He always assumes the audience is ignorant of the topic, so in his intro he summarizes the same thing each time. One of the reasons I like him tbh, he greatly appreciates being able to communicate his ideas to all audiences.
Yeah who cares what white guys have to say, right? I mean, listening to white men is just so woke! I really see the connection you make here. Great contribution 👍🏻
Totally twisting his words there. He’s saying it has nothing to do with their race, and people who assume as such fail to realize that in continental departments they’re not the guys taking advantage of the smooth sailing of privilege when it comes to ideas; they’re being at least somewhat subversive.
Why must you waste the time of serious people with an apologia for being white, and being in a picture with other white males? This is such cowardly, simpering behavior. I suppose standing up to another philosopher on this or that point in Kant provides you the frisson of courage, yes? Well, do not flatter yourself. There is nothing at stake in those disputes. You included the picture from Goldsmiths for a reason, which was to pay tribute to the court, where your material interests are at stake. After all, how many online conferences can a balding, pasty 50something expect to be invited to in the years ahead without a few Signs of the Cross? What a tedious, obsequious generation you all are, Graham.
The way you talk i think you might wanna head over to the human mind virus department see if they can cure you... Philosophy is not for everyone, you must be able to show in minimum level of respect! Get cured!
@@seditoable My friend, what if I told you -- and Graham -- that I had a PhD in philosophy from a Tier 1 US continental philosophy program? Weak philosophical arguments (and especially pusillanimity) in the face of a *very* unphilosophical, irrational mob movement now convulsing our universities are not worthy of "respect." I expect philosophers of Graham's caliber and professional standing to show some backbone and courage. To see him cower and curtsy like a sophist is embarrassing. It demeans his work, and his character.
@@thomasaugustine7848 well since arguments say nothing but to communicate, id say what youre communicating here is actually youre level of authority, which i dont care about because you are saying anything else for me to read into. And youre quite honestly being a bit of a popcorn throwing umm fascist, do you really KNOW that what hes saying is useless to everyone? Honestly im not personally a big fan of him or anyone that falls into the analytic sort of tradition or just pretty much anyone english speaking. The way i look at it personally, you are a philosopher trying to open new avenues of thought, not get better at communicating or naming things. The people that matter will be able to understand something that has useful substance. But at the same time, with philosophy, i cant just deeply become one with one of these machine code specific family practitioners, there are a lot of other things id like to become more in symbiosis with. I like philosophy that takes you on a journey like Descartes, Spinoza, or Deleuze and Guattari's Thousand Plateaus. I came here from a Laruelle video who is by the way also an atrocious communicator. I would absolutely be interested in more detailed thoughts on Grahams ideas if you have time. Sounded kinda interesting to me.
Hopefully he´s aware that balding pasty 50 something philosophers are going the way of the dinosaur, either simpering or fake-macho, as they should be. They´ve fucked up the world enough with their banality and hierarchy of the mediocre, otherwise known as the old boys club.
Kastrup arguments are not bad, but its in some sense a narcisstic projection in my opinion. And many of the speculative realism guys are against scientism. Its a completely different opponent than the classic materialists. But i agree a debate would be interesting.
@@wolkenkuckucksheim555 Ugh. The moment somebody looks at Kastrup's (Or anybody's) arguments and says they are narcissistic, you know there is no way possible to have a conversation. You have to deal with the logic and the reasonableness of the ideas not project psychological motivations onto the thinkers.
![[Full Episode] MasterChef Junior Thailand มาสเตอร์เชฟ จูเนียร์ ประเทศไทย Season 3 Episode 10](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8kldrPPsDZs/mqdefault.jpg)
What do you think of this talk? Leave a comment below.
For the full course, visit iai.tv/iai-academy/courses/info?course=speculative-realism?TH-cam&
The link does not seem to work.
Dude has been giving the same talk for literally 15 years lmao
lol
He always assumes the audience is ignorant of the topic, so in his intro he summarizes the same thing each time. One of the reasons I like him tbh, he greatly appreciates being able to communicate his ideas to all audiences.
link doesnt work as deleuze said!?
Also Nihil Unbound is from 2007, is Harman unable to speak on any of Brassier’s work from the last decade?
Has he produced any major work since?
@@micahtewersofficial no full length publications but plenty of short pieces and talks on youtube
he won’t talk about it because it blows his thought out of the water
It is funny how long Harman has been beating this dead horse despite none of the other philosophers identifying as speculative realists.
link doesn't work?
Link not working lol
what might be the problem of phenomenology? what is the role of speculative realism
I think it is that phenomenology reduces the object to its effects on humans
Stop trying to pander to woke ideology. 4 white guys who cares. Don’t apologize for it don’t give excuses for it.
Yeah who cares what white guys have to say, right? I mean, listening to white men is just so woke! I really see the connection you make here. Great contribution 👍🏻
@@lotuseater7247 are u rarted?
‘Rarted’ must be what you are, whatever that means! 😂
@@lotuseater7247 u really couldn’t figure out I’m trying to not get my comment deleted u truly are regarded
Why are there 4 white guys representing SR? Harman's answer: actually we're minorities
He probably believes it too
Totally twisting his words there. He’s saying it has nothing to do with their race, and people who assume as such fail to realize that in continental departments they’re not the guys taking advantage of the smooth sailing of privilege when it comes to ideas; they’re being at least somewhat subversive.
Speculative Realism: "an online orgy of stupidity"
Could not agree more.
That was disappointing
Why must you waste the time of serious people with an apologia for being white, and being in a picture with other white males? This is such cowardly, simpering behavior. I suppose standing up to another philosopher on this or that point in Kant provides you the frisson of courage, yes? Well, do not flatter yourself. There is nothing at stake in those disputes. You included the picture from Goldsmiths for a reason, which was to pay tribute to the court, where your material interests are at stake. After all, how many online conferences can a balding, pasty 50something expect to be invited to in the years ahead without a few Signs of the Cross?
What a tedious, obsequious generation you all are, Graham.
White self-hatred, bowing to the leftist identity politics.
The way you talk i think you might wanna head over to the human mind virus department see if they can cure you... Philosophy is not for everyone, you must be able to show in minimum level of respect! Get cured!
@@seditoable My friend, what if I told you -- and Graham -- that I had a PhD in philosophy from a Tier 1 US continental philosophy program?
Weak philosophical arguments (and especially pusillanimity) in the face of a *very* unphilosophical, irrational mob movement now convulsing our universities are not worthy of "respect." I expect philosophers of Graham's caliber and professional standing to show some backbone and courage. To see him cower and curtsy like a sophist is embarrassing. It demeans his work, and his character.
@@thomasaugustine7848 well since arguments say nothing but to communicate, id say what youre communicating here is actually youre level of authority, which i dont care about because you are saying anything else for me to read into. And youre quite honestly being a bit of a popcorn throwing umm fascist, do you really KNOW that what hes saying is useless to everyone? Honestly im not personally a big fan of him or anyone that falls into the analytic sort of tradition or just pretty much anyone english speaking. The way i look at it personally, you are a philosopher trying to open new avenues of thought, not get better at communicating or naming things. The people that matter will be able to understand something that has useful substance. But at the same time, with philosophy, i cant just deeply become one with one of these machine code specific family practitioners, there are a lot of other things id like to become more in symbiosis with. I like philosophy that takes you on a journey like Descartes, Spinoza, or Deleuze and Guattari's Thousand Plateaus. I came here from a Laruelle video who is by the way also an atrocious communicator. I would absolutely be interested in more detailed thoughts on Grahams ideas if you have time. Sounded kinda interesting to me.
Hopefully he´s aware that balding pasty 50 something philosophers are going the way of the dinosaur, either simpering or fake-macho, as they should be. They´ve fucked up the world enough with their banality and hierarchy of the mediocre, otherwise known as the old boys club.
Debate Bernardo Kastrup if you are not scared.
Kastrup arguments are not bad, but its in some sense a narcisstic projection in my opinion. And many of the speculative realism guys are against scientism. Its a completely different opponent than the classic materialists. But i agree a debate would be interesting.
@@wolkenkuckucksheim555
Ugh. The moment somebody looks at Kastrup's (Or anybody's) arguments and says they are narcissistic, you know there is no way possible to have a conversation. You have to deal with the logic and the reasonableness of the ideas not project psychological motivations onto the thinkers.
an awful joke