Great video. It is refreshing to listen to philosophy questions without the political priming, or the self-help advertising, or the theatrical presentation on youtube. I have a question regarding unnatural identifications and the contradiction that comes from it. I have just read a shoujo (young girl) romance manga that is labeled "Mature" containing ra*e (* in case youtube censore it and the comment cant be seen) scenes of a grown man to a teenage girl he adopted to groom. The romance genre is predominantly written as desirable fantasies by women for women. This one also, the rap*st is rich, handsome, the typical romance protagonist who treated the female as an object. The translation team are also likely to be women, and since they translated it for free, meant that they like it enough. Now most women would not want to be repeatedly s*xually as*aulted by her guardian, or would be horrified to see that happening. Neither do I think the female who wrote and the females translated the manga, wanted that to happen in the real world. That one contradiction when the genre is identified a self-insert. Online and real world activisms for feminism also featured: females who demand that woman can dressed whatever they feel like without judgements from society and they expressed great discontent, discomfort when many young girls happily dressed scantily to attract attention from the male gaze. That another contradiction in the cause of feminism, and sometimes I see it coming from the same individuals. I read the manga, because I knew it is trash enough that I can't be bothered to dislike it. I identified myself as a lover of great, creative fiction, and I knew that profile cannot always be kept, because sometimes I want to read works I could not give a shit about. I already see the contradictions in my own pasttimes. I found it strange that groups and individuals want everyone to keep their identity constant at all times, but the contradictions to that identity always exist. I am comfortable enough with the contradictions, and I don' t really bothered with social media, but when so many stuffs being recorded, how would the human psyche be impacted? Do you think more people would consider that sticking to their internet, political and professional profile is unsustainable and society be willing to overlook contradictions to that profile, or it would be more demanded that more people must continue to play the role assigned to them by the profiles?
Thank you Dr Moeller for answering/reacting to my comment. (It is indeed a weird out-of-body experience when I see my own name mentioned in a TH-cam-Video) Let me take a moment though to clarify one thing where I might have expressed myself a bit too ambiguous. There is a bit of a difference between "fictional" and "fake" (at least in my understanding). Although they are both referring to something that is not real (i.e. not empirically verifiable), the intention of the sender/emitter is important. For example, something is "fake", when it deliberately tries to misguide the recipient (e.g. fake news or a fake profile), whereas with "fictional", not only do both recipient and sender know that it is not real, the intention behind e.g. a fictional story is to project certain aspects of reality, thus not imitating it (as some artists have tried lots of times), but merely tweaking/distorting it - this is what you would maybe call the part, where the "performance" takes place (as in a stage play, both audience and presenters know about the fictionality of what is happening, but nevertheless let themselves "fool", play the "game of make-believe", because they want to be entertained). In that vein, most profiles on the internet (e.g. on instagram or facebook) can be considered fictional. They are not real, but they nevertheless project certain aspects about the people behind these profiles and beautify them - and this is ok for most people who interact on the web. A fake profile would be, let's say, if someone pretends to be Johnny Depp and deliberately tries to fool people into thinking it's the movie star himself. His intention is not just to perform a stage play, but also breaking the border between fictionality and truth.
My friend S. Alic (from) "North University" disagree. A central concept (or program) in that University is "media philosophy". As if [kao da] the Philosophy of Media is all philosophy...
This is such a herculean effort and really cool. Probably this kind of work has far greater outreach and impact than traditional academic publishing. Please keep going if you can!
I remember in the 90's, living in a "historic town" in germany, the "second hand observation" culture of japanese tourist groups who were continuously looking through their cameras was considered just curious and weird. Now it's normal everywhere
I love your channel. I think that the idea of "Genuine Pretending" finally made sense to me and grant me a closure for my own study of myself and Others of the last 10 years of my life... Case closed! Free at last! Happy and relief! Absolute fun!
We live a nervy, joyless churning mass of anxious and neurotic anticipation of confirmation or of non-confirmation. One major byproduct of a literally teeming society.
This is a really interesting project. In literary studies we often think about how language itself is a kind of performance. The linguist J.L.Austin wrote about performative utterance. As humans we speak truth into being no? Do Butler and her theories of the performative fit in here too I wonder? Sidenote: Samuel Taylor Coleridge - an avid and early British reader of Kant - was writing in his notebooks about how his dreams were akin to the theatre - where we must suspend our disbelief to watch a story unfold. A play is of course a fiction - but in some senses - a play is also presenting us with a kind of truth! Similarly, our dreams are of course “real” but … best not to “believe” what they tell you! They do however, tell us something about who we are! Anyway, that was all very much related to my own thesis but I am enjoying watching this digital project unfold.
And today Hans Georg Moeller learned that people only listen to what they want to listen and he'll have to repeat his points about profilicity a thousand times more
@@Bojoschannel it's probably because his hypothesis is very uncomfortable. Certainly I don't want the answer to life to be "don't give a fuck too much I guess", but well Mr Moeller seems to have some pretty strong argumentation so I can't just ignore it
@Phil Dodd (HistoriaAntiqua.ORG) just to follow up your first point, I was once hospitalised with a severe illness which left me paralysed, fortunetly I made a full recovery. After I recovered I used to get asked if I learned anything from my bout of illness, some special insight or wisdom. The only thing I could tell my intoloctors was it is better to be well rather than sick, and sometimes all you can do is wait for things to pass.
@@leonardotavaresdardenne9955 the message is not "don't give too much of a fuck about life", it's more in the lines of "don't give a fuck about what you believe or are told you are supposed to be"
I think that the main criticism people have of the Chinese social ranking system is not that it is a ranking system, but that it is the government running it. The Chinese government can very easily exploit this ranking system to go after political dissidents.
I enjoy Tom Nicholas videos, but am disappointed to see that response. I think what happens among left-leaning political circles, at least online and in the US, is that terms like "wokism" seem to represent an aspect of the political divide between left and right. On the right, for example, "wokism" is frequently bemoaned as a cancerous plot to destroy civilization, so on the left the natural response is vitriolic. Critiquing ideas like "cancel culture" or "woke ideology" immediately triggers a filtering response within left-leaning people, because they are trained to recognize them as the talking points of their political opponents (which they often, but not always, are). There also exists a paranoia that those presenting these ideas could be doing so in bad faith or with hidden political agenda. Indeed, when I first saw the thumbnail with the word wokism on it I was instantly alerted to the possibility of a right-wing reactionary response, and was concerned that a content creator that I generally trust and enjoy could be presenting information in a deliberately dishonest and politically charged way, the way, say, PragerU might. Of course, upon watching the video this was not the case, but that's exactly the problem: we develop intellectual shortcuts in order to sift through what we consider the bad ideas and good ideas to be at a more efficient pace, but at the cost of good faith critical engagement with the ideas. My guess would be that people who called the wokism video "nonsense" didn't watch it. I wonder if this is a symptom of the abundant availability of information, like do we take in so much that we almost have to develop shortcuts like that?
Couldn't agree more. I do think it's a response to information overload. Buzzwords become much more than their original definition with enough time and popularity. They become signifiers of political/social movements. Like websites that let you search via tags.
It definitely is some kind of a shortcut, i had the same reaction when i saw his wokeism video recommended in my feed: "oh another Peterson-type idiot that TH-cam wants to force down my throat". I gave it the benefit of doubt and was pleasantly surprised. This words are already charged with our online interactions and the whole media landscape where words like wokeism mean a lot more than the word itself, it also means a set of relations with the concept of the word and different reactions to it, thus we see it and already think: Jordan Peterson, alt-right, reactionaries, idpol, liberals, etc
I think the answer is to be aware of your tribal boundaries, and how those boundaries are enforced. ‘Dog whistling’ is a concept created as a thought terminating cliche to stop you considering the out group’s speech on its own merits, or as an allegory for some phenomenon they cannot articulate.
@@freddie2119 it was just a short thread on Twitter, but I should note that your usage of the word "critique" is a rather generous description of the thread.
This Q&A is very helpful I think in distinguishing genuine from authentic, (genuine) pretending from being untruthful or not investing-in truly (in a fake way). These terms are being used very carefully - and that can be challenging
This idea of second order observation has changed the nature of sports, mainly football. Goal reactions from fan channels and fan parks being filmed, has become very popular. The ever synonymous rain of beer has become the learnt reaction to a goal, with each social actor taking part to create a spectacle for the observer.
How are we defining 'inside' here, and more specifically it's delineation from the outside? My primary concern with profilicity is the reproduction of dichotomies like inside/outside and observer/observed. I think there is a greater ontological entanglement here, and in some ways profilicity seems a continuing of essentialism or epistemic representationalism, which you otherwise seem to be opposed to.
I feel like he gives some good attention to these ambiguities - like his answer at 10:34. His defining of profilicity (and sincerity and authenticity) does depend on a distinction between inside and outside which is reductive, but this distinction is part of a common social vocabulary and is the basis for many cultural prescriptions - therefore not arbitrary. It serves as a good starting point and leaves plenty potential for deconstruction.
It is good that you have the theoretical skills to shield yourself from this bullying. For the rest of us it's really hard, this bullying can take a real toll on us regular people. You should have a support group for people who face these "woke mobs". Of course the right-wing is happy to have us, but we need an alternative.
I find your assumption that the right wing is any less guilty of such bullying peculiar. Many leftists are well-read and understand theory, with right wingers refusing to engage critically with certain thinkers at all and resorting to harassing leftists. It is difficult to argue one's existential point with online right wing personalities who dismiss the very concept of phenomenology as illegitimate, for example (Conceptual James does this very thing, to name one). To make use of Dr. Moeller's point, certainly the right wing and the left wing are both operating under the same pretenses of profilicity, criticizing others based on profile rather than content.
Why does it have to be a paradox? I find most paradoxes simply need to be untangled (if they refer to real like scenarios). I can be assured by being right about a tragic phenomena in climate science because it affirms my expertise, affirms my identity, something I've put a lot of work into. But I can also be upset about the consequences of the dangerous reality. It's not as simple as happy and sad. I'm fact, the affirmation I receive about my expertise leaves me with greater confidence to address the upsetting reality of climate science.
I am curious how the way we are told to 'pick' roles in society (or at least how I was told) relates to the three different conceptions of identity you put forth. For example, when deciding on a college major or on a job, I had to pick from a predefined set, and integrate it into my identity (profilicity?) and yet I was also supposed to make sure that what I picked had to be an extension of my authentic self somehow (authenticity?). I also enjoy watching videos on body type and fashion, and much of it seems to be about curating a profile. Yet I am also supposed to begin from my 'body type', which seems to be a starting point of sincerely expressing a given category. I suppose that the paradigm of identity I've most encountered is about curating a profile through an attempt to reconcile sincerity and authenticity.
5:21 “This is the word ‘brand’” Maybe its the cynic in me but I couldn’t help but find it funny that we use brand (i.e. one being ‘branded’ with the mark of an owner as a cow on a ranch is), to signify our allegiance to building our profile. Our brand is a blemish on our performance that marks it as necessarily unreal.
I think we also consume in "second order". I fint myself sharing something I watched and then watching it again to feel the sense of watching it with someone else.
Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like authenticity refers to identity that is already there, sincerity refers to identity that you aim towards and profilicity refers to identity that is performed in the moment. For instance, a salesman might be a salesman because it aligns with their skillset, then construct their profile on a person to person basis, attempting to sincerely play out that role.
As someone who's studied authenticity through the work of the Philosopher Charles Taylor, I'm also very confused about what exactly he means by authenticity, and would really like a vid just on clarifying this terminology! that's criticism from love my man.
I hope it’s possible to create a new civil religion that allows us to have science philsophy and religion working together to constantly better each other and project life’s existence further into the timeline of the universe because if not, I’m on a doomed path.
I mean that's pretty much what "wokeism" is though. It merges all three elements (science, philosophy, religion) into an ideology that proposes Progress as the ultimate good.
@@mkultra4316 maybe under your definition of wokeism I agree with professor Moellers definition as it being a combination of identity politics and a form of German guilt pride which would not be what I’m looking for in a civil religion
Interested to know your thoughts on Thomas Metzinger’s non existence of the self and it’s implications for identity. You’ve covered it a little in the video, wrt Buddhism and Sam Harris - but specifically Metzinger’s take on this.
I concur. Although I'm more familiar with the Buddhist idea of non-self, and Sam Harris' illusion of the self (similar to the Buddhist idea), I'd imagine Metzinger is along the same lines. In general, I'd be interested to hear a more in-depth video about the @35:00 on the video: What kind of similar elements to these ideas of non-self are there in Daoism, and how exactly does the idea of genuine pretending derive from that?
This sounds to me like Vonnegut's conclusion in _Mother_Night_: that we are what we pretend to be, but extended to recognize that there are multiple kinds of 'are' and multiple kinds of 'pretend.' No wonder that I sometimes find myself trying to flesh-out multiple disconsonant profiles. The mapping between multiple profiles and the various components of the nervous system must be boggling. For example, some profiles may emphasize emotion-driven or spontaneous behaviors while others emphasize learned or calmly rational behaviors. Pretty good chance that when we like one of our profiles and learn to conform to it and strengthen it, we are undermining our mental capacity to conform to some other profile that is important to us in some situations. The video does mention that profiles can be transient. Accepting that the game is solitaire, how do we know when we are winning?
Pertaining to the distinction between fakeness and performance, a good way of illustrating the difference would be the concept in cinema of verisimilitude. Something presented poorly on screen with little attention to detail might lack verisimilitude and break the illusion, causing our awareness of the illusion to become the focus, while greater care and awareness of what is being presented will maintain the illusion, the performance itself holding attention.
Nietzsche writes that “thoughts are the shadow of our feelings - always darker, emptier and simpler.” In this context, what do you personally think are the feelings behinds “profelicity” (sp)? What are the real motivators and drives? What’s the assumption behind people’s psychology and behavior, and the way this feeds into televisual culture? What of the capacities and desires that preceded the means (technology)? Do protestors show up because protesting is morally just, or because they know it will be on TV? Where do you (personally) start drawing these lines, especially when you say much within profelicity is irreconcilable (such as a producer being better off for not meeting their consumers)?
Dear Dr Moeller, could Profilicity be understood as an extension of Eric Fromm’s ‘having’ mode? Reflecting on the theme park photos from your book, it seems we no longer experience moments in life simply for the sake of ‘being’ (formed, changed, excited) but now also we can ‘possess’ and use them for the sake of self presentation. I would love to hear your thoughts on this.
ranking and social hierarchy has existed since ever, with social media it’s just more codified and in our faces now, I don’t know if it’s an apt comparison to the Chinese social credit system. biggest contrast is, it’s a state defined/mandated social credit system. I know Orwellian is a word that gets thrown around a lot these days but that’s literally it, people.
I got into the same criticism in a few videos ago, with others, and lucky for us, he actually addresses this. What's clearer from his response is that the focus is not on the systems themselves, but how REGARDLESS, in the social Credit system in china, or in the ratings, ranking systems in the West, they influence how people act authenticity/inauthenticity when engaging their own identities and political ideas, etc... So, it is an apt comparison to the thought he's putting forth.
A little late to the scene, but is it really all that different when the state allows a set of large entities (corporations, in the case of the US and other democracies) to build profiles and ratings for every individual participating in that system vs when the state participates in building and ranking profiles directly? There's no opting out, whether or not this process is carried out by the state or by a set of corporations. In the west, even if you were to stop using all forms of social media, the fact is that your banks collect information about who you are and what you spend on, and disseminate the data they've collected (and anything they might have inferred from it) as it suits them. Companies will use information about where you've studied to determine the quality of your education, and that factors into whether they ultimately decide to hire you. Every aspect of your life is determined by your profile and the profiles of the institutions you're associated with. How these systems are arrived at might be different, but they function in very similar ways. There's nothing especially surveillance-y about a state that participates in the surveillance as opposed to one that passively allows surveillance to take place.
Contentions with 9:09 , or more generally, your critique of Stirner. My apologies if this is all over the place, I often get told my responses are messy so please bare with me. Your first problem is that you used the word should, Stirner never makes prescriptions. Stirner maintains mere descriptiveness and believes that ideals are alienating. The next problem would be that Stirner would say that this cause doesn't take away from authenticity, ownness can't be taken away, one is just merely alienated from their cause, and thus from themself. He does not believe the removal of this is "ideal", now he uses dialectics to prove that conscious egoism is to arise. One's cause isn't the object of the self, it is the self. Stirner’s egoism actually entails a pseudo-dissolution of the subject-object binary, because all things are your property which also constitutes your ownness, you are your ownness. You are essentially analogous to your property. Necessarily, one can’t identify with something that eludes, at the very most, identity or, at the very least, discursive identification. The Unique is the creative nothing. Also, this is nitpicky but its the Unique and its Property, not the Ego and its Own. Most people I know that agree with Stirner tend to ignore any critique that uses the title "The Ego and its Own" since it is a horrible mistranslation.
Here's a prescription from Stirner's preface: "Fort denn mit jeder Sache, die nicht ganz und gar Meine Sache ist!" ("Therefore: Away with any cause that is not completely my own cause!") This may be understood as a mere self-prescription, but basically the whole book is a paradoxical call to all its readers to follow Stirner's call not to follow any call other than one's own.
I came here to say this, thanks for the comment! Saved me time! I would like to add one single thing, and thats stirners insistance that everyone already is an egoist. One cannot, but be oneself. The only destinction that exists is that some people are aware of their egoism, while others are not. But even when your not aware of it, your still doing it for yourself (psychological egoism) Then one might ask, what is there to be gained by reading the book? Simply going from being an unknowing egoist, to a knowing egoist.
@@hans-georgmoeller7027 Hes talking about himself, not his readers, so there are no 'ought claims' about everyone following their own call. One cannot but follow ones own call, as he would say not that it matters either way, a paradoxical call or not :^)
I've been enjoying your content a lot recently. I wanted to comment on your pronunciation of the word "aliases". As a native English speaker, It took me a few times hearing you say that word in context to understand what you were saying. I'm not saying your pronunciation is incorrect, but I would personally pronounce that word as "ayy-lee-yus-ez". Just pointing out that this may confuse a native English audience. Thanks for the interesting perspectives!
There's a book I read in my undergrad Computer Science program called "We Are Data" by John Cheney-Lippold which talks about a data-double generated by your online behavior and is used by corporations for marketing and whatnot. How, if at all, does profilicity relate to the aspects of your online identity that you yourself did NOT curate, collect, it maintain?
One day it dawned on me how we could probably ruin many people's lives with jist our words, that by saying to someone that loves us some few words in a particular order not only our relationship but even a huge part of their lives could be destroyed in an instant. We don't do this obviously, we love this person too, and we expect them not to do this to us either, but nevertheless, the power is always there. (I want to emphasize that I'm not suggesting that relationships are a power struggle, just that this is a thing thay could happen) This got me thinking about how we expect people to act based on what we know about them, what we've seem them do, what they've told us about them and just the same, people could expect us to act a certain way in accordance with what they know of us. Like we were characters with a list of traits. We are the stories we believe about ourselves, whether it's us or someone else that tells them. And I think this holds true for any identity formation paradigm.
That Tom Nicholas response shows everything that is wrong with "leftubers", the guy spent more time critiquing your fonts and such and rapidly jumping to stupid conclusions rather than an honest engagement with your arguments. Seems like it really messed up with his identity...
@@Brewmaster757 what i found amazing is how Moeller wasn't even that negative against wokeism, as he said, he isn't arguing against it's content but about it's use in profilicity and yet Tom immediately called him a grifter, atheist edgelord and felt the need to mention transgender issues even tho Moeller was clearly not engaging the matter in this respect. Sometimes i watch Tom's videos and he never gave this "vibe", to call it something, it seems his brain just disconnected once he saw wokeism in the video. Maybe if Moeller had included a 10 minute clown festival like other "leftubers" he would have received a better reception? Anyway, youtube drama is stupid
I am wondering whether there is a period in time when profilicity appeared or if aspects of it were ever-present? Surely there are similarities between a reputation built on oral testimony and the technologically enhanced identity building we see today? The professor mentioned that profilicity existed before we had the technological means of today, but how far into the past can it be detected? The reputation of a ruler, trader, warrior, healer, artist from past societies is also in relation to the general peer. Or should we simply consider these a form of sincerity, even though it went beyond the people they communicate directly with?
“Performance creates genuineness”. As it is paradoxical, does this paradox not have to be managed and potentially disregarding with a new understanding of behavior? I would argue that there are two kinds of expression. 1) A persona we may take on when in certain situations or with certain people, & 2) An underlying Authenticity that is your actual thoughts, feelings, and behavior coming forth. The persona we may take of, its very expression and existence does not necessarily justify it purely out of its lived experience and it’s occurrence. It certainly would not necessarily justify it as authentic or potentially natural. Of course the persona originates from the mind and is constructed through thought itself and also perhaps emotions within the individual, but that does not mean that it is natural or authentic. We can lie and we can be honest, unless we hold honesty as perceptionally relative and it is not possible to ascertain individual honesty. Authenticity and naturalness seems to occur where one is unfocusedly or unnarrowly behaving in a manner, but rather expressing outwardly feelings, thoughts, and behavior that emerge in a seamless fashion. That is, Thoughts, feelings, and behavior as they emerge without thwarting them to be in any particular way to suit a setting, which would be what a performance is. That is, not situating behavior, emotion, or thoughts to necessarily suit a setting, but the emerging of these things as they come without control. I think we can ascertain that not all behavior is merely a performance, that there is a natural emerging self underneath a performance, or potentially without, and if we look a bit deeper we can prove this as so. At least to ourselves.
I would love to see your thoughts on the core thesis behind the film 'the secret life of Walter Mitty' which seems to play with the idea of profilicity in a rather honest manner.
You say that you shouldn't lie about your identity in profilicity, but how do you even determine what is a lie in profilicity? That is, isn't the very act of lying a performance, which makes the lie a part of your identity? edit: I now realize that you do distinguish between the "clearly fake" and the "perfomance", but how do you do this? That is how does one determine what is clearly fake if it is not with comparison to an authentic self or the natural roles of sincerity? You could say that what is fake would be obviously fake, but to me this is intuitive, but not clearly true.
there are obviously lies which are very obvious like saying that you have a phd if you don't. But other lies like performing confidence on a social media account are seemingly becoming your identity in the act of lying.
thereby new aspects of your identity surely can only be created through lying if your identity isn't anything naturally. This isn't to say that lying is morally bad.
Probably what is or is not policed/is excused at any given point in time and place. That changes, like, with the wind. He also mentions a sort of honesty, honestly lying, you "truly" believing in whatever your profile says you believe in, and not slipping in an unexcusable way. Gotta keep up nerd, git gud at socializing and profile building.
When Pokemon Go came out, I made the comparison of those zombie-walk cosplay events where people gathered around the fun gimmick of filling the streets with zombies in a sort of make believe game, but with Pokemon Go it was a zombification of people playing a game instead -- instead of the game being about pretending to be a zombie, the game took your mind and attention, practically making you a zombie.
Yes, there’s almost no difference between his claims/ideas and 50-60 year old French theory from Debord, Baudrillard, even as recent as Fisher, except that it’s almost been depoliticized and the rhetoric surrounding it has been like ‘technologized’, if you will. He’s sticking to this notion of a kind of natural/metaphysical social creation of identity, ignoring the material relation between these societies and their historical contexts (especially economic). ‘Profilicity’ (which is just an extension/rename of Baudrillardian ‘sign value’ and Fisher’s ‘capitalist realism’ see: The Consumer Society and Capitalist Realism) is intrinsically linked, causally speaking, to late capital as a phenomenon. These are not social orientations we’re selecting by nature of existing and being alive, these are certain social paradigms that come naturally from socio-political organization of the species, global/late capital, colonial, feudal, etc. And I would argue that this ‘profilicity’, ‘authenticity’, etc. are not necessary by nature of an existing society, but really sad effects of inhumane organizations of society as such, especially Marx’s theory of alienation. A truly egalitarian world would be rid of these concepts.
That's a major L for Tom Nicholas. I generally hate the way that the left on social media kind of forces you to conform to a very narrow set of rules. I'm very happy with you who dares to criticize wokeness, or a channel like Shark3ozero who dares to speak out on men's issues without paralyzing himself by the reputation that men's rights advocates have gotten. Contrapoints and Lindsay Ellis experienced a similar thing on Twitter where people take everything out of context, and no valuable discussion about certain topics (like transgenders) is allowed because people rather respond to the reputation of the act (the general peer) than what is actually said.
I think its interesting how the debate on free speech vs. hate speech here in Norway points out anonymity as a big issue ... I prefer anonymity wherever I can get it and I dont see a problem with internet forums being anonymous.
It does seem like this quote holds water until you realize what is meant by "authenticity" hasn't been defined by Moeller. I'm not familiar with Stirner, but I'd think there is some theory behind authenticity he puts forth. If that is what Moeller is standing by, that needs clarification. For all we know Authenticity could be interpreted to mean "gut feeling" as Canadian psychiatrist Gabor Mate puts it. Or if we take it from the philosopher Charles Taylor, in which case this statement would bear no water at all, since the very idea of being authentic means not acting because of some cause--even if that cause is "being authentic". ED: Satre's notion of bad faith also holds bearing on the term....
I have a question in relation to second-hand observation. It has been commented that there is hesitance to say the experience is diminished when it is a second-hand observation. In this sense, would the assessment of how diminished it is be based on the intent of the matter being observed? In the same way that a music concert might make people put their phones away as not to "ruin the experience".
How do we recognize what is the result of profile building and what is not? For example could the response of the activist to the climategate be the same no matter the truth state of the scientists claims? Maybe the activist simply has a strong tendency for optimism so that she is happy since it turns out that the scientists had told the truth, but if the scientist had lied she would have been just as happy that climate change was false. If profiles must be curated with intent and "investment", what then is the role of the unconscious in the process?
I like the recursion of critiquing profilicity through a profile. I think in a way (because of the recursion) all critique through profiles becomes a critique of oneself, and all the critique that acknowledges the critique of oneself somehow gains a life of its own and can argue directly with any external critiques as they're being referenced. I felt this some while reading the Tom Nicholas tweet thread. Relatedly, I would really like to hear your thoughts on Bo Burnham's "Inside". I think the movie could be understood as a kind of pandemic profile. I had the strangest feeling while watching a ranking video of the songs in it. (th-cam.com/video/l1zFDi1Am7I/w-d-xo.html) Almost like this video was now incorporated into the text. Maybe there's some kind of magic to profiles, and well-crafted ones invoke themselves. Maybe this gets around the profile's need for relevancy and the profiles will outlive us all.
Thank you for responding to my comment. I get what you're saying now, how I was missing your point. But now that I get your point about the paradox, I don't understand how it's connected to or supports your other points. Yes, most people hold values whose tactics and outcomes conflict. I might say that I want a creative and independent child but then also be pleased when my child is "well behaved" for when touring a private school. I might think that my education system is fundamentally flawed and not like being graded on a curve and still be proud of getting an A-. I might not agree with assisted suicide but still be incensed when someone seeking legal assisted suicide encounters bureaucratic nonsense in order to achieve that assisted suicide. I'm probably missing something, but rewatching your other video and your explanation here I don't see how this is paradox is either unique to profilicity (or even identity in general, regardless of the form/"tech") or supports the concepts that were adjacent to your discussion of the paradox. Don't you have these paradoxes with sincerity? I steal my chicken back from my neighbor but because I was caught stealing (and my neighbor wasn't) my father beats me in public, and I feel badly for dishonoring my family even though I don't think what I did was wrong. Isn't that the same paradox? Doesn't this paradox abound in authenticity? The popularity of counter-culture artists often conflicts quite starkly with their beliefs. Or you might have a punk band that's "in it for the message, not the money" but the band is really saying that because they think their anti-money message is edgy and will make them more money. They might feel some joy at hearing that music label executives passed over them because they believed their message, even if it was a bad outcome. Isn't that the same paradox? [edit: I see now that the second example is probably a profile, but even the authentic "in it for the message, not the money" folks experience the paradox when they get the record deal that they didn't want, and especially when they take the record deal they don't want because they need to do it for the money in order to promote their message or not doing it for the money] But what I'm also asking is how is this even a paradox unique to identity? Back to the parenting example. I might say I want my child to be creative and independent because I believe those are qualities that make for successful adults in my country. It's not part of my identity. I just want them to be successful, say for the pure joy of experiencing their joy. Those same tactics extend to them being tame on the school tour. I want them to not act on their independence for the school tour because I want them to be accepted about to the school. It's not about my identity. It's not about abiding by parental duties, expressing my true approach to parenting, and it's not about curating a particular profile (i.e. they can be rowdy once they're accepted to the school for all I care). It's just that certain values, such as the success of my child, manifest in conflicting behavior. This value/tactics paradox might be related to the maintenance of one's identity, but it doesn't have to be. [edit: total aside, and it's not a big deal, but why did you decide on "profilicity" instead of "profileness" or "profilehood"? I get that "sincerity" and "authenticity" end in "ity", but you don't have to do that same. The main problem I have with "ity" is that it changes the stressed syllable, which is fine for "sincere" and "authentic" because we're familiar with those four words by now, but when you're introducing a new term, you're making it harder to employ when you have to change the stressed syllable. "Profileness" and "profilehood" have the same initial stress. I'm curious what other considerations (e.g. domain conventions) went into this decision.]
Thanks a lot for your thoughtful remarks and intriguing examples. I agree on all accounts: a similar paradox is "unfolded" (as Niklas Luhmann would say) in any identity technology. E.g: In sincerity, I become a devoted self-less monk dedicating myself fully to the Lord--which provides me with a clear and enduring self-identity. In authenticity, the paradox is somewhat reversed--as with the philosopher Max Stirner: I have no cause other than purely myself--and thereby "authenticty" becomes the overwhelming cause that determines my whole identity. And yes--the paradox extends beyond identity-building. And yes: we liked the "ity" parallel, that's why we chose "profilicity". The term was suggested to us by the American sociologist David Stark when we discussed our idea with him.
@@hans-georgmoeller7027 Marvelous examples of enantiodromia - have you read Dr Sanford L Drob's "Archetype of the Absolute: The unity of opposites in mysticism, philosophy, and psychology" ? It nicely addresses the utility of coincidentia oppositorum to the resolution of paradoxes in the fields mentioned. If you haven't read it, I believe it would be both pertinent and helpful to the work you're doing.
In the sense that “profilicity can’t be completely fake”, wouldn’t this mean that a certain level of authenticity is required to build the pretending or exaggerated profiles? And in that sense, isn’t profilicity a “branch” of an identity technology rather than it’s own? Like a “marketing for authenticity” tool or a “different profiles for your authentic stems”
I think Stirner agrees that taking up a cause builds your identity hence why he was somewhat against it yet seemingly he left room for love and alliance, "against sacred socialism not against socialism" I think alienation is an interesting concept stirner posits. The fact he starts and ends the book with I have based by affair on nothing I think points to this lack of authentic self underneath anything
Stirners point about a cause is this; there is a destinction to be made between using causes for your own gain (knowingly) and not knowing your using causes for your own gain. Everyone who identifies with a cause should be fully aware that its essentialy shopping for clothes in a market of philosophy. It does not matter (all things are nothing to me), but one does it to further ones own egoistic desires. climate change can get you laid, if the cause is won it can give you a future, if its a striving it can give you meaning in your life. ect. All the underlying reasons for identifying with one cause over another should expose yourself to the reasons as to why your doing it. Stirners whole point is about rationalism and ocd, we are essentialy 'possesed' by these ideas, rather then us posessing them. So its pretty similar to your point actually, would recommand reading the book in german Being posessed by an idea is not realizing your the one who has the power to take it back into yourself, and proclaim 'all things are nothing to me', for others its simply following causes because their cause has become themselves, or theyself are a singular cause.
Actors might have a word to say on this, as a lot of them get "lost" in character. That must get quite hairy, but I suppose it doesn't hold a candle to creating your own character and getting lost in it.
do you think profilicity is a form of alienation in the marxian sense? or that profilicity creates an alienation from one’s humanity? also: do you think modern commodified buddhism promote profilicty over the intended authenticity of genuine buddhism?
Hello Moeller, I haven't read your book, but as a student of philosophy, I would like to know what are your influences, in the sense that authors that are present in some sense in your "project", or if you adscribe to any current of thinking or your theory could be adscribed in. I always find interesting what you say. :) :)
Maybe I don't understand well what genuine pretending is because I got the idea from your videos that it is the only way to be (genuine). I can imagine a countless number of scenarios where the emotional and physiological reaction is automatic like screaming, running, fighting, smiling or laughing, convulsing, ejaculating, blushing, avoiding eye contact, etc. where pretending is not even an option. Does genuine pretending refer to performing functions (roles) and becoming comfortable to the point of identifying with them?
I am having problems understanding how identity works under profilicity. It looks like something out of Difference and Repetition where you build identity by creating a network of things you are (this and this and...) , things you are not (this and not this and not this...) and things you could be under specific circumstances (this and or this...). With second-order observation I realize that I am doing this as much as everyone else. I also don't really care if my AirBnb host does this or not, so long as their hosting identity is one that leaves me with a clean bed. Is your idea that identity-work under conditions of profilicity does not produce a single identity or essence that travels between contexts but instead produces an identity for each context that does not claim to say anything about an underlying "real" identity? Also, do you, as an academic, do a lot of profile building when choosing your citations? If two authors say the same thing, do you choose to cite one over the other to curate a certain profile as a Byung-Chul Han hater or as someone who engages with contemporary Chinese academia? You allude to this in the book, but I wonder how conscious it is.
I know you said at least in some way that all identity technologies are wrong. In the sense that they cannot encapsulate the "real" human experience/complexity. But it is profitability in some sense superior because this technology is flexible, changeable and come with the awareness of the "fakeness" of identity. In some way this technology is more conducive to make us realize that we are "genuinely pretending" ?
Identity technologies do make us question when we are being authentic. If being authentic means "being true to ourselves."--ie. acting out of a genuine self interest (not like self interest as in, it only benefits my cause--there can be many different causes people represent genuinely, through profiliecity too...) The prof addressing "wokeism", with some comparisons to religious... uh, tribal zealotry about causes, when we latch onto these things BECAUSE THE ALGORITYHM's got them in the queue, we're becoming less authentic... And the examples that he uses, about the Climate misinformation and the BLM(?) Activist, which lead some of his colleagues into this sense of inauthenticity are further examples.
Thank you for the lovely video! On the subject of genuine pretending: how does the concept of identity as a performance relate to Butler's concept of performativity? That is, gender and possibly sex as something that is performed, that is constituted by repeated action. Can we then extended the idea of genuine pretending also to gender, sexuality and other bodily identities?
The trans experience seems relevant to your ideas about profilicity. I've been watching some videos of Contrapoints' videos since coming across her on your channel. She says she considers herself a woman who used to be a man. While her identity certainly seems to be a profile in part, by her own account, her previous (male) identity was like a set of clothes that didn't fit right; she feels much more comfortable in her "new" identity. So the choice doesn't seem to be an arbitrary one for her. How do the "trans experience" and issues of gender identity relate to your thinking about profilicity?
I was just thinking the same thing about subjectivity and objectivity. I don't think there really is a difference. I guess there's a difference if you believe in truth, but isn't belief subjective anyways?
I think the Prof is addressing just that when he's talking about Objectivity and Subjectivity. These are my words of course, not his so. Way I think of it, we are incapable of complete objectivity (whether that is a state that is completely beneficial or not is debatable... It could be inferred that what we believe of the "all powerful", is the source conception of objectivity... God and the State for example uphold their authority really on this basis alone)... We enter into subjectivity the moment we are born into a particular family, in a particular country with what ever's going on at the time.
@@leonardotavaresdardenne9955 there is an article I read that mentioned that the idea of an identity isn't something that is used in social sciences anymore and also how the idea of it is incoherent. I don't really understand what it is to have an identity.
@@Refr4me I am not sure if I understand you. It seems you are saying that under a particular situation we are in that objective state of the world creates our subjective experience and that creates our identity?
@@SGTIVLMPC So the idea is that in our subjectivity, including the roles that we assign ourselves and see others in, what we identify as, we move toward objectivity but can never fully grasp it. The example is when you look at a judge. that person has the identity of someone who must have objectivity--they must be someone WITHOUT an identity except one that passes judgement on a case. We put all these systems in place for that judge--jury, lawyers, etc, to uphold that sense of objectivity for the judge. .......So to answer your question, If there were to be the possibility of not having an identity, It would have to be purely from the objective... which is inherently impossible for us given the fact that we are driven toward subjectivity.
Somehow I think it's authenticity to suffer more from the fakeness problem. Think of all those individualists who are constantly finding themselves while being like an exact copy of one another, often just following current trends and fashions. It's even called the hipster paradox by some.
I'm not sure I'd agree with the separation of the self and the cause. 2 examples: I know myself by addressing myself using social concepts/social language (there are no private languages). I am therefore always already inculcated in social culture, and it's mores and levers. I may have directionality, but to an extent my lifeworld experience and foregrounded ethics precede my objective understandings of the "the cause " Secondly, I think there may be an interpretation of Marx that addresses the way we address thought and language (our 'labour' for meaning), which, again precedes cause (Honneth?)
@@leonardotavaresdardenne9955 and I guess that is part of my question. If language and society are required for what we are calling "Identity" then I have been using the word wrong my entire life.
~17:00 paradox of happiness about a negative truth (and unhappiness about a positive truth). I think this is needlessly simplified, and not really a paradox. You can be unhappy about global warming whilst simultaneously being happy about apparent integrity of scientists. These are separate responses to different, albeit related, information. Suppose you learn a family member is involved in an accident - you're unhappy because you suspect they might be injured and in pain. Then you find out that they are uninjured and you are happy. Does this mean you are happy about the accident? I'd argue that would be weirdly simplistic.
Thank you all for providing so many good feedback! We look forward to doing more Q&A like this if possible.
Great video. It is refreshing to listen to philosophy questions without the political priming, or the self-help advertising, or the theatrical presentation on youtube. I have a question regarding unnatural identifications and the contradiction that comes from it.
I have just read a shoujo (young girl) romance manga that is labeled "Mature" containing ra*e (* in case youtube censore it and the comment cant be seen) scenes of a grown man to a teenage girl he adopted to groom. The romance genre is predominantly written as desirable fantasies by women for women. This one also, the rap*st is rich, handsome, the typical romance protagonist who treated the female as an object. The translation team are also likely to be women, and since they translated it for free, meant that they like it enough. Now most women would not want to be repeatedly s*xually as*aulted by her guardian, or would be horrified to see that happening. Neither do I think the female who wrote and the females translated the manga, wanted that to happen in the real world. That one contradiction when the genre is identified a self-insert. Online and real world activisms for feminism also featured: females who demand that woman can dressed whatever they feel like without judgements from society and they expressed great discontent, discomfort when many young girls happily dressed scantily to attract attention from the male gaze. That another contradiction in the cause of feminism, and sometimes I see it coming from the same individuals. I read the manga, because I knew it is trash enough that I can't be bothered to dislike it.
I identified myself as a lover of great, creative fiction, and I knew that profile cannot always be kept, because sometimes I want to read works I could not give a shit about. I already see the contradictions in my own pasttimes. I found it strange that groups and individuals want everyone to keep their identity constant at all times, but the contradictions to that identity always exist. I am comfortable enough with the contradictions, and I don' t really bothered with social media, but when so many stuffs being recorded, how would the human psyche be impacted? Do you think more people would consider that sticking to their internet, political and professional profile is unsustainable and society be willing to overlook contradictions to that profile, or it would be more demanded that more people must continue to play the role assigned to them by the profiles?
Thank you Dr Moeller for answering/reacting to my comment. (It is indeed a weird out-of-body experience when I see my own name mentioned in a TH-cam-Video)
Let me take a moment though to clarify one thing where I might have expressed myself a bit too ambiguous. There is a bit of a difference between "fictional" and "fake" (at least in my understanding). Although they are both referring to something that is not real (i.e. not empirically verifiable), the intention of the sender/emitter is important. For example, something is "fake", when it deliberately tries to misguide the recipient (e.g. fake news or a fake profile), whereas with "fictional", not only do both recipient and sender know that it is not real, the intention behind e.g. a fictional story is to project certain aspects of reality, thus not imitating it (as some artists have tried lots of times), but merely tweaking/distorting it - this is what you would maybe call the part, where the "performance" takes place (as in a stage play, both audience and presenters know about the fictionality of what is happening, but nevertheless let themselves "fool", play the "game of make-believe", because they want to be entertained).
In that vein, most profiles on the internet (e.g. on instagram or facebook) can be considered fictional. They are not real, but they nevertheless project certain aspects about the people behind these profiles and beautify them - and this is ok for most people who interact on the web. A fake profile would be, let's say, if someone pretends to be Johnny Depp and deliberately tries to fool people into thinking it's the movie star himself. His intention is not just to perform a stage play, but also breaking the border between fictionality and truth.
My friend S. Alic (from) "North University" disagree. A central concept (or program) in that University is "media philosophy". As if [kao da] the Philosophy of Media is all philosophy...
"North University" Croatia. - Sorry, I'm in (Serbia and in) no contact with my friend. So... can't recommend to him "all philosophy" of prof. Moeller.
I LIKED THE FONT IN THE THUMBNAIL
This is such a herculean effort and really cool. Probably this kind of work has far greater outreach and impact than traditional academic publishing. Please keep going if you can!
Can we just take a moment to appreciate this man's patience?
Also, I actually liked the font from the Wokeism video.
For real, it's impressive XD
I remember in the 90's, living in a "historic town" in germany, the "second hand observation" culture of japanese tourist groups who were continuously looking through their cameras was considered just curious and weird. Now it's normal everywhere
I still think its fucking weird. Why bother filming things? Who cares?
@@SuperHorsecow sorry for being pseudo psychoanalytic, but you sound you're the one who cares too much of filming.
I love your channel. I think that the idea of "Genuine Pretending" finally made sense to me and grant me a closure for my own study of myself and Others of the last 10 years of my life... Case closed! Free at last! Happy and relief! Absolute fun!
Thanks so much for responding to all these comments! You're helping me look at things more critically.
We live a nervy, joyless churning mass of anxious and neurotic anticipation of confirmation or of non-confirmation. One major byproduct of a literally teeming society.
This is a really interesting project.
In literary studies we often think about how language itself is a kind of performance. The linguist J.L.Austin wrote about performative utterance. As humans we speak truth into being no? Do Butler and her theories of the performative fit in here too I wonder?
Sidenote: Samuel Taylor Coleridge - an avid and early British reader of Kant - was writing in his notebooks about how his dreams were akin to the theatre - where we must suspend our disbelief to watch a story unfold.
A play is of course a fiction - but in some senses - a play is also presenting us with a kind of truth! Similarly, our dreams are of course “real” but … best not to “believe” what they tell you! They do however, tell us something about who we are!
Anyway, that was all very much related to my own thesis but I am enjoying watching this digital project unfold.
Eye opening stuff, thanks for sharing Prof.
And today Hans Georg Moeller learned that people only listen to what they want to listen and he'll have to repeat his points about profilicity a thousand times more
A video about daoist non-knowledge may be able to get thru some of the thicker skulled members of his audience
@@Bojoschannel it's probably because his hypothesis is very uncomfortable. Certainly I don't want the answer to life to be "don't give a fuck too much I guess", but well Mr Moeller seems to have some pretty strong argumentation so I can't just ignore it
@Phil Dodd (HistoriaAntiqua.ORG) just to follow up your first point, I was once hospitalised with a severe illness which left me paralysed, fortunetly I made a full recovery. After I recovered I used to get asked if I learned anything from my bout of illness, some special insight or wisdom. The only thing I could tell my intoloctors was it is better to be well rather than sick, and sometimes all you can do is wait for things to pass.
@@leonardotavaresdardenne9955 the message is not "don't give too much of a fuck about life", it's more in the lines of "don't give a fuck about what you believe or are told you are supposed to be"
@William Frost you obviously haven't read the comments section of the last 15 fucking videos
I think that the main criticism people have of the Chinese social ranking system is not that it is a ranking system, but that it is the government running it. The Chinese government can very easily exploit this ranking system to go after political dissidents.
I enjoy Tom Nicholas videos, but am disappointed to see that response. I think what happens among left-leaning political circles, at least online and in the US, is that terms like "wokism" seem to represent an aspect of the political divide between left and right. On the right, for example, "wokism" is frequently bemoaned as a cancerous plot to destroy civilization, so on the left the natural response is vitriolic. Critiquing ideas like "cancel culture" or "woke ideology" immediately triggers a filtering response within left-leaning people, because they are trained to recognize them as the talking points of their political opponents (which they often, but not always, are).
There also exists a paranoia that those presenting these ideas could be doing so in bad faith or with hidden political agenda. Indeed, when I first saw the thumbnail with the word wokism on it I was instantly alerted to the possibility of a right-wing reactionary response, and was concerned that a content creator that I generally trust and enjoy could be presenting information in a deliberately dishonest and politically charged way, the way, say, PragerU might. Of course, upon watching the video this was not the case, but that's exactly the problem: we develop intellectual shortcuts in order to sift through what we consider the bad ideas and good ideas to be at a more efficient pace, but at the cost of good faith critical engagement with the ideas. My guess would be that people who called the wokism video "nonsense" didn't watch it.
I wonder if this is a symptom of the abundant availability of information, like do we take in so much that we almost have to develop shortcuts like that?
Couldn't agree more. I do think it's a response to information overload. Buzzwords become much more than their original definition with enough time and popularity. They become signifiers of political/social movements. Like websites that let you search via tags.
It definitely is some kind of a shortcut, i had the same reaction when i saw his wokeism video recommended in my feed: "oh another Peterson-type idiot that TH-cam wants to force down my throat". I gave it the benefit of doubt and was pleasantly surprised.
This words are already charged with our online interactions and the whole media landscape where words like wokeism mean a lot more than the word itself, it also means a set of relations with the concept of the word and different reactions to it, thus we see it and already think: Jordan Peterson, alt-right, reactionaries, idpol, liberals, etc
I think the answer is to be aware of your tribal boundaries, and how those boundaries are enforced. ‘Dog whistling’ is a concept created as a thought terminating cliche to stop you considering the out group’s speech on its own merits, or as an allegory for some phenomenon they cannot articulate.
Where has Tom Nicholas made a critique of this fella’s videos?
@@freddie2119 it was just a short thread on Twitter, but I should note that your usage of the word "critique" is a rather generous description of the thread.
This Q&A is very helpful I think in distinguishing genuine from authentic, (genuine) pretending from being untruthful or not investing-in truly (in a fake way). These terms are being used very carefully - and that can be challenging
Thank you for answering our questions Dr. Moeller! Very helpful and very patient.
Getting attacked by Tom Nicholas and his possy is sort of a badge of honor. The technical term for such behaviour is: Befindlichkeitssucht.
Or, as the kids say, groß befindlichkeit.
How does that translate?
@@mairmatt So essentially, getting carried away with one's feelings?
@@gradualdecay - No. Not at all. It's quite the opposite. It's not so easy. Perhaps you think it through once more.
@@gradualdecay The literal translation would be belonging-addiction. Hopefully that helps.
This idea of second order observation has changed the nature of sports, mainly football. Goal reactions from fan channels and fan parks being filmed, has become very popular. The ever synonymous rain of beer has become the learnt reaction to a goal, with each social actor taking part to create a spectacle for the observer.
How are we defining 'inside' here, and more specifically it's delineation from the outside? My primary concern with profilicity is the reproduction of dichotomies like inside/outside and observer/observed. I think there is a greater ontological entanglement here, and in some ways profilicity seems a continuing of essentialism or epistemic representationalism, which you otherwise seem to be opposed to.
I feel like he gives some good attention to these ambiguities - like his answer at 10:34. His defining of profilicity (and sincerity and authenticity) does depend on a distinction between inside and outside which is reductive, but this distinction is part of a common social vocabulary and is the basis for many cultural prescriptions - therefore not arbitrary. It serves as a good starting point and leaves plenty potential for deconstruction.
Kudos for putting the disclaimer at the start of the videos.
It is good that you have the theoretical skills to shield yourself from this bullying. For the rest of us it's really hard, this bullying can take a real toll on us regular people. You should have a support group for people who face these "woke mobs". Of course the right-wing is happy to have us, but we need an alternative.
perhaps a reading group would be even better.
I find your assumption that the right wing is any less guilty of such bullying peculiar. Many leftists are well-read and understand theory, with right wingers refusing to engage critically with certain thinkers at all and resorting to harassing leftists. It is difficult to argue one's existential point with online right wing personalities who dismiss the very concept of phenomenology as illegitimate, for example (Conceptual James does this very thing, to name one). To make use of Dr. Moeller's point, certainly the right wing and the left wing are both operating under the same pretenses of profilicity, criticizing others based on profile rather than content.
theoretical skills can't protect one from bullying. bullying is not theoretical debate, it's just bullying.
Why does it have to be a paradox? I find most paradoxes simply need to be untangled (if they refer to real like scenarios). I can be assured by being right about a tragic phenomena in climate science because it affirms my expertise, affirms my identity, something I've put a lot of work into. But I can also be upset about the consequences of the dangerous reality. It's not as simple as happy and sad. I'm fact, the affirmation I receive about my expertise leaves me with greater confidence to address the upsetting reality of climate science.
Could you make a video on your top 10 (less or more) book recommendations ?
I am curious how the way we are told to 'pick' roles in society (or at least how I was told) relates to the three different conceptions of identity you put forth. For example, when deciding on a college major or on a job, I had to pick from a predefined set, and integrate it into my identity (profilicity?) and yet I was also supposed to make sure that what I picked had to be an extension of my authentic self somehow (authenticity?). I also enjoy watching videos on body type and fashion, and much of it seems to be about curating a profile. Yet I am also supposed to begin from my 'body type', which seems to be a starting point of sincerely expressing a given category. I suppose that the paradigm of identity I've most encountered is about curating a profile through an attempt to reconcile sincerity and authenticity.
Thanks! Especially your conclusion--the last sentence--is very interesting.
I love the work you're doing on this frontier of philosophy! Keep up the interesting videos, they're very illuminating
5:21 “This is the word ‘brand’”
Maybe its the cynic in me but I couldn’t help but find it funny that we use brand (i.e. one being ‘branded’ with the mark of an owner as a cow on a ranch is), to signify our allegiance to building our profile.
Our brand is a blemish on our performance that marks it as necessarily unreal.
yes
Great content. Loved the book.
I think we also consume in "second order". I fint myself sharing something I watched and then watching it again to feel the sense of watching it with someone else.
Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like authenticity refers to identity that is already there, sincerity refers to identity that you aim towards and profilicity refers to identity that is performed in the moment.
For instance, a salesman might be a salesman because it aligns with their skillset, then construct their profile on a person to person basis, attempting to sincerely play out that role.
In this way all 3 are at play all the time. They merely differ in proportion
As someone who's studied authenticity through the work of the Philosopher Charles Taylor, I'm also very confused about what exactly he means by authenticity, and would really like a vid just on clarifying this terminology! that's criticism from love my man.
So Henry Rosemont is saying that under sincerity….people are like ogres???
I hope it’s possible to create a new civil religion that allows us to have science philsophy and religion working together to constantly better each other and project life’s existence further into the timeline of the universe because if not, I’m on a doomed path.
I mean that's pretty much what "wokeism" is though. It merges all three elements (science, philosophy, religion) into an ideology that proposes Progress as the ultimate good.
@@mkultra4316 maybe under your definition of wokeism I agree with professor Moellers definition as it being a combination of identity politics and a form of German guilt pride which would not be what I’m looking for in a civil religion
It already exists and it's called Bahaism
Interested to know your thoughts on Thomas Metzinger’s non existence of the self and it’s implications for identity. You’ve covered it a little in the video, wrt Buddhism and Sam Harris - but specifically Metzinger’s take on this.
I concur. Although I'm more familiar with the Buddhist idea of non-self, and Sam Harris' illusion of the self (similar to the Buddhist idea), I'd imagine Metzinger is along the same lines. In general, I'd be interested to hear a more in-depth video about the @35:00 on the video: What kind of similar elements to these ideas of non-self are there in Daoism, and how exactly does the idea of genuine pretending derive from that?
This sounds to me like Vonnegut's conclusion in _Mother_Night_: that we are what we pretend to be, but extended to recognize that there are multiple kinds of 'are' and multiple kinds of 'pretend.' No wonder that I sometimes find myself trying to flesh-out multiple disconsonant profiles. The mapping between multiple profiles and the various components of the nervous system must be boggling. For example, some profiles may emphasize emotion-driven or spontaneous behaviors while others emphasize learned or calmly rational behaviors. Pretty good chance that when we like one of our profiles and learn to conform to it and strengthen it, we are undermining our mental capacity to conform to some other profile that is important to us in some situations. The video does mention that profiles can be transient. Accepting that the game is solitaire, how do we know when we are winning?
Pertaining to the distinction between fakeness and performance, a good way of illustrating the difference would be the concept in cinema of verisimilitude. Something presented poorly on screen with little attention to detail might lack verisimilitude and break the illusion, causing our awareness of the illusion to become the focus, while greater care and awareness of what is being presented will maintain the illusion, the performance itself holding attention.
Nietzsche writes that “thoughts are the shadow of our feelings - always darker, emptier and simpler.” In this context, what do you personally think are the feelings behinds “profelicity” (sp)? What are the real motivators and drives? What’s the assumption behind people’s psychology and behavior, and the way this feeds into televisual culture? What of the capacities and desires that preceded the means (technology)? Do protestors show up because protesting is morally just, or because they know it will be on TV? Where do you (personally) start drawing these lines, especially when you say much within profelicity is irreconcilable (such as a producer being better off for not meeting their consumers)?
Dear Dr Moeller, could Profilicity be understood as an extension of Eric Fromm’s ‘having’ mode?
Reflecting on the theme park photos from your book, it seems we no longer experience moments in life simply for the sake of ‘being’ (formed, changed, excited) but now also we can ‘possess’ and use them for the sake of self presentation.
I would love to hear your thoughts on this.
ranking and social hierarchy has existed since ever, with social media it’s just more codified and in our faces now, I don’t know if it’s an apt comparison to the Chinese social credit system. biggest contrast is, it’s a state defined/mandated social credit system. I know Orwellian is a word that gets thrown around a lot these days but that’s literally it, people.
I got into the same criticism in a few videos ago, with others, and lucky for us, he actually addresses this. What's clearer from his response is that the focus is not on the systems themselves, but how REGARDLESS, in the social Credit system in china, or in the ratings, ranking systems in the West, they influence how people act authenticity/inauthenticity when engaging their own identities and political ideas, etc... So, it is an apt comparison to the thought he's putting forth.
Corporations can be Orwelian too (or maybe more Huxleyian?). So the State is not the ONLY source of ALL evil
A little late to the scene, but is it really all that different when the state allows a set of large entities (corporations, in the case of the US and other democracies) to build profiles and ratings for every individual participating in that system vs when the state participates in building and ranking profiles directly?
There's no opting out, whether or not this process is carried out by the state or by a set of corporations. In the west, even if you were to stop using all forms of social media, the fact is that your banks collect information about who you are and what you spend on, and disseminate the data they've collected (and anything they might have inferred from it) as it suits them. Companies will use information about where you've studied to determine the quality of your education, and that factors into whether they ultimately decide to hire you. Every aspect of your life is determined by your profile and the profiles of the institutions you're associated with.
How these systems are arrived at might be different, but they function in very similar ways. There's nothing especially surveillance-y about a state that participates in the surveillance as opposed to one that passively allows surveillance to take place.
Contentions with 9:09 , or more generally, your critique of Stirner.
My apologies if this is all over the place, I often get told my responses are messy so please bare with me.
Your first problem is that you used the word should, Stirner never makes prescriptions. Stirner maintains mere descriptiveness and believes that ideals are alienating. The next problem would be that Stirner would say that this cause doesn't take away from authenticity, ownness can't be taken away, one is just merely alienated from their cause, and thus from themself. He does not believe the removal of this is "ideal", now he uses dialectics to prove that conscious egoism is to arise. One's cause isn't the object of the self, it is the self. Stirner’s egoism actually entails a pseudo-dissolution of the subject-object binary, because all things are your property which also constitutes your ownness, you are your ownness. You are essentially analogous to your property. Necessarily, one can’t identify with something that eludes, at the very most, identity or, at the very least, discursive identification. The Unique is the creative nothing. Also, this is nitpicky but its the Unique and its Property, not the Ego and its Own. Most people I know that agree with Stirner tend to ignore any critique that uses the title "The Ego and its Own" since it is a horrible mistranslation.
Here's a prescription from Stirner's preface: "Fort denn mit jeder Sache, die nicht ganz und gar Meine Sache ist!" ("Therefore: Away with any cause that is not completely my own cause!") This may be understood as a mere self-prescription, but basically the whole book is a paradoxical call to all its readers to follow Stirner's call not to follow any call other than one's own.
I came here to say this, thanks for the comment! Saved me time!
I would like to add one single thing, and thats stirners insistance that everyone already is an egoist. One cannot, but be oneself. The only destinction that exists is that some people are aware of their egoism, while others are not. But even when your not aware of it, your still doing it for yourself (psychological egoism)
Then one might ask, what is there to be gained by reading the book? Simply going from being an unknowing egoist, to a knowing egoist.
@@hans-georgmoeller7027 Hes talking about himself, not his readers, so there are no 'ought claims' about everyone following their own call. One cannot but follow ones own call, as he would say
not that it matters either way, a paradoxical call or not :^)
I've been enjoying your content a lot recently.
I wanted to comment on your pronunciation of the word "aliases". As a native English speaker, It took me a few times hearing you say that word in context to understand what you were saying. I'm not saying your pronunciation is incorrect, but I would personally pronounce that word as "ayy-lee-yus-ez". Just pointing out that this may confuse a native English audience. Thanks for the interesting perspectives!
There's a book I read in my undergrad Computer Science program called "We Are Data" by John Cheney-Lippold which talks about a data-double generated by your online behavior and is used by corporations for marketing and whatnot. How, if at all, does profilicity relate to the aspects of your online identity that you yourself did NOT curate, collect, it maintain?
One day it dawned on me how we could probably ruin many people's lives with jist our words, that by saying to someone that loves us some few words in a particular order not only our relationship but even a huge part of their lives could be destroyed in an instant. We don't do this obviously, we love this person too, and we expect them not to do this to us either, but nevertheless, the power is always there. (I want to emphasize that I'm not suggesting that relationships are a power struggle, just that this is a thing thay could happen)
This got me thinking about how we expect people to act based on what we know about them, what we've seem them do, what they've told us about them and just the same, people could expect us to act a certain way in accordance with what they know of us. Like we were characters with a list of traits.
We are the stories we believe about ourselves, whether it's us or someone else that tells them. And I think this holds true for any identity formation paradigm.
That Tom Nicholas response shows everything that is wrong with "leftubers", the guy spent more time critiquing your fonts and such and rapidly jumping to stupid conclusions rather than an honest engagement with your arguments. Seems like it really messed up with his identity...
It's funny how hard he identified with the object of Moeller's criticism in that video
@@Brewmaster757 what i found amazing is how Moeller wasn't even that negative against wokeism, as he said, he isn't arguing against it's content but about it's use in profilicity and yet Tom immediately called him a grifter, atheist edgelord and felt the need to mention transgender issues even tho Moeller was clearly not engaging the matter in this respect. Sometimes i watch Tom's videos and he never gave this "vibe", to call it something, it seems his brain just disconnected once he saw wokeism in the video. Maybe if Moeller had included a 10 minute clown festival like other "leftubers" he would have received a better reception?
Anyway, youtube drama is stupid
@@thotslayer9914 Why?
@@Bojoschannel really thought he was better than that smh
Some aspects of his first few videos where really good. However, now he is shifted to more biased videos, under the clame that he makes nuanced vids.
Does understanding these three forms of social technology give any hints as to what other forms of social technology may come to exist?
AR --> DR: Diminished Reality.
I am wondering whether there is a period in time when profilicity appeared or if aspects of it were ever-present? Surely there are similarities between a reputation built on oral testimony and the technologically enhanced identity building we see today? The professor mentioned that profilicity existed before we had the technological means of today, but how far into the past can it be detected?
The reputation of a ruler, trader, warrior, healer, artist from past societies is also in relation to the general peer. Or should we simply consider these a form of sincerity, even though it went beyond the people they communicate directly with?
Ah. A historicism of Profilicity. you should do it!!!! ;)
@@Refr4me Deal. Now all I need is them funds.
“Performance creates genuineness”. As it is paradoxical, does this paradox not have to be managed and potentially disregarding with a new understanding of behavior? I would argue that there are two kinds of expression. 1) A persona we may take on when in certain situations or with certain people, & 2) An underlying Authenticity that is your actual thoughts, feelings, and behavior coming forth. The persona we may take of, its very expression and existence does not necessarily justify it purely out of its lived experience and it’s occurrence. It certainly would not necessarily justify it as authentic or potentially natural. Of course the persona originates from the mind and is constructed through thought itself and also perhaps emotions within the individual, but that does not mean that it is natural or authentic. We can lie and we can be honest, unless we hold honesty as perceptionally relative and it is not possible to ascertain individual honesty. Authenticity and naturalness seems to occur where one is unfocusedly or unnarrowly behaving in a manner, but rather expressing outwardly feelings, thoughts, and behavior that emerge in a seamless fashion. That is, Thoughts, feelings, and behavior as they emerge without thwarting them to be in any particular way to suit a setting, which would be what a performance is. That is, not situating behavior, emotion, or thoughts to necessarily suit a setting, but the emerging of these things as they come without control. I think we can ascertain that not all behavior is merely a performance, that there is a natural emerging self underneath a performance, or potentially without, and if we look a bit deeper we can prove this as so. At least to ourselves.
Found you through Benjamin Boyce. Really helpful. Thank you
I would love to see your thoughts on the core thesis behind the film 'the secret life of Walter Mitty' which seems to play with the idea of profilicity in a rather honest manner.
Thank you for these clarifications!
You say that you shouldn't lie about your identity in profilicity, but how do you even determine what is a lie in profilicity? That is, isn't the very act of lying a performance, which makes the lie a part of your identity?
edit: I now realize that you do distinguish between the "clearly fake" and the "perfomance", but how do you do this? That is how does one determine what is clearly fake if it is not with comparison to an authentic self or the natural roles of sincerity? You could say that what is fake would be obviously fake, but to me this is intuitive, but not clearly true.
there are obviously lies which are very obvious like saying that you have a phd if you don't. But other lies like performing confidence on a social media account are seemingly becoming your identity in the act of lying.
thereby new aspects of your identity surely can only be created through lying if your identity isn't anything naturally. This isn't to say that lying is morally bad.
That implies some essentialism doesn't it? It it's made up anyways what's the difference?
On second thought I think my argument may be weak as it perhaps conflates performing with lying, which isn't necessarily the case.
Probably what is or is not policed/is excused at any given point in time and place. That changes, like, with the wind. He also mentions a sort of honesty, honestly lying, you "truly" believing in whatever your profile says you believe in, and not slipping in an unexcusable way. Gotta keep up nerd, git gud at socializing and profile building.
When Pokemon Go came out, I made the comparison of those zombie-walk cosplay events where people gathered around the fun gimmick of filling the streets with zombies in a sort of make believe game, but with Pokemon Go it was a zombification of people playing a game instead -- instead of the game being about pretending to be a zombie, the game took your mind and attention, practically making you a zombie.
If profilcity and capitalism can be seen it’s in the image of the brand, doesn’t that just make it what Debord calls Spectacle?
Yes, there’s almost no difference between his claims/ideas and 50-60 year old French theory from Debord, Baudrillard, even as recent as Fisher, except that it’s almost been depoliticized and the rhetoric surrounding it has been like ‘technologized’, if you will. He’s sticking to this notion of a kind of natural/metaphysical social creation of identity, ignoring the material relation between these societies and their historical contexts (especially economic). ‘Profilicity’ (which is just an extension/rename of Baudrillardian ‘sign value’ and Fisher’s ‘capitalist realism’ see: The Consumer Society and Capitalist Realism) is intrinsically linked, causally speaking, to late capital as a phenomenon. These are not social orientations we’re selecting by nature of existing and being alive, these are certain social paradigms that come naturally from socio-political organization of the species, global/late capital, colonial, feudal, etc. And I would argue that this ‘profilicity’, ‘authenticity’, etc. are not necessary by nature of an existing society, but really sad effects of inhumane organizations of society as such, especially Marx’s theory of alienation. A truly egalitarian world would be rid of these concepts.
That's a major L for Tom Nicholas.
I generally hate the way that the left on social media kind of forces you to conform to a very narrow set of rules. I'm very happy with you who dares to criticize wokeness, or a channel like Shark3ozero who dares to speak out on men's issues without paralyzing himself by the reputation that men's rights advocates have gotten. Contrapoints and Lindsay Ellis experienced a similar thing on Twitter where people take everything out of context, and no valuable discussion about certain topics (like transgenders) is allowed because people rather respond to the reputation of the act (the general peer) than what is actually said.
That 2010/2017 comparison would be hard to judge without knowing what they are observing at that moment.
I think its interesting how the debate on free speech vs. hate speech here in Norway points out anonymity as a big issue ... I prefer anonymity wherever I can get it and I dont see a problem with internet forums being anonymous.
"Even you have authenticity as your cause then authenticity is a cause. It is already some form of objectified subjectivity."
It does seem like this quote holds water until you realize what is meant by "authenticity" hasn't been defined by Moeller. I'm not familiar with Stirner, but I'd think there is some theory behind authenticity he puts forth. If that is what Moeller is standing by, that needs clarification. For all we know Authenticity could be interpreted to mean "gut feeling" as Canadian psychiatrist Gabor Mate puts it. Or if we take it from the philosopher Charles Taylor, in which case this statement would bear no water at all, since the very idea of being authentic means not acting because of some cause--even if that cause is "being authentic". ED: Satre's notion of bad faith also holds bearing on the term....
You sure take an amoral approach to alot of things. I appreciate that~
I have a question in relation to second-hand observation. It has been commented that there is hesitance to say the experience is diminished when it is a second-hand observation. In this sense, would the assessment of how diminished it is be based on the intent of the matter being observed? In the same way that a music concert might make people put their phones away as not to "ruin the experience".
How do we recognize what is the result of profile building and what is not? For example could the response of the activist to the climategate be the same no matter the truth state of the scientists claims? Maybe the activist simply has a strong tendency for optimism so that she is happy since it turns out that the scientists had told the truth, but if the scientist had lied she would have been just as happy that climate change was false. If profiles must be curated with intent and "investment", what then is the role of the unconscious in the process?
To quote Ru Paul! " we are all born naked and the rest is Drag!"
How do personality disorders tie into this, or is it unrelated?
I like the recursion of critiquing profilicity through a profile. I think in a way (because of the recursion) all critique through profiles becomes a critique of oneself, and all the critique that acknowledges the critique of oneself somehow gains a life of its own and can argue directly with any external critiques as they're being referenced. I felt this some while reading the Tom Nicholas tweet thread.
Relatedly, I would really like to hear your thoughts on Bo Burnham's "Inside". I think the movie could be understood as a kind of pandemic profile. I had the strangest feeling while watching a ranking video of the songs in it. (th-cam.com/video/l1zFDi1Am7I/w-d-xo.html) Almost like this video was now incorporated into the text.
Maybe there's some kind of magic to profiles, and well-crafted ones invoke themselves. Maybe this gets around the profile's need for relevancy and the profiles will outlive us all.
Along the same lines, I wonder if the "avatar" is part of the "profile" or are they different technologies?
My friend suggested this channel along with original source learning. But then what would be the point of journalistic eofforts?
how does profilicity and your suggested improvements over identity obsession handle the paradox of tolerance?
As always great video!
Thank you for responding to my comment. I get what you're saying now, how I was missing your point. But now that I get your point about the paradox, I don't understand how it's connected to or supports your other points. Yes, most people hold values whose tactics and outcomes conflict. I might say that I want a creative and independent child but then also be pleased when my child is "well behaved" for when touring a private school. I might think that my education system is fundamentally flawed and not like being graded on a curve and still be proud of getting an A-. I might not agree with assisted suicide but still be incensed when someone seeking legal assisted suicide encounters bureaucratic nonsense in order to achieve that assisted suicide.
I'm probably missing something, but rewatching your other video and your explanation here I don't see how this is paradox is either unique to profilicity (or even identity in general, regardless of the form/"tech") or supports the concepts that were adjacent to your discussion of the paradox.
Don't you have these paradoxes with sincerity? I steal my chicken back from my neighbor but because I was caught stealing (and my neighbor wasn't) my father beats me in public, and I feel badly for dishonoring my family even though I don't think what I did was wrong. Isn't that the same paradox?
Doesn't this paradox abound in authenticity? The popularity of counter-culture artists often conflicts quite starkly with their beliefs. Or you might have a punk band that's "in it for the message, not the money" but the band is really saying that because they think their anti-money message is edgy and will make them more money. They might feel some joy at hearing that music label executives passed over them because they believed their message, even if it was a bad outcome. Isn't that the same paradox? [edit: I see now that the second example is probably a profile, but even the authentic "in it for the message, not the money" folks experience the paradox when they get the record deal that they didn't want, and especially when they take the record deal they don't want because they need to do it for the money in order to promote their message or not doing it for the money]
But what I'm also asking is how is this even a paradox unique to identity? Back to the parenting example. I might say I want my child to be creative and independent because I believe those are qualities that make for successful adults in my country. It's not part of my identity. I just want them to be successful, say for the pure joy of experiencing their joy. Those same tactics extend to them being tame on the school tour. I want them to not act on their independence for the school tour because I want them to be accepted about to the school. It's not about my identity. It's not about abiding by parental duties, expressing my true approach to parenting, and it's not about curating a particular profile (i.e. they can be rowdy once they're accepted to the school for all I care). It's just that certain values, such as the success of my child, manifest in conflicting behavior. This value/tactics paradox might be related to the maintenance of one's identity, but it doesn't have to be.
[edit: total aside, and it's not a big deal, but why did you decide on "profilicity" instead of "profileness" or "profilehood"? I get that "sincerity" and "authenticity" end in "ity", but you don't have to do that same. The main problem I have with "ity" is that it changes the stressed syllable, which is fine for "sincere" and "authentic" because we're familiar with those four words by now, but when you're introducing a new term, you're making it harder to employ when you have to change the stressed syllable. "Profileness" and "profilehood" have the same initial stress. I'm curious what other considerations (e.g. domain conventions) went into this decision.]
Thanks a lot for your thoughtful remarks and intriguing examples. I agree on all accounts: a similar paradox is "unfolded" (as Niklas Luhmann would say) in any identity technology. E.g: In sincerity, I become a devoted self-less monk dedicating myself fully to the Lord--which provides me with a clear and enduring self-identity. In authenticity, the paradox is somewhat reversed--as with the philosopher Max Stirner: I have no cause other than purely myself--and thereby "authenticty" becomes the overwhelming cause that determines my whole identity. And yes--the paradox extends beyond identity-building. And yes: we liked the "ity" parallel, that's why we chose "profilicity". The term was suggested to us by the American sociologist David Stark when we discussed our idea with him.
@@hans-georgmoeller7027 Marvelous examples of enantiodromia - have you read Dr Sanford L Drob's "Archetype of the Absolute: The unity of opposites in mysticism, philosophy, and psychology" ? It nicely addresses the utility of coincidentia oppositorum to the resolution of paradoxes in the fields mentioned. If you haven't read it, I believe it would be both pertinent and helpful to the work you're doing.
In the sense that “profilicity can’t be completely fake”, wouldn’t this mean that a certain level of authenticity is required to build the pretending or exaggerated profiles?
And in that sense, isn’t profilicity a “branch” of an identity technology rather than it’s own? Like a “marketing for authenticity” tool or a “different profiles for your authentic stems”
I think Stirner agrees that taking up a cause builds your identity hence why he was somewhat against it yet seemingly he left room for love and alliance, "against sacred socialism not against socialism" I think alienation is an interesting concept stirner posits.
The fact he starts and ends the book with I have based by affair on nothing I think points to this lack of authentic self underneath anything
So did Rosemont cite Shrek?
For me, Sincerity over Authenticity/Profilicity
Love this channel
Stirners point about a cause is this; there is a destinction to be made between using causes for your own gain (knowingly) and not knowing your using causes for your own gain. Everyone who identifies with a cause should be fully aware that its essentialy shopping for clothes in a market of philosophy. It does not matter (all things are nothing to me), but one does it to further ones own egoistic desires.
climate change can get you laid, if the cause is won it can give you a future, if its a striving it can give you meaning in your life. ect. All the underlying reasons for identifying with one cause over another should expose yourself to the reasons as to why your doing it.
Stirners whole point is about rationalism and ocd, we are essentialy 'possesed' by these ideas, rather then us posessing them.
So its pretty similar to your point actually, would recommand reading the book in german
Being posessed by an idea is not realizing your the one who has the power to take it back into yourself, and proclaim 'all things are nothing to me', for others its simply following causes because their cause has become themselves, or theyself are a singular cause.
Actors might have a word to say on this, as a lot of them get "lost" in character. That must get quite hairy, but I suppose it doesn't hold a candle to creating your own character and getting lost in it.
do you think profilicity is a form of alienation in the marxian sense? or that profilicity creates an alienation from one’s humanity?
also: do you think modern commodified buddhism promote profilicty over the intended authenticity of genuine buddhism?
But how authentic is the profile of the identity of Hans-Georg Moeller?
I am thinking of my many accounts on Facebook, twitter and Quora. Avatars which in many respects depict me to a large extent.
What are your views on religion, Professor? :)
Hello Moeller, I haven't read your book, but as a student of philosophy, I would like to know what are your influences, in the sense that authors that are present in some sense in your "project", or if you adscribe to any current of thinking or your theory could be adscribed in. I always find interesting what you say. :) :)
Maybe existencialism?
Maybe I don't understand well what genuine pretending is because I got the idea from your videos that it is the only way to be (genuine). I can imagine a countless number of scenarios where the emotional and physiological reaction is automatic like screaming, running, fighting, smiling or laughing, convulsing, ejaculating, blushing, avoiding eye contact, etc. where pretending is not even an option.
Does genuine pretending refer to performing functions (roles) and becoming comfortable to the point of identifying with them?
I am having problems understanding how identity works under profilicity. It looks like something out of Difference and Repetition where you build identity by creating a network of things you are (this and this and...) , things you are not (this and not this and not this...) and things you could be under specific circumstances (this and or this...). With second-order observation I realize that I am doing this as much as everyone else. I also don't really care if my AirBnb host does this or not, so long as their hosting identity is one that leaves me with a clean bed. Is your idea that identity-work under conditions of profilicity does not produce a single identity or essence that travels between contexts but instead produces an identity for each context that does not claim to say anything about an underlying "real" identity?
Also, do you, as an academic, do a lot of profile building when choosing your citations? If two authors say the same thing, do you choose to cite one over the other to curate a certain profile as a Byung-Chul Han hater or as someone who engages with contemporary Chinese academia? You allude to this in the book, but I wonder how conscious it is.
I know you said at least in some way that all identity technologies are wrong. In the sense that they cannot encapsulate the "real" human experience/complexity. But it is profitability in some sense superior because this technology is flexible, changeable and come with the awareness of the "fakeness" of identity. In some way this technology is more conducive to make us realize that we are "genuinely pretending" ?
Identity technologies do make us question when we are being authentic. If being authentic means "being true to ourselves."--ie. acting out of a genuine self interest (not like self interest as in, it only benefits my cause--there can be many different causes people represent genuinely, through profiliecity too...) The prof addressing "wokeism", with some comparisons to religious... uh, tribal zealotry about causes, when we latch onto these things BECAUSE THE ALGORITYHM's got them in the queue, we're becoming less authentic... And the examples that he uses, about the Climate misinformation and the BLM(?) Activist, which lead some of his colleagues into this sense of inauthenticity are further examples.
Thank you for the lovely video! On the subject of genuine pretending: how does the concept of identity as a performance relate to Butler's concept of performativity? That is, gender and possibly sex as something that is performed, that is constituted by repeated action. Can we then extended the idea of genuine pretending also to gender, sexuality and other bodily identities?
The trans experience seems relevant to your ideas about profilicity. I've been watching some videos of Contrapoints' videos since coming across her on your channel. She says she considers herself a woman who used to be a man. While her identity certainly seems to be a profile in part, by her own account, her previous (male) identity was like a set of clothes that didn't fit right; she feels much more comfortable in her "new" identity. So the choice doesn't seem to be an arbitrary one for her. How do the "trans experience" and issues of gender identity relate to your thinking about profilicity?
True fucking CHAD this man is
I was just thinking the same thing about subjectivity and objectivity. I don't think there really is a difference. I guess there's a difference if you believe in truth, but isn't belief subjective anyways?
Asking the real questions
Is it possible to not have an identity? I never saw that concept to be useful.
The concept of identity or the concept of "not having an identity"? Because the first one seems largely impossible
I think the Prof is addressing just that when he's talking about Objectivity and Subjectivity. These are my words of course, not his so. Way I think of it, we are incapable of complete objectivity (whether that is a state that is completely beneficial or not is debatable... It could be inferred that what we believe of the "all powerful", is the source conception of objectivity... God and the State for example uphold their authority really on this basis alone)... We enter into subjectivity the moment we are born into a particular family, in a particular country with what ever's going on at the time.
@@leonardotavaresdardenne9955 there is an article I read that mentioned that the idea of an identity isn't something that is used in social sciences anymore and also how the idea of it is incoherent. I don't really understand what it is to have an identity.
@@Refr4me I am not sure if I understand you. It seems you are saying that under a particular situation we are in that objective state of the world creates our subjective experience and that creates our identity?
@@SGTIVLMPC So the idea is that in our subjectivity, including the roles that we assign ourselves and see others in, what we identify as, we move toward objectivity but can never fully grasp it. The example is when you look at a judge. that person has the identity of someone who must have objectivity--they must be someone WITHOUT an identity except one that passes judgement on a case. We put all these systems in place for that judge--jury, lawyers, etc, to uphold that sense of objectivity for the judge. .......So to answer your question, If there were to be the possibility of not having an identity, It would have to be purely from the objective... which is inherently impossible for us given the fact that we are driven toward subjectivity.
Somehow I think it's authenticity to suffer more from the fakeness problem. Think of all those individualists who are constantly finding themselves while being like an exact copy of one another, often just following current trends and fashions. It's even called the hipster paradox by some.
I'm not sure I'd agree with the separation of the self and the cause. 2 examples:
I know myself by addressing myself using social concepts/social language (there are no private languages). I am therefore always already inculcated in social culture, and it's mores and levers. I may have directionality, but to an extent my lifeworld experience and foregrounded ethics precede my objective understandings of the "the cause "
Secondly, I think there may be an interpretation of Marx that addresses the way we address thought and language (our 'labour' for meaning), which, again precedes cause (Honneth?)
Thank you
Life is the game we all must play. 💀
I expected a Shrek-joke around 6:30
Thanks!
"I would prefer not to." ... (Herman Melville).
th-cam.com/video/j5SaBSFApwc/w-d-xo.html
I sense a strong influence of Hegel in this video...
Yes performance and fakeness ain't the same
If identity requires a cause then does a hypothetical person removed from society with no cause to speak of have no identity?
Did neanderthals have causes? Or identities?
Wouldn't your cause just be survival? You would identify as self sufficient, or badass, or a survivor, or whatever.
@@llIlIlllII what if you had no language, could you construct those meanings of individuality?
@@leonardotavaresdardenne9955 and I guess that is part of my question. If language and society are required for what we are calling "Identity" then I have been using the word wrong my entire life.
Identity of some form is a product of experience. It is inevitable. Inescapable.
Did Tom Nicholas do that?? Can I get a scholarship to study with you?
~17:00 paradox of happiness about a negative truth (and unhappiness about a positive truth). I think this is needlessly simplified, and not really a paradox. You can be unhappy about global warming whilst simultaneously being happy about apparent integrity of scientists. These are separate responses to different, albeit related, information.
Suppose you learn a family member is involved in an accident - you're unhappy because you suspect they might be injured and in pain. Then you find out that they are uninjured and you are happy. Does this mean you are happy about the accident? I'd argue that would be weirdly simplistic.
There is an Über-driver Nietzsche joke somewhere in the video...😄
Would a political regime judging citizens on the basis of its ideology be a second order observation?
Genius!
warhammer2013 , ftw . You are ma man !