I consider myself a casual autodidact of philosophy , and I’ve always had a sort of confused perspective on how all of the big names you mentioned like Kant, Hegel, Marx, and others landed in terms of how they are connected. I’ve been mostly uninterested in reading the actual writings of these thinkers and have been more interested in getting the distilled versions/most impactful ideas . I’m super glad I discovered you because you seem to be doing exactly the kind of thing that will help people like me understand how these big thinkers relate to one another, and most importantly, how their ideas apply to our current lives. Extremely appreciative of your work. 🙏🏽
is called the western canon. and you should read the original text. the distilled ideas you are getting from others are just bastardizations and interpretations of the source. if you want life advice read self help books
The argument in 'the Dawn of Everything' is exactly that Egalitarianism is not a useful term when describing most historical societies, and that they are much more complex than any of the typical overarching narratives make them out to be. There is a large section of the book where they say they set out to show how inequality started, but found out that this is not possible because there is a hidden assumption that all human societies started in "equality", which there just is no evidence for. Instead, a lot of different societies have had a lot of different modes of organization, sometimes mixed. They may not have picked up the idea that there is a tension between how different parts of society sees it and that this is how the social structure is maintained, so that part of your comment is probably correct. Also, I'm pretty sure Levi-Strauss didn't have a helicopter in inner Brazil in the 1930s and 40s, but I take that to be metaphorical ;)
Hello from Syria! Thank you for these videos, they are extremely helpful. When will your book be available? I cannot check patreon as Syria is blocked from accessing it.
Greetings back from Washington! At the moment the book is only available on but considering your situation if you send me your email I can send you a free copy! Thank you for joining us all the way from Syria!!
@@julianphilosophy Oh that would be very kind of you! I tried commenting my email here but i think it gets deleted automatically, where can i contact you?
Kant: split between analytical and continental philosophy. Equal/unequal map - characterisation of modern society. Cannot tell if unequal or equal empirically. Society - some people, rich people, see society as fair and equal and some people, poor left out people, see society as harsh and unequal. (Related to tribe mapping, poor will draw unequal map. Rich draw equal map.) Zizek-: Left wing gesture: left/right split (marginalised) Right wing gesture: left and right split from the middle (centrism) Both are false master signifiers in assuming can be reduced to class conflict or centrism. Marx false universal -ccan point out that centrism (bourgeois ideology) is also false, already on the left. See society as left and right where centre is considered as false universal. There is no centre, it is a symptom of disavowal of inequality for the leftist. The illusion of the centre comes about retrospectively from social struggle or is it apriori centre where we have deviations. Lacan: defining feature of society is the misperception --- Vanishing mediator: Calvinism - hardwork, thrift, sacrifice, later rewards. Related to industrial society. Not direct. Secular life becomes so religious cannot see itself as religious (term used is capitalism). Capitalism imbibes Calvinist ethics and universalises it, making the original catalyse go away. We don't see our life as Calvinist because every aspect of our life is Calvinist already. Capitalism Universaled so no Calvinism. So secular it's religious. Capitalism as a cult, zealot attachment to profit motive. Capitalism exists only as disavowed religion, Universaled and emptied out of its formal positive content. The thing that caused it is so universal we no longer remember it. The beginnings of the future are already here in present but cannot see it. No strict temporal split between present and future. Future is mediation/negation of that that is disavowed in the present. We fail to see what's important and future realises it only when looking back and realising what was already happening. Kant - Hegel: what does on cross is god transcendent. Omnipotent god. God of beyond cannot interfere in world. Resurrected is more powerful god of trinity and human community. Kant still believes in transcendental philosophy (god beyond). Reason no access to beyond, reason is barrier to knowing higher form. Things in higher form become antimonies through reason (muddles like paradoxes). Barriers away from god beyond. Reason prevents us from pure knowledge. Morality is a failure of reason. If we knew what makes good good (calculate) we wouldn't need morality. Morality means we cannot objectively ascertain what is good or what is bad. Society - cannot define clearly what society is (unequal or free), same with good evil, morality is fundamental answer to impossibility to rationally ascertain difference good and evil Morality not about calculation. Morality - the name we give to confusion over good and bad. (Hegel (there is no good/bad, morality creates this)) Reason the world, stuck with cannot know with higher god. Formalise limits of reasons. Same with mortality as a formality showing incompleteness between reason and divine knowledge. Kant is vanishing mediator for Hegel, kirkeagaard etc. Kant fades away but everything becomes Universaled with Kantian problem. Analytical philosophers are like right wing, thinking there is a centre transcendent universal philosophy Continental are like left wingers in that there is never a centre anymore. (Isn't this also false universal as described initially - master signifier???) Hegel - gap between god above and human reason. Gap formalised through antimonies ( like between human will and determinism, opposites). Hegel says the gap is external reality. External reality isn't behind the antinomies. External reality is within the antimonies. External reality is in that perceived obstacle (society comes from not being able to perceive society accurately). Essence not behind barrier, within barrier. Kant believes external reality, essence outside of appearance. Hegel - essence/appearance lies within the antimony. Essence can only appear through appearance/antimony. I guess this means some people see split between left/right, antimonies and some people don't. To reduce to one would be false. Right, and thats how you get dialectic, it's through these contradictory antimonies we get _____??? (I guess Hegel is something like human community) Lacan - essence only appears through appearance(through its barrier). Marxism - no essence behind appearance, instead essence is within appearance. Lacanian idea - the antimony is the real,(the society that struggles to define itself, leading to opposites/paradoxes). The real that which can not be fully perceived because it is formalised in and of itself as incomplete. The obstacle is the way external reality makes itself manifest. Hegel- like Christ, What dies in Kant is idea that higher mode of transcendent can be attained. Either honour this death and move on to continental philosophy or disavow and become analytical philosophy (or there is a pure political centre that is all knowing) Hegel - there is no centre to begin with, no external reality, not pure form of knowing, no pure essence to begin with. Through the disavowel of the left-right split that we get retroactive illusion of the centre. There is no core/essence to the centre other than appearance. Essence emerges through appearance. Hegel -after Kant all philosophy is politicised. Philosophy becomes Ontological mechanism through which social antagonism is played out. Ooo so you can either see politics/philosophy through the lens of reduction of left-right split or centre (see society having both) or you deny this and pursue philosophy as a transcendent thing (like affirming the illusion of the centre)
I consider myself a casual autodidact of philosophy , and I’ve always had a sort of confused perspective on how all of the big names you mentioned like Kant, Hegel, Marx, and others landed in terms of how they are connected. I’ve been mostly uninterested in reading the actual writings of these thinkers and have been more interested in getting the distilled versions/most impactful ideas . I’m super glad I discovered you because you seem to be doing exactly the kind of thing that will help people like me understand how these big thinkers relate to one another, and most importantly, how their ideas apply to our current lives. Extremely appreciative of your work. 🙏🏽
is called the western canon. and you should read the original text. the distilled ideas you are getting from others are just bastardizations and interpretations of the source. if you want life advice read self help books
Love your talks. I am PhD candidate at George Mason U and find your lectures incredibly illuminating and helpful. Thank you!
So grateful for this comment! As a former phd, solidarity!
@@julianphilosophyformer PHD candidate or PHD holder?
That's fantastic! So many implications come in my mind after this lecture. Thanks a lot!
thank you for making this video/class
That tied so much in my head together. 💯❤
Outstanding!
Thank you! If you’re curious about keeping up with the new lectures, you can find every lecture series posted here: www.patreon.com/jenalineandjulian
The argument in 'the Dawn of Everything' is exactly that Egalitarianism is not a useful term when describing most historical societies, and that they are much more complex than any of the typical overarching narratives make them out to be. There is a large section of the book where they say they set out to show how inequality started, but found out that this is not possible because there is a hidden assumption that all human societies started in "equality", which there just is no evidence for. Instead, a lot of different societies have had a lot of different modes of organization, sometimes mixed. They may not have picked up the idea that there is a tension between how different parts of society sees it and that this is how the social structure is maintained, so that part of your comment is probably correct. Also, I'm pretty sure Levi-Strauss didn't have a helicopter in inner Brazil in the 1930s and 40s, but I take that to be metaphorical ;)
I love you
Hello from Syria!
Thank you for these videos, they are extremely helpful.
When will your book be available? I cannot check patreon as Syria is blocked from accessing it.
Greetings back from Washington! At the moment the book is only available on but considering your situation if you send me your email I can send you a free copy! Thank you for joining us all the way from Syria!!
@@julianphilosophy Oh that would be very kind of you!
I tried commenting my email here but i think it gets deleted automatically, where can i contact you?
Its nice seeing an other Syrian here, Where are you from in Syria?
So u named this channel after yourself ?
Kant: split between analytical and continental philosophy.
Equal/unequal map - characterisation of modern society. Cannot tell if unequal or equal empirically. Society - some people, rich people, see society as fair and equal and some people, poor left out people, see society as harsh and unequal. (Related to tribe mapping, poor will draw unequal map. Rich draw equal map.)
Zizek-:
Left wing gesture: left/right split (marginalised)
Right wing gesture: left and right split from the middle (centrism)
Both are false master signifiers in assuming can be reduced to class conflict or centrism.
Marx false universal -ccan point out that centrism (bourgeois ideology) is also false, already on the left. See society as left and right where centre is considered as false universal. There is no centre, it is a symptom of disavowal of inequality for the leftist.
The illusion of the centre comes about retrospectively from social struggle or is it apriori centre where we have deviations.
Lacan: defining feature of society is the misperception
---
Vanishing mediator: Calvinism - hardwork, thrift, sacrifice, later rewards. Related to industrial society. Not direct.
Secular life becomes so religious cannot see itself as religious (term used is capitalism). Capitalism imbibes Calvinist ethics and universalises it, making the original catalyse go away. We don't see our life as Calvinist because every aspect of our life is Calvinist already. Capitalism Universaled so no Calvinism. So secular it's religious. Capitalism as a cult, zealot attachment to profit motive. Capitalism exists only as disavowed religion, Universaled and emptied out of its formal positive content. The thing that caused it is so universal we no longer remember it.
The beginnings of the future are already here in present but cannot see it. No strict temporal split between present and future. Future is mediation/negation of that that is disavowed in the present. We fail to see what's important and future realises it only when looking back and realising what was already happening.
Kant - Hegel: what does on cross is god transcendent. Omnipotent god. God of beyond cannot interfere in world. Resurrected is more powerful god of trinity and human community.
Kant still believes in transcendental philosophy (god beyond). Reason no access to beyond, reason is barrier to knowing higher form. Things in higher form become antimonies through reason (muddles like paradoxes). Barriers away from god beyond. Reason prevents us from pure knowledge.
Morality is a failure of reason. If we knew what makes good good (calculate) we wouldn't need morality. Morality means we cannot objectively ascertain what is good or what is bad.
Society - cannot define clearly what society is (unequal or free), same with good evil, morality is fundamental answer to impossibility to rationally ascertain difference good and evil
Morality not about calculation. Morality - the name we give to confusion over good and bad.
(Hegel (there is no good/bad, morality creates this))
Reason the world, stuck with cannot know with higher god. Formalise limits of reasons. Same with mortality as a formality showing incompleteness between reason and divine knowledge.
Kant is vanishing mediator for Hegel, kirkeagaard etc. Kant fades away but everything becomes Universaled with Kantian problem.
Analytical philosophers are like right wing, thinking there is a centre transcendent universal philosophy
Continental are like left wingers in that there is never a centre anymore. (Isn't this also false universal as described initially - master signifier???)
Hegel - gap between god above and human reason. Gap formalised through antimonies ( like between human will and determinism, opposites).
Hegel says the gap is external reality. External reality isn't behind the antinomies. External reality is within the antimonies. External reality is in that perceived obstacle (society comes from not being able to perceive society accurately). Essence not behind barrier, within barrier.
Kant believes external reality, essence outside of appearance. Hegel - essence/appearance lies within the antimony. Essence can only appear through appearance/antimony.
I guess this means some people see split between left/right, antimonies and some people don't. To reduce to one would be false.
Right, and thats how you get dialectic, it's through these contradictory antimonies we get _____??? (I guess Hegel is something like human community)
Lacan - essence only appears through appearance(through its barrier).
Marxism - no essence behind appearance, instead essence is within appearance.
Lacanian idea - the antimony is the real,(the society that struggles to define itself, leading to opposites/paradoxes). The real that which can not be fully perceived because it is formalised in and of itself as incomplete.
The obstacle is the way external reality makes itself manifest.
Hegel- like Christ, What dies in Kant is idea that higher mode of transcendent can be attained. Either honour this death and move on to continental philosophy or disavow and become analytical philosophy (or there is a pure political centre that is all knowing)
Hegel - there is no centre to begin with, no external reality, not pure form of knowing, no pure essence to begin with. Through the disavowel of the left-right split that we get retroactive illusion of the centre. There is no core/essence to the centre other than appearance. Essence emerges through appearance.
Hegel -after Kant all philosophy is politicised. Philosophy becomes Ontological mechanism through which social antagonism is played out.
Ooo so you can either see politics/philosophy through the lens of reduction of left-right split or centre (see society having both) or you deny this and pursue philosophy as a transcendent thing (like affirming the illusion of the centre)