Fantastic, I learned so much! Thank you. As a 74 year old arm chair philosopher, I won’t be able to attend University to learn these things. However, your channel and interviews like this help me learn and feel a part of the examined life.
I can see that you both enjoy each others inputs to the conversation. Apart from all the interlaced sentences and trains of thought going in all kinds of directions, this fruitful exchange of thoughts and ideas with a mutual admiration for each others inspiration and thought-provocation is especially nice to see. Thank you for this cerebral brain jam!
@@PhilosophyPortal Yes! It just arrived, and with chapter titles like "Deflating Hegel's Deflaters," I can tell it will be worth more than a few rereads! 😎
17:00 strongly disagree that issues of origins are best left to physicists. Contemporary cosmology is in deep paradigmatic crisis at the moment and is in even more in need of philosophy. Physics cannot make further progress without metaphysical innovations.
Great point @Footnotes2Plato! If you follow on to 24:40 I push back on this point that "issues of origins are best left to physicists", emphasising that Zizek is bold and should be commended for taking a real big risk on the issues of quantum physics, i.e. bringing in figures like Hegel, Marx, Freud and Lacan to think through quantum physics from the point of view of a new metaphysics. In my doctoral thesis, Global Brain Singularity, I also attempt to think the metaphysics of quantum physics, so it is a style of risk that I fundamentally agree with (i.e. I do not think it should just be left to physicists). You are completely right to emphasise that "contemporary cosmology is in deep paradigmatic crisis" and that it "is in even more need of philosophy". I am 100 percent aligned with the idea that "physics cannot make further progress without metaphysics innovations" and it is a point I try to stress in my work as well. Thanks for your comment! I should also add that at 27:08 Adrian Johnston's response to this push back is that, for Johnston, the type of speculative metaphysics re: quantum physics is too big a risk, and we would be better suited to "roll the dice" (so to speak) in areas related to fields of neurobiology and emergentist evolution.
I don't think Johnston is referring to panpsychism at all here (he certainly didn't mention it by name). What he calls "radically reductive physicalism" is the way Zizek relates to Schelling and quantum physics (which is itself a big debate, but I know Zizek is not a panpsychist). Johnston's approach is not to reduce mind to quantum physics but rather to think mind from an emergentist perspective. If you are interested in the deeper theoretical background of Johnston's approach here, he presented it at The Hegel Society of Great Britain" in a talk titled "Adrian Johnston | EEHL | Day 3 | Session 3 " (TH-cam). th-cam.com/video/TxwwhkCFvgo/w-d-xo.htmlsi=IdTOO3D64Dsw1YB9
@@PhilosophyPortal Right, I know he didn't mention panpsychism by name, but the strategy of understanding how mind is possible at the human level by rooting some kind of primal mentality all the way down is akin to panpsychism. There are constitutive and non-constitutive forms of panpsychism, and I can see how the former might be construed by critics as reductionistic. Non-constitutive versions (eg, Whitehead's actual entities and Schelling's ideal actants), not so much. I admit it is very strange to me to hear someone so well versed in German idealism take the emergentist account of consciousness seriously.
@@Footnotes2Plato I think social media, over direct in-person communication, too easily lends itself to simplistic disagreements that are usually best mediated by actual conversations. In the context of this talk, Dr. Johnston didn't refer to panpsychism, I didn't bring up the topic of panpsychism, and he was specifically referring to the way Zizek plays with quantum mechanics. From my reading of Zizek, Zizek is definitely not a panpsychist, and more relates to thinking about analogies between quantum processes and social processes on the level of sexuality and politics. I know that Whiteheadians tend to panpsychism, and I discussed this with Dr. Peter Sjostedt-Hughes earlier this year (where he actually surprised me by being even a bit on the fence about the topic). But as for Dr. Johnston he is definitely more of an emergentist, and trying to think the intersections of neurobiology and subjectivity. From my exposure to the field of both physics and evolution, it seems there are a lot of real problems and future conversations to be had at this intersection. As for how Dr. Johnston uses German Idealism to support that approach, I would again reference the lecture I pointed to above, where he makes his case. I am just trying to provide a platform for intellectuals I respect to make the case for their viewpoint. Definitely open to discussions on the topic of panpsychism!
@SimonGros @SimonGros Neurons that fire together, wire together and, People who drink together, think together. In this case however, I suspect it's due to watching a Zizek lecture or two too many! 😅
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 85 | คู่เอก "ยอดเหล็กเพชร vs ผึ้งหลวง"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Qq_19bnnxEo/mqdefault.jpg)
Adrian is a philosophical wizard. It's always a privileged to get to hear him talk philosophy. Thanks for this, Cadell!
Fantastic, I learned so much! Thank you. As a 74 year old arm chair philosopher, I won’t be able to attend University to learn these things. However, your channel and interviews like this help me learn and feel a part of the examined life.
Excellent conversation! Just got done with ‘A New German Idealism’, and now I want to read it again 😂❤
Thanks, this was very helpful for identifying a few of the cracks from which the lava is flowing.
I can see that you both enjoy each others inputs to the conversation. Apart from all the interlaced sentences and trains of thought going in all kinds of directions, this fruitful exchange of thoughts and ideas with a mutual admiration for each others inspiration and thought-provocation is especially nice to see. Thank you for this cerebral brain jam!
Even though I am a Bhaskarian critical realist, I always appreciate intelligent discussions of idealism.😊
'even though I'm a poopoopeeist'
Just ordered "A New German Idealism" and it will arrive on the 7th, to which will provide me another reason to lock myself away! 😎
Happy arrival of "A New German Idealism" day!
@@PhilosophyPortal Yes! It just arrived, and with chapter titles like "Deflating Hegel's Deflaters," I can tell it will be worth more than a few rereads! 😎
17:00 strongly disagree that issues of origins are best left to physicists. Contemporary cosmology is in deep paradigmatic crisis at the moment and is in even more in need of philosophy. Physics cannot make further progress without metaphysical innovations.
Great point @Footnotes2Plato! If you follow on to 24:40 I push back on this point that "issues of origins are best left to physicists", emphasising that Zizek is bold and should be commended for taking a real big risk on the issues of quantum physics, i.e. bringing in figures like Hegel, Marx, Freud and Lacan to think through quantum physics from the point of view of a new metaphysics. In my doctoral thesis, Global Brain Singularity, I also attempt to think the metaphysics of quantum physics, so it is a style of risk that I fundamentally agree with (i.e. I do not think it should just be left to physicists). You are completely right to emphasise that "contemporary cosmology is in deep paradigmatic crisis" and that it "is in even more need of philosophy". I am 100 percent aligned with the idea that "physics cannot make further progress without metaphysics innovations" and it is a point I try to stress in my work as well. Thanks for your comment!
I should also add that at 27:08 Adrian Johnston's response to this push back is that, for Johnston, the type of speculative metaphysics re: quantum physics is too big a risk, and we would be better suited to "roll the dice" (so to speak) in areas related to fields of neurobiology and emergentist evolution.
Good afternoon
Wonderful user name, good sir! Welcome!
22:00 panpsychism is radically reductive physicalism?
I don't think Johnston is referring to panpsychism at all here (he certainly didn't mention it by name). What he calls "radically reductive physicalism" is the way Zizek relates to Schelling and quantum physics (which is itself a big debate, but I know Zizek is not a panpsychist). Johnston's approach is not to reduce mind to quantum physics but rather to think mind from an emergentist perspective.
If you are interested in the deeper theoretical background of Johnston's approach here, he presented it at The Hegel Society of Great Britain" in a talk titled "Adrian Johnston | EEHL | Day 3 | Session 3 " (TH-cam).
th-cam.com/video/TxwwhkCFvgo/w-d-xo.htmlsi=IdTOO3D64Dsw1YB9
@@PhilosophyPortal Right, I know he didn't mention panpsychism by name, but the strategy of understanding how mind is possible at the human level by rooting some kind of primal mentality all the way down is akin to panpsychism. There are constitutive and non-constitutive forms of panpsychism, and I can see how the former might be construed by critics as reductionistic. Non-constitutive versions (eg, Whitehead's actual entities and Schelling's ideal actants), not so much. I admit it is very strange to me to hear someone so well versed in German idealism take the emergentist account of consciousness seriously.
@@Footnotes2Plato I think social media, over direct in-person communication, too easily lends itself to simplistic disagreements that are usually best mediated by actual conversations. In the context of this talk, Dr. Johnston didn't refer to panpsychism, I didn't bring up the topic of panpsychism, and he was specifically referring to the way Zizek plays with quantum mechanics. From my reading of Zizek, Zizek is definitely not a panpsychist, and more relates to thinking about analogies between quantum processes and social processes on the level of sexuality and politics. I know that Whiteheadians tend to panpsychism, and I discussed this with Dr. Peter Sjostedt-Hughes earlier this year (where he actually surprised me by being even a bit on the fence about the topic). But as for Dr. Johnston he is definitely more of an emergentist, and trying to think the intersections of neurobiology and subjectivity. From my exposure to the field of both physics and evolution, it seems there are a lot of real problems and future conversations to be had at this intersection. As for how Dr. Johnston uses German Idealism to support that approach, I would again reference the lecture I pointed to above, where he makes his case. I am just trying to provide a platform for intellectuals I respect to make the case for their viewpoint. Definitely open to discussions on the topic of panpsychism!
Why do pupils always take on their Master's mannerisms and ticks? Imitation is the most eerie form of flattery..
@SimonGros Well, as I said; Eerie
@SimonGros @SimonGros Neurons that fire together, wire together and, People who drink together, think together. In this case however, I suspect it's due to watching a Zizek lecture or two too many! 😅