sickness... one which philosophy is very much A SUBJECTIVE STOOGE for this plainly deadly threat to (real Objective) knowledge gathering. You don't think so? Learn again I say.... DESPITE THE REALITY OF THE PRESENT NAUSEOUS status quo where the talk-is-of-knowledge but where the knowledge-is-definitely-All-talk. No substance to it... no wonder then this truth is EVADING EVEN Philosophy above, as in so many areas now. And so "Dark Ecology" yes...one that is still misinformed & still poisoned by the sickness that is the "fool's gold" of a short-sighted unbelievable situation unfolding.
and also, when Objects for us last -however long- how could this occur given that one's mind forgets etc. So what is the strategy for remembering ; obvious that a fast talker like GH here must have a view on this ; if not then a viewer? I ask because I am Aiming an starting to put-into-critical words just why & how this occurs ; ontologically of course for real.
![[#2024MAMA] ROSÉ (로제), Bruno Mars - APT. | Mnet 241122 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dgGqD28J6aQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I love how in order to make the debate competitive, they had to give Harman a 55 minute head start
This ain't no football fam
The reason he was given that much time is to make sure that his ideas were clearly introduced to the audience as well as the other debaters. This is because his ideas are still very new, and it is his ideas which are being debated
@@technoshaman101they're dumb ideas that don't bear thinking about at best (easily dismissed) and stimey truth processes at worst (taken are by anyone in position of pedagogy or influence). Anyone who's read badiou understands this.
this is honestly the greatest breakdown of the essential nature of reality discussed by two dudes who physically resemble the killer bean
I had on the auto-generated English captions for the intro and it was quite a treat! It gave the funniest translation of "Slavoj Žižek" in a German accent to English - it translated that to "Slobbers rejected." 😂
Anyway, a stupid but funny little tidbit. Thanks for putting this on yt!
Saying that the subject/object relationship is “just a special” object/object relationship admits the fact that the subject functions as a surplus object amongst a world of objects. What’s “special” about the subject is only it’s status as a phenomenological access point to the world of objects. Knowing this does not split ontology 50/50 between subjects and objects, it merely acknowledges the dialectical relationship between the two.
Quite simply and beautifully stated
Why is there a dialectical relationship? Why is the nature of the subject in any way contradictory to the nature of all other objects? The subject is special because it's the phenomenological access point for us as individuals, but that's just an additional property of that particular object, not anything that contradicts the nature of the object or requires a dialectical relationship. To me this relates to the difference between communism and political theories of anarchism/mutual aid. Communism and Zizek see us as individuals engaged in a struggle to relate to each other, nature, and technological change, with the nature of that relationship itself needing to be subject to dialectical critique at all times. In this way communism and Zizek continue the classic western philosophical tradition of putting the individual in a position of needing to constantly be anxious about their identity. OOO in contrast says that there's no point in thinking of it as a struggle to figure out how to relate. You're never going to figure out what the thing in itself is, or what you in yourself are, so you are therefore freed to just BE yourself and naturally find out more about who you are through your life and experiences.
When Harmon talks about the importance of animal philosophy I think he is on point, because when you start talking about how animals actually think and behave, you have to throw out the overly individualist Darwinian competitive mentality. Most all animals with significant brains spend lots of time playing, relaxing, and showing mutual aid type behaviors. Harmon also talks later in the lecture about the importance of symbiosis. So we need to stop seeing ourselves through this Darwinian lens where we're supposed to be like animals in this way, but animals aren't actually like that in the first place. Once we can make that collective shift, we can start on an authentic journey of self learning and discovery, as a society and as individual subjects, where we're able to learn who we really are and how we could restructure our environment and society to make the world a better place.
@@Ballosopheraptor My position is not that the Subject is contradictory “to all other objects” but that it is the contradiction generated “through all other objects”. The dialectical relationship is constituted through the generation/regeneration of the Subject.
This is exactly what I've been saying and thinking for a while as well. It was originally going to be the basis of PhD project but unfortunately one must move where the funding lies and there was not much money in this direction. I hope to still explore it regardless once I get the money tho lol
Y'all need to read some Adorno. Nigga played that game and didn't beat it, still nigga who played it best
Zizek & Graham: best frenemies
Love Zizek talking as the it fades. Great talk.
The individual subject is the lens through which all is accessed. That is the entire reason for bringing psychoanalysis into philosophy, to bring the context of the subject's role of perception of the object into its framework to gain distance from the object and reduce the influence of subjectivity as much as possible in order to view the object as purely as can be achieved. If one were to count the subject as an object and took into account all of the attributes, the specific aberrations of perspective within a subject via psychoanalytical means, it could be functionally the same in some cases, but in dealing with human perception itself, performing less than ideally such as when discussing ideological constructs, the subject's aberrations of perception is the very object of discussion. Looking at this debate pragmatically, it is dysfunctional. I agree with Zizek's position, the position that he did not state in this debate, but the one that exists in his writing.
Vielen Dank für das Veröffentlichen der Aufnahme. Ich bin sehr interessiert an OOO, war allerdings bisher nicht in der Lage mir etwas von Harman zulegen zu können und es lesen zu können.
Ist ein 🍎(O) Teil von mir (S) durch das Betrachten ?
Im surprised deleuze wasnt mentioned. His ontology fits surprisingly well
Harman has profound “uncle pontificating at a family gathering” vibes and I’m here for it
just in the middle of grahams speech, he is great!
oh, i have mixed name and surname. sorry, mr. harman.
Zizek is a fucking animal. I really like him.
7:15 undermining fails to account for emergence ab 21:40 what objective oriented ontology means 44:45 types of objects 1:02:30 1:23:00 1:37:25
Thank you very much for the upload.
59:43 i love how he keeps wiping his snot on his forehead and face
Whose analysis of capitalism is Graham referring to at 49:13? I just can't catch the name, is it Fernand Braudel?
Civilization and Capitalism, 15th-18th Century by Braudel
@@cerealbloodx thanks!
Am I crazy or is Harmann's 'reversed' account of Kant remarkably reminiscent of Foucault on 'the analytic of finitude, in The Order of Things?
They’re pretty close
2023 Debate!!!!!??
57:00 (Event) + 1:12:00 Alain Badiou
I can't.. This is not possible to listen to while working even doing short repeating task :)
Around 1:18:00 Zizek says "shut up" to the guy on the right
And?
@@walterramirezt it's called a "meme marker", thank me later
1:18:45 right there
RIP Wittgenstein, you woulda loved these language games
Clearer words than under and overmining would be understanding and overstanding
But the understanding…. Hmmm, you know I was going to say that there’s already a pretty established sense of understanding about this, but I found myself stuck 😅
Great convo!
Big fan of Graham. His ideas are clear. I still have no idea what Zizek talks about.
I feel the complete opposite haha he is the one that makes complete sense to me
(copied comment from another one) Absolutely. But despite or maybe because of being a Balkan slob he, both in his writing and ordinary thinking, has this associative creative ability and perception. He's a total contrast to Harman who I also love- Harman is a methodical institutional guy who has read and understood a huge amount of philosophy in a clear and thorough way. They make a great pair.
1:04:23
(Zizek goes beyond OOO because of the idea of Symbolic)
this part is a veritable tour de force
spannend , dass ploetzlich Blanchot auftaucht ...
What's the movie mentioned in timestamp 01:10:37?
The Idiot Akira Kurosawa
Kurosawa’s “The Idiot” en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Idiot_(1951_film)
Intro song?
1:02:14 for christsake someone hand him a kleenex
Yes I can understand the perspective of continental philosophy but where does the non human world feature here. Commodity fetishism doesn't cover it. What about the marine world where the human doesn't live? How does human subject object relationship work with marine species communication and mating and interaction?
The discrepancy between Harman’s well organized and well timed intervention and Zizek’s random comments and jokes going nowhere is astonishing
Absolutely. But despite or maybe because of being a Balkan slob he, both in his writing and ordinary thinking, has this associative creative ability and perception. He's a total contrast to Harman who I also love- Harman is a methodical institutional guy who has read and understood a huge amount of philosophy in a clear and thorough way. They make a great pair.
@@guy936 well organized and well timed grade school spinozism isn't really something hard to flex on! yknow?
Brilliant Graham!
Lost Weekend 🤣
*Withdrawal
I definitely think Harman’s OOO is Paganism. The thing-in-itself is too “alive” to not be pagan enchantment. Someone disagree with me, please!
no
You’re distracted by an associative resemblance
@@Lmaoh5150 You are not impressing me with pretentious big words. These kinds of theories have no ground, factually or historically.
The fatal flaw Harman made -- by fiat - was to flatten ontology.This move has been done before: Freud, Marx, the Protestant Reformers. Once you flatten history, there is no ground to stand on and you will grasp for something, often times corrupting. Grounding an ontology on objects is defacto worship.
@@Chandleresque We might not disagree actually. Do you mean by paganism in its original meaning as in “anything that’s not Judaic?” Because then it’s trivially true that OOO is “paganism”, because it isn’t Jewish, and I would agree
tehy really needed to give graham and advantage and yet could not match Zizek
33:03
They both think that they are him xD and they are
Graham Harmon's project is incoherent.
Explain
It is the object creating the subject in the first place
Me here
🍎 there
It's quite the opposite.
9:27
Te he visto en algún que otro vídeo de Adictos a la filosofía jajaja. ¿Qué opinión te trae el realismo especulativo?
@@xangarabana Es una tendencia filosófica honesta y de buenas intenciones: (1) Buscan una superación de la absurda divisón analítico // continental, (2) ensayan alternativas al subjetivismo post-kantiano (como sugiere Harman con su ucronía de un "realismo alemán"), (3) quieren reavivar la ontología clásica en un tiempo atravezado por el giro lingüístico tanto de Wittgenstein como de Lacan. Comparto todas sus metas, pero no sus medios. Creo que Harman no entendió la metáfora detrás de la crítica que le hicieron al acusarlo de "fetichismo de la mercancía" (es claro que es un uso metafórico, nadie sensato piensa que la intención de Harman es hacer crítica de la economía política), ni tampoco se quedó a gusto con la respuesta de los lacanianos y hegelianos más cercanos a la escuela de Ljubljana. Llegado ese punto, creo que la razón por la cual el realismo especulativo podría aferrarse a algo como la OOO es por un mero afán reactivo o algún criterio puramente intuicionista (este carácter de "no puede ser que el sujeto ocupe el 50% de la ontología"). Habló de muchas concepciones del sujeto, pero nunca lo oí dar en el clavo con lo que Hegel entiende por sujeto (pues para él, subjetividad y objetividad son dos estados o texturas que cualquier ser puede asumir, no son exclusivas al ser humano). Respecto a la jugada hegeliana para salir del subjetivismo, di una ponencia en mi universidad precisamente aplicando términos de Harman para hacer más fácil la exposición.
@@alejandromatos7860 para entender un poco mejor tu postura (dentro de lo poco que entiendo ya de filosofía), ¿tú cómo te definirías filosóficamente o con quién encuentras más afinidades?
@@xangarabana Me identifico más con las soluciones que Hegel da a esos problemas.
They are both trying to explain the same thing, but are stuck on semantics. Other things are not objects to you or to themselves if you are an essential part of them.
Whether you're undermining or overmining depends on your perspective. By claiming some philosophers are going too high or too low he secretly positions himself at the right height... But if you don't believe that society is a real thing, for which I didn't hear a clear argument, you are already overmining if you claim society is a real thing... He claims denying aggregation means you lose emergence... But where else can you get emergence other than from individuals in society, or, from the parts of a "thing"? Even this idea of parasites... the parasites are inside each creature, not outside, in some nebulous total entity... I think he is right about language... But I get the feeling he somehow marries realism, that objects exist independently of mind, with the belief that you have to believe in abstractions to be one, which is ironic. Where is the substance of the Dutch company, or society, or any other abstraction? Clearly they are just the ideas of the mind, which may still be material... because it is material, it seeks immaterial things, to hold steady the endless contingency of things...
So .... didn't karl Popper say something Very similar about objects and their qualities (the bucket theory.of the mind?) .
Now I have studied sir karl's work all my life & it irritates me now that I was directed by my study propensity to this here
talk. Irritating because of a LOGIC signpost that has brought me to this part-of-the-world where I saw the word "object"
& or with the verb word "Ontology". Let's be clear about this. There are many subjectivists being taught today in schools
of colleges all over. Most if not all their parrot fashion learning has been a complete waste of time. Fast forward to this
our time , n.o.w.; is there something similar being taught which is a dreadful, another waste-of-time?
What could it be, what has evaded the best minds and the best students who are only students because of some existent
& non-existent knowledge threatening the future?
The environment, and the sickness that is starting to glare permanently.... our reliance on a worldwide fossil fuels cultured
industry so much so that the truth is that the WISER Older people are more HOOKED ON THE Culture, the fossil fuel IDEA
than ever before in the history of civilization. For it is a sickness... one which philosophy is very much A SUBJECTIVE STOOGE
for this plainly deadly threat to (real Objective) knowledge gathering.
You don't think so?
Learn again I say.... DESPITE THE REALITY OF THE PRESENT NAUSEOUS status quo where the talk-is-of-knowledge but
where the knowledge-is-definitely-All-talk. No substance to it... no wonder then this truth is EVADING EVEN Philosophy
above, as in so many areas now. And so "Dark Ecology" yes...one that is still misinformed & still poisoned by the
sickness that is the "fool's gold" of a short-sighted unbelievable situation unfolding.
and also, when Objects for us last -however long- how could this occur given that one's mind forgets etc. So what
is the strategy for remembering ; obvious that a fast talker like GH here must have a view on this ; if not then a viewer?
I ask because I am Aiming an starting to put-into-critical words just why & how this occurs ; ontologically of course
for real.
Least senile popper fan