Hello....great content and video. I am currently doing a PhD in Urban sustainability policy but taking a social science theories elective course, hoping I find some theories that will help me understand "social impacts of studentification". Meanwhile I need materials that have to do with the question of " WHAT IS WRONG WITH MODERN SOCIETY?" from the point of Structuralism, post structuralism and post modernism. Kindly help if you have such or there is any link to any video. Thanks a lot!!!
Very cool! Well that's a pretty big net! Luckily, the internet is riddled with exactly what you're looking for. What I would recommend is Rick Rodericks series in TH-cam. Theyre introductory videos to many of the key thinkers in the areas you inquired about. Hope this helps!
hello, I liked this video, but I have a question! I haven't actually read the books of Baudrillard yet and have only read three Derrida essays so my line of questioning may sound stupid but here goes: Does Baudrillard create Transcendental Signified's or uphold logocentric notions by privileging the ''real'', the ''sign'', ''symbol'' and ''simulacrum''? These may be totally misunderstood, but it seems that Baudrillard uses the idea of the ''sign'' and ''signifier'' all too much, giving it a higher status. Is this reasoning valid at all?
He definitely does not present signification as transcendent. It’s basically Foucault’s discourse but on nihilistic steroids. Read symbolic exchange and death and it’ll make sense.
@@kaidenkondo5997There is no real world for Baudrillard in the sense of a separate, asocial world, so the idea that he privileges some notion of the real is only true insofar as he privileges the death of the real (“the desert of the real itself” from Simulacra and Simulation). He’s not a structuralist, so he’s not saying that signification or simulacra *is* reality now, so much as he is denying the distinction between the two and, in so doing, pointing out the *impotence* of signification. He points out how systems of signs depend on forestalling death to the n-th degree, and by doing so, show themselves to be essentially an abstraction that can be countered by his famously ironic “fatal strategies”.
Hi there, I really appreciate the content of your videos, thank you so much for taking the time to make them! It allows me to delve into fascinating and challenging realms of thought that I haven't been much exposed to since being in University. I've really missed this, but since I don't always have the time or confidence to sit down and take a crack at reading Foucault or Baudrillard or other social theorists on my own time, I appreciate these videos, as they offer me at least an entry point into some their most salient concepts and criticisms surrounding them. Just out of curiosity, are you currently working on an MA or PhD concerning these theorists? If so, what question(s) are you focused on exploring?
Tiger Sister I'm a PhD student and I'm actually trying to move away from this in my academic work (although it will always remain on the periphery). I'm actually interested in conspiracy theories, their histories, and their intersection with (and simultaneous production of) truth claims.
Very interesting. That is a phenomenon I've always found both fascinating and perplexing. The degree to which conspiracy theories now feed into and shape political discourse and ideology is a bit unsettling, especially in this current era of Trump. It's as if we get to witness the emergence and rise of an entirely new episteme, which has a very different set of governing rules, almost antithetical in ways to the rules which knowledge production and truth claims have seemingly been governed by for some time in our present era. But perhaps I'm wrong in this observation. Maybe conspiracy theories, or discourses comparable to them in structure have always had a hand in shaping, or at least, coming into contact with and affecting to a degree, what we consider as "true" discourses. Reminds me a bit of Foucault's concept of the "monster" discourse. I'm curious, in your work, have you at all delved into the psychologies of those who believe conspiracy theories and seek them out, and what their reasons/incentives are for doing so? That's always been an interesting mystery to me surrounding the whole thing...what is it that seems to set up certain people to be more prone to seeking out conspiracy discourse and then taking it up as truth? Anyway, I'd be very interested to read/listen to any work of yours you might have available to the public on this topic you have been undertaking in your studies. If you could link me to anything, I'd be most grateful. If not, that's fine too :)
@@tigersister6558 Ya I am more or less interested in those aspects of conspiracies. The only real nuance is that I don't frame the question around facticity/falsity (which is how most work deals with them). Rather, I try to present that conspiracy theories extend further than neo-conservative persona toward those other marginalized groups, and that if we frame the problem around the validity of their claims, then we foreclose the possibility that their form is what is transgressive, not their content (run-on sentence, sorry!). I am a noob in this field though, so I have no publications dealing with this :/ But here's my thesis XD ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/5780/
@@TheoryPhilosophyNeoconservative is a distinct political theory, not a description of conservatives to date. Interestingly, they were Trotsky-ites. Much of their methods are not conservative, their main aim being the support of Israel.
Foucault acknowledging that power does not exist..!? Would be juicy to find that quote, because it is really hard to imagine this. All of I can think of is his characterisation of power as always in relation and not a thing in itself
So you're comment motivated me to find it: From ""The Subject and Power" he states that "To put it bluntly, I would say that to begin the analysis with a "how" is to suggest that power as such does not exist. At the very least it is to ask oneself what contents one has in mind when using this all-embracing and reifying term; it is to suspect that an extremely complex configuration of realities is allowed to escape when one treads endlessly in the double question: What is power? and Where does power come from?" (786). And then later in that same text, "The exercise of power is not simply a relationship between partners, individual or collective; it is a way in which certain actions modify'others. Which is to say, of course, that something called Power, with or without a capital letter, which is assumed to exist universally in a concentrated or diffused form, does not exist" (788). As you can probably surmise, he doesn't actually say that power doesn't exist, but that it doesn't exist in certain capacities. So I'm a big dummy.
@@TheoryPhilosophy cheers! Well, not a BIG dummy ;) because at least it was a provocative quotation that elicited deeper understanding.. and if anything this discovery really supports the notion that Beaudrillard definitely didn't write against Foucault, but against the cult of Foucault. This is helpful because I have to discuss B&F in my literature review and now it's much more clear. Hooray for alternative mediums!
I see some strange similarities in this to both Slavoj Zizek and Walter Benjamins works.
Or phillopsophicall cero machines in case of zizek the desert of the real really?
Hello....great content and video. I am currently doing a PhD in Urban sustainability policy but taking a social science theories elective course, hoping I find some theories that will help me understand "social impacts of studentification". Meanwhile I need materials that have to do with the question of " WHAT IS WRONG WITH MODERN SOCIETY?" from the point of Structuralism, post structuralism and post modernism. Kindly help if you have such or there is any link to any video. Thanks a lot!!!
Very cool! Well that's a pretty big net! Luckily, the internet is riddled with exactly what you're looking for. What I would recommend is Rick Rodericks series in TH-cam. Theyre introductory videos to many of the key thinkers in the areas you inquired about. Hope this helps!
hello, I liked this video, but I have a question! I haven't actually read the books of Baudrillard yet and have only read three Derrida essays so my line of questioning may sound stupid but here goes: Does Baudrillard create Transcendental Signified's or uphold logocentric notions by privileging the ''real'', the ''sign'', ''symbol'' and ''simulacrum''? These may be totally misunderstood, but it seems that Baudrillard uses the idea of the ''sign'' and ''signifier'' all too much, giving it a higher status. Is this reasoning valid at all?
He definitely does not present signification as transcendent. It’s basically Foucault’s discourse but on nihilistic steroids. Read symbolic exchange and death and it’ll make sense.
how does he not do so? @@gavinyoung-philosophy
@@kaidenkondo5997There is no real world for Baudrillard in the sense of a separate, asocial world, so the idea that he privileges some notion of the real is only true insofar as he privileges the death of the real (“the desert of the real itself” from Simulacra and Simulation). He’s not a structuralist, so he’s not saying that signification or simulacra *is* reality now, so much as he is denying the distinction between the two and, in so doing, pointing out the *impotence* of signification. He points out how systems of signs depend on forestalling death to the n-th degree, and by doing so, show themselves to be essentially an abstraction that can be countered by his famously ironic “fatal strategies”.
huh, thanks for that explanation. I will look further into it.@@gavinyoung-philosophy
Hi there,
I really appreciate the content of your videos, thank you so much for taking the time to make them! It allows me to delve into fascinating and challenging realms of thought that I haven't been much exposed to since being in University. I've really missed this, but since I don't always have the time or confidence to sit down and take a crack at reading Foucault or Baudrillard or other social theorists on my own time, I appreciate these videos, as they offer me at least an entry point into some their most salient concepts and criticisms surrounding them. Just out of curiosity, are you currently working on an MA or PhD concerning these theorists? If so, what question(s) are you focused on exploring?
Tiger Sister I'm a PhD student and I'm actually trying to move away from this in my academic work (although it will always remain on the periphery). I'm actually interested in conspiracy theories, their histories, and their intersection with (and simultaneous production of) truth claims.
Very interesting. That is a phenomenon I've always found both fascinating and perplexing. The degree to which conspiracy theories now feed into and shape political discourse and ideology is a bit unsettling, especially in this current era of Trump. It's as if we get to witness the emergence and rise of an entirely new episteme, which has a very different set of governing rules, almost antithetical in ways to the rules which knowledge production and truth claims have seemingly been governed by for some time in our present era. But perhaps I'm wrong in this observation. Maybe conspiracy theories, or discourses comparable to them in structure have always had a hand in shaping, or at least, coming into contact with and affecting to a degree, what we consider as "true" discourses. Reminds me a bit of Foucault's concept of the "monster" discourse.
I'm curious, in your work, have you at all delved into the psychologies of those who believe conspiracy theories and seek them out, and what their reasons/incentives are for doing so? That's always been an interesting mystery to me surrounding the whole thing...what is it that seems to set up certain people to be more prone to seeking out conspiracy discourse and then taking it up as truth?
Anyway, I'd be very interested to read/listen to any work of yours you might have available to the public on this topic you have been undertaking in your studies. If you could link me to anything, I'd be most grateful. If not, that's fine too :)
@@tigersister6558 Ya I am more or less interested in those aspects of conspiracies. The only real nuance is that I don't frame the question around facticity/falsity (which is how most work deals with them). Rather, I try to present that conspiracy theories extend further than neo-conservative persona toward those other marginalized groups, and that if we frame the problem around the validity of their claims, then we foreclose the possibility that their form is what is transgressive, not their content (run-on sentence, sorry!). I am a noob in this field though, so I have no publications dealing with this :/ But here's my thesis XD ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/5780/
@@TheoryPhilosophyNeoconservative is a distinct political theory, not a description of conservatives to date. Interestingly, they were Trotsky-ites. Much of their methods are not conservative, their main aim being the support of Israel.
damn, baudrillard….the first victim of cancel culture
Excellent analysis and a very prescient essay , even beyond the Foucault cirticism.
Foucault acknowledging that power does not exist..!? Would be juicy to find that quote, because it is really hard to imagine this. All of I can think of is his characterisation of power as always in relation and not a thing in itself
I know right?!?! I'm thinking that I dreamt it.
@@TheoryPhilosophy i am going to try and find out! Thank you for this video by the way, the pace is nice and it's a helpful accompaniment to the text.
So you're comment motivated me to find it: From ""The Subject and Power" he states that "To put it
bluntly, I would say that to begin the analysis with a "how" is to suggest that power as such does not exist. At the very least it is to ask oneself what contents one has in mind when using this all-embracing and reifying term; it is to suspect that an extremely complex configuration of realities is allowed to escape when one treads endlessly in the double
question: What is power? and Where does power come from?" (786). And then later in that same text, "The exercise of power is not simply a relationship between partners,
individual or collective; it is a way in which certain actions modify'others. Which is to say, of course, that something called Power, with or without a capital letter, which is assumed to exist universally in a concentrated or diffused form, does not exist" (788). As you can probably surmise, he doesn't actually say that power doesn't exist, but that it doesn't exist in certain capacities. So I'm a big dummy.
@@TheoryPhilosophy cheers! Well, not a BIG dummy ;) because at least it was a provocative quotation that elicited deeper understanding.. and if anything this discovery really supports the notion that Beaudrillard definitely didn't write against Foucault, but against the cult of Foucault. This is helpful because I have to discuss B&F in my literature review and now it's much more clear. Hooray for alternative mediums!
@@neonhengnaBaudrillard was writing that Foucault's idea of power is nonsense.
Forget baudrillard
You offer an intriguing argument.
Literally impossible if you want to analyze anything nowadays.
Slow and boring
I agree
playback speed is a thing