THANK YOU for your content. Your videos have been incredibly helpful during my undergraduate degree, especially in epistemology. I struggled to grasp the main ideas in On the Understanding of the Intellect, even after reading it in two languages. Your explanations made all the difference and helped me understand it clearly. I find it frustrating when professors assign dense philosophical texts with only a week to read them; it’s impossible to absorb everything without ample time to reflect! I don’t think philosophical ideas should be so difficult to comprehend, and your videos really address this issue. Once I fully understand a concept, I feel more motivated to question it and develop my own interpretations. You’ve made the learning process much more enjoyable, transforming my education from a daunting challenge into a rewarding journey.
I can't relate to a complete desire to disappear into a discourse because I think that there always exists a desire to contribute and be be known. I think it would be radical to suggest that discourse needs to be minimized into non linguistic symbology, and I think the actual resolution to Foucault's findings is that we need more words and more symbols. The problem of power and control is not a problem if we look to learn from examples of ecosystems; mono-culture is leads to symptoms of disease, while the complexity, diversity, and inter-relatedness within ecosystems leads to symptoms of beauty, and wellness. I think Foucault overextends his argument. I really think that his unpacking of terminology is largely unrealized by the population, and it literally is the most relevant philosophical argument and tool in the world right now. For example, his unpacking of "crazy," "criminal," and "gender," should be adopted by everyone immediately at every level of common sense. We live in an era where many arguments and positions previously identified as having exclusive positions on one side of the political spectrum, are being released from this and being adopted by the other side. This is transformative because it's the answer to "otherness," because one sided topics become two sided and multidimensional and multi-polar discourses. Foucault's unpacking of terminology has yet to be understood by the political right because of how radical he is, but if his overextending of his arguments can be overlooked, the world could change overnight. Once you start to look for it in the topics in the discourse in the media you will see it everywhere: a desire to unpack social constructions not to be radical, but to design new words. Fake news is a symptom of the desire for new word creation. If the tool of unpacking social constructions was more apart of common sense, then we would see new human desirable traits emerge in people who are currently oppressed. If I am right about this and about how the political right has not accepted Foucault because of a perceived connection with the left, then the literature that applies Foucault in the right is the single most important thing to be doing right now. Not only will everyone begin to see desirable traits emerge, they will also be able to make undesirable traits fade out of existence, and they can do this by merely choosing to stop believing in certain social constructions and bias and stereotypes.
I had to pause the video to read the Nietzsche essay and I was pleased to discover this is where "Truths are an illusion about which one has forgotten that this is what they are." Do you know which, if any, philosophers picked up this thread esp regarding the relationship between language and abstraction. I typically think of Wittgenstein as the next step in theory of language, but it would appear he goes in a different direction than Nietzsche.
Look at you looking great! Not sure if it’s the shirt, the new office, or you have been taking extra care of yourself. Keep it up. I will come back to the video. Interesting topic!
A new _school_ year. Good luck. You had me going there for a second. In the context of our new genocide industrial complex, won't you cover _Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism_ ? It carries forward some ideas of Marx to more closely address our situation since the first world war.
How can one identify ways in which a certain discourse does violence to a certain community? Having identified some of these ways, what discursive strategies could be used to counteract them?
Can i ask you question from you regarding what isrelation between hegelain philosphy of embrace of contridictions and colin mcginn philosphy of new mysterianism which say some questions like conciousness and as chomsky desrcibe matter is also mysterious we no conception of matter etc is not in our grasp and we can never understand it.from your view in today modern world which is correct if they have no relations.? My other question is embrace of contridictions and logic arguments which is more mentally demanding?please answer thank you
If you really want to reconstruct the basis of the Western "Episteme," you really do need to start at Sumer with HUR.SAG ("Mountain," composed of two signs that have semantically foundational Akkadian words assigned to them, with HUR being assigned the Akkadian cognates for the Hebrew words for Torah, Draw, and Ring, which are shown through this sign as semantically and etymologically related, and SAG being Head, and in Akkadian, qaqqadum, Head and Capital, as in Finance). This HURSAG was also used homographically as AZUBIR, the etymon of Saffron in all languages. A thorough analysis of the Akkadian roots that relate to this and an exploration of those roots in the Bible show the cipher of the seferim is solved by the Saffron for which the Shofar will sound... This root also relates to nails/beaks/points, scrolls, and claws, of birds and of Saffron in Akkadian, used together to describe the nails of Gilgamesh in cuneiform and the nails of Nebuchadnezzar in the Bible, 'long like a bird's claws.' It's a solution to a few 'jokes' that I've identified, including the plague of frogs. If you want to really understand how that gets drawn out finally into your culture, go look at the pillar capitals at the Capitol in DC. Those hexafoil rosettes are the Crocus, which produces Saffron.
There is no "obsession with gendering nouns" in certain languages, there's a feature of those languages that is grammatical gender and it is very different from gender as relating to sex. There isn't any more of an obsession than there is in English language an obsession with categorizing verbs into regular and irregular ones. Now, you could argue that a structure of a langueage effects the way people using that language think, but that's a little bit more nuanced than what you present. It's a shame, the video was going relatively well until you turned into a caricature of a Western leftist shoving identity politics everywhere.
Thank you so much, David. During the past few months I've become a regular viewer. Learning much from your videos. Greetings from Denmark
THANK YOU for your content.
Your videos have been incredibly helpful during my undergraduate degree, especially in epistemology. I struggled to grasp the main ideas in On the Understanding of the Intellect, even after reading it in two languages. Your explanations made all the difference and helped me understand it clearly.
I find it frustrating when professors assign dense philosophical texts with only a week to read them; it’s impossible to absorb everything without ample time to reflect! I don’t think philosophical ideas should be so difficult to comprehend, and your videos really address this issue.
Once I fully understand a concept, I feel more motivated to question it and develop my own interpretations. You’ve made the learning process much more enjoyable, transforming my education from a daunting challenge into a rewarding journey.
Thanks for the video! Excited for your new office 🙂
I can't relate to a complete desire to disappear into a discourse because I think that there always exists a desire to contribute and be be known. I think it would be radical to suggest that discourse needs to be minimized into non linguistic symbology, and I think the actual resolution to Foucault's findings is that we need more words and more symbols. The problem of power and control is not a problem if we look to learn from examples of ecosystems; mono-culture is leads to symptoms of disease, while the complexity, diversity, and inter-relatedness within ecosystems leads to symptoms of beauty, and wellness. I think Foucault overextends his argument. I really think that his unpacking of terminology is largely unrealized by the population, and it literally is the most relevant philosophical argument and tool in the world right now. For example, his unpacking of "crazy," "criminal," and "gender," should be adopted by everyone immediately at every level of common sense. We live in an era where many arguments and positions previously identified as having exclusive positions on one side of the political spectrum, are being released from this and being adopted by the other side. This is transformative because it's the answer to "otherness," because one sided topics become two sided and multidimensional and multi-polar discourses. Foucault's unpacking of terminology has yet to be understood by the political right because of how radical he is, but if his overextending of his arguments can be overlooked, the world could change overnight. Once you start to look for it in the topics in the discourse in the media you will see it everywhere: a desire to unpack social constructions not to be radical, but to design new words. Fake news is a symptom of the desire for new word creation. If the tool of unpacking social constructions was more apart of common sense, then we would see new human desirable traits emerge in people who are currently oppressed. If I am right about this and about how the political right has not accepted Foucault because of a perceived connection with the left, then the literature that applies Foucault in the right is the single most important thing to be doing right now. Not only will everyone begin to see desirable traits emerge, they will also be able to make undesirable traits fade out of existence, and they can do this by merely choosing to stop believing in certain social constructions and bias and stereotypes.
I had to pause the video to read the Nietzsche essay and I was pleased to discover this is where "Truths are an illusion about which one has forgotten that this is what they are." Do you know which, if any, philosophers picked up this thread esp regarding the relationship between language and abstraction. I typically think of Wittgenstein as the next step in theory of language, but it would appear he goes in a different direction than Nietzsche.
Great video really informative
thank u for this vid!! excited for more uploads :))
Look at you looking great! Not sure if it’s the shirt, the new office, or you have been taking extra care of yourself. Keep it up.
I will come back to the video. Interesting topic!
A new _school_ year. Good luck. You had me going there for a second.
In the context of our new genocide industrial complex, won't you cover _Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism_ ?
It carries forward some ideas of Marx to more closely address our situation since the first world war.
How can one identify ways in which a certain discourse does violence to a certain community? Having identified some of these ways, what discursive strategies could be used to counteract them?
When you said scholars have to accomodate to certain rules and methods and so on, is that what Foucault means by normalizing?
Can i ask you question from you regarding what isrelation between hegelain philosphy of embrace of contridictions and colin mcginn philosphy of new mysterianism which say some questions like conciousness and as chomsky desrcibe matter is also mysterious we no conception of matter etc is not in our grasp and we can never understand it.from your view in today modern world which is correct if they have no relations.? My other question is embrace of contridictions and logic arguments which is more mentally demanding?please answer thank you
If you really want to reconstruct the basis of the Western "Episteme," you really do need to start at Sumer with HUR.SAG ("Mountain," composed of two signs that have semantically foundational Akkadian words assigned to them, with HUR being assigned the Akkadian cognates for the Hebrew words for Torah, Draw, and Ring, which are shown through this sign as semantically and etymologically related, and SAG being Head, and in Akkadian, qaqqadum, Head and Capital, as in Finance). This HURSAG was also used homographically as AZUBIR, the etymon of Saffron in all languages. A thorough analysis of the Akkadian roots that relate to this and an exploration of those roots in the Bible show the cipher of the seferim is solved by the Saffron for which the Shofar will sound... This root also relates to nails/beaks/points, scrolls, and claws, of birds and of Saffron in Akkadian, used together to describe the nails of Gilgamesh in cuneiform and the nails of Nebuchadnezzar in the Bible, 'long like a bird's claws.' It's a solution to a few 'jokes' that I've identified, including the plague of frogs.
If you want to really understand how that gets drawn out finally into your culture, go look at the pillar capitals at the Capitol in DC. Those hexafoil rosettes are the Crocus, which produces Saffron.
I wash myself with a rag on a stick
🎉🎉
There is no "obsession with gendering nouns" in certain languages, there's a feature of those languages that is grammatical gender and it is very different from gender as relating to sex. There isn't any more of an obsession than there is in English language an obsession with categorizing verbs into regular and irregular ones. Now, you could argue that a structure of a langueage effects the way people using that language think, but that's a little bit more nuanced than what you present. It's a shame, the video was going relatively well until you turned into a caricature of a Western leftist shoving identity politics everywhere.