PhD Lecture
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ก.ค. 2024
- In this episode, I present my doctoral research and my public lecture for my defense.
If you want to support me, you can do that with these links:
Patreon: / theoryandphilosophy
paypal.me/theoryphilosophy
Twitter: @DavidGuignion
IG: @theory_and_philosophy
Tiktok: @theoryphilosophy
Podbean: theoretician.podbean.com/
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 72 วันนี้!! คู่เอก "ก้องศึก vs โจอาคิม"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hT1EOSsRPac/mqdefault.jpg)
As a PhD student also working with conspiracy theories, Bratich was so important to discover! And reading his book actually led me to your channel.
Thank you for this discussion. By reframing the conspiracy theory as a meaningful expression, particularly in response to social or even personal injustice, irrespective of the veracity of the theory itself, the conspiracy theory is effectively weaponized as a tool to potentially correct injustice rather than normalize it. In this way, the mere notion of truth as it relates to lived experience can be more politically powerful than the systemic forces that attempt to discredit those who seek to raise awareness of subjugated knowledge. The difference in social acceptance of conspiracy theories that uphold versus challenge the status quo is similar to the way that certain religious beliefs are taken seriously or not. The view of Islam versus Christianity and Judaism by the West is an obvious example, but perhaps even more significant is the systematic invalidation of indigenous religious beliefs from all over the world. Unlike conspiracy theories, religious beliefs don't even need to be falsifiable, yet systemic forms of oppression seem to deem as irrelevant many religious beliefs and practices that have survived for thousands of years, while promoting newer religions that uphold the status quo.
I have a question! @8:42 you say "Now, with the advent of social media it seems as though we've entered a new phase of epistemic relations where someone with a TH-cam channel focusing on medical issues for example, can be taken as seriously or more seriously or with moral legitimacy than someone with a medical degree who is offering conflicting advice."
Presumably the person with a TH-cam channel has a different epistemology than the medical expert with a degree, which is why I think you phrased it "a new phase of epistemic relations". I think we have a historic example of a similar situation, where the academically credentialed with one epistemology were in contention with the non-academically credentialled with a different epistemology. The obvious example would be Trofim Lysenko.
Lysenko, a Soviet agronomist, was the director of the Institute of Genetics within the USSR's Academy of Sciences. Not only was he extremely well credentialed, he had risen to a position of authority. He rejected Mendelian genetics in favor of his own beliefs which were more in line with the State's ideology. Lysenko forced farmers to plant seeds very close together since, according to his "law of the life of species", plants from the same "class" never compete with one another, which was close enough to the prevailing Marxist ideology of the State. On the other hand, farmers, many of whom had been farming for their entire lives, were not credentialed and had real, actual and practical experience stated he was incorrect. They were not credentialed in any manner, and certainly had no degrees from academic institutions and likely didn't even know the word epistemology.
It turned out the farmers were indeed correct about farming. Regardless, they were ignored in favor of the academically credentialed up the wazoo Lysenko. Supposedly, the academic credentialling insured a rigor and understanding beyond that of the non-academic peasant farmer. The end result of following credentialed expert resulted in entire crop yields failing, one after another, resulting in mass starvation of millions of people.
Perhaps sometimes the non-academically credentialed have less biases than those credentialed in ivory towers. They may not know the word epistemology but they do know some things work and why and that some things don't work and why and can differentiate between the two. Could this be why many people in the West today are highly skeptical if not downright hostile towards "experts" who show similar signs of bias as Mr. Lysenko?
Been waiting for this one
Welcome to California!
Congrats man!
I love your videos so much. I know doing capital was a slog but that whole series blew my mind and I haven't been able to stop watching your videos since. Very happy for you!!! I show all your stuff to my smelly punk friends
My favorite kind of people
Nice, can you please also upload your university lectures about foucault?
hey that was so clear and interesting
Serious thank you
Congratulations on completing such a relevant paper of scholarship.
thanks a lot , stay sane !
Thanks for sharing. Any video explaining Stuart Hall Introduction Who needs identity? And his theory of Diaspora? In an easy way. Greetings from Argentina.
HELL YEAH PHD DUDE FUCK YES
How long did it take? Ie. When did you start?
2018
This may be reductive but I think conspiracy theories are just a self-aggrandizing way of interacting with knowledge. The conspiracy theorist is made special and empowered by the sheer possession of this forbidden and almost unobtainable knowledge, with dark mysterious forces doing all they can to keep it under the rug. In that way the conspiracy theorist becomes a hero, someone of elavated importance, just by knowing.
but you think that the knowledge may be "there" without the self-aggrandizing interaction with it. In what other ways might one interact with such knowledge, or is the self-aggrandizing nature of the interaction an inevitable consequence?
most likely you will never accuse anybody of conspiracy as long as he shares the same opinion that you are holding. the conspiratros will always be the others. an impartial judgement is not possible within an antagonistic society. Those who profit from the exploitation of labor will accuse those who speak of the struggle of classes of using a conspiarcy theory. They will claim that the process of generating laws is democratic and that it is not ruled by the owning class. Yet the fact remains that there is private property of the means of production which leads those who do not own their means of production into conditions where they have to sell their labor. If those who own the means of production don't conspire they will still hold a common interest in keeping their property. This common interest is there independently even of their awareness. So the question whether there is an antagonist society is a matter of fact. The question what society should be like is not a matter of fact anyway. At best it could be a matter of principle for moral philosophy. Facts cannot help you there.
How about murder? To be more specific, social murder. Can the fact of social murder help us to decide what society should *not* be like?
@@numbersix8919 Which changes in government policy will lead to avoid greater poverty I would say is a matter of fact. The question if there is an obligation to help poor people or to avoid a society with rich people remains a metaphysical question.
@@gmmaal7161 They are speaking in Hegelian terms. The positive is being, what is true here and now. The negative refers to other possible words. The OP does not use these terms, but (they are obviously Marxist) the terms help to understand what the OP means.
@@gmmaal7161 Philosophical, aren't we? Well the Confucians have it figured out. They are in control of their oligarchs, our oligarchs are in control of us. They do what is necessary, as a sane person would. We do whatever the rich people can't decide on.
You probably haven't put 2 and 2 together, but the United States can no longer act in simple self-preservation. We couldn't even defend ourselves from attack, unless it were profitable.
I personally like the old kind of virtuous rich people. They added a lot to society. But they've all been bought off, just like our government has.
For a very long time, the US only had one or two billionaires at a time. The richest person in the world was the Aga Khan. And the United States could do anything, go anywhere, beat anybody and provide a better future for its (white) people.
So don't fall for this garbage about being broke. The only people who are broke are the honest citizens.