A short clip of Gayatri Spivak from 1984 discussing post-structuralism as a skepticism regarding the grand récits (great narratives). #philosophy #postmodernism #relativism
😂😅 Howsoever hard ppl defend her by stating that her prose that convoluted bcuz of her content...there cant b a denial of d fact dat she retains an aspiration for d same convolution which she wanted to further deconstruct..
She can’t write like this because there wouldn’t be enough verbiage to fill a book. She’s talking in circles. No one needed her to explain that a choice is always both an affirmation and a rejection or an exclusion. This is inherently true. There’s no revelation here. In the search for social justice, one has to define a problem in such a way that the definition of the problem to be solved is incisive enough that its articulation both highlights steps to be taken and other steps to be rejected or reserved as an alternative in case the initial choice comes to naught. I could discuss 1000 years of European philosophy, philology, art, history, and political economy, in order to stretch the above into enough chapters to form a book. But that would not be necessary.
@@ajra4626? A lot of philosophy is devoted to explaining phenomena that appear trivially true. Clarity is not a problem to be solved, it is a desired state.
The replies kinda miss the point. Spivak is most definitely speaking about something of great value. She just can’t write in terms which would aid her readers along towards her point. I could not finish her Critique of Postcolonial Reason. But I knew a third of the way through what she was trying to get at. She’s sorta mimicking Hegel or Kant or even Heidegger in terms of writing style which isn’t a good thing if there aren’t any prerequisite writings we could gorge on before reading her more complex works.
Postmodernism, like almost anything can be weaponized. I think what frustrates a lot of people (and scares some people) is that if you look at Postmodernism in a certain way, it almost calls into question free will, and people do not like the idea of not having free will.
@@TrueEnglishMan01 hahahaha... people talking theoretical high-sounding blub hasn't changed the world once... If you want to change the world for the better, you've got to keep it simple... Look at all the great leaders and figures in history. Gandhi, Malcolm X, Jesus Christ, etc. all of them made it "plain" and created a change for the better. This person strikes me as an ivory tower professor whose writing is only comprehended by her ivory tower peers.
I have to agree... I love philosophy and Indian culture but this lady said nothing of substance, I don't know why the applause for her lol @@GenerationKill001
This was recorded long before generative AI, so it makes more sense to say that AI speaks like her. I dont know if this was some weird form of anti-intellectualism or Im just over stretching.
If meta-narratives are assumed, where is it stated that there is an end in view? This seems to be a pretty explicit statement for something that is inherently nebulous. Postmodernism may a certain amount of validity but the more absolutist its adherents get the more contrary and paradoxical it becomes.
Postmodernists, by focusing on the inherent limitations of the structure and content of narratives, throw out the baby with the bathwater. Since time immemorial humans have asked the questions what is truth ? ( epistemic ) and what is real ? ( Ontic). Those perennial questions are not deniable simply because discourse and enquiry is framed in narratives. Narratives are modes and processes of enquiry which of course ask specific questions and leave stuff out in order to focus on those questions. Therefore postmodernists are right to point out that no narrative or roadmap of enquiry stands fully justified on its own but that is not what a metanarrative today should purport to be - which we have learnt from the postmodernist approach. Rather, a metanarrative should be a CONTRIBUTION TO A CONVERSATION ABOUT THE NATURE AND CONTENT OF WHAT IS TRUE towards which we can evolve through relevant conversations approaching topics from different angles and lines of expertise, a closer look at what truth might look like even if absolute truth may lie in fact and in principle always beyond us. But there is no need to dump content for structure or treat all metanarratives as equal or to imply that the search for truth ( a better approximate description of what really is ) is beyond us.
It make sense that if you define and end , other things are rejected. The ends of this social justice , when it's equality of equalness in all things and matters , human nature Is left out. So when its defined how Social justice is to be Achieved justice it's self is left out. ...
I like this woman. And I like how she both demonstrates a sympathetic grasp of postmodernism, while at the same time - seemingly, anyway - expressing skepticism of it...
@@Philosophy_Overdose She definitely is skeptical of narratives, no doubt about it. It's overt. But she also seems to suggest a skepticism towards postmodernism. It's implied in her tone, though maybe I'm reading too much into it. I don't know much about her politics, & maybe you do & so know her to be a postmodernist. I did a little perfunctory Googling after posting the OP comment, & a criticism I saw levelled at her is that she's hard to nail down, politics-wise...
I think that any good postmodernist has to acknowledge that postmodernism is itself a narrative. There doesn't need to be skepticism about or dismissal of it, but there should be a recognition of its limitations.
@@thejimmymeister It being a false dichotomy is a salient observation, & speaks to a basic, flawed premise in her argument. And you're right: any intellectually honest postmodernist would recognize what you're saying. I'm not sure that postmodernists as a group can be relied upon to be so free of cognitive bias, however...
ow can I identify the limit of the narrative rather than establishing the narrative as the end point, as the solution ? What are the best practices for that?
Ok, but this precludes doing ANYTHING if it’s the only method you have. Ideologies and narratives are inherently specific, meaning inherently limiting.
I find her account of post structuralism to be overly formulaic and transparent. The objective of poststructualism is to demonstrate the opacity of what is projected as transparent by showing how all human assertions of fact, rationality and truth take two things for granted: 1) Being is Being: 2) Language affects a direct relation between Thought and Being.
গায়ত্রী এক ক্ষণজন্মা বাঙালি। তার বক্তব্য পরিস্কার। পরনের শাড়ি ও ব্লাউজও পশ্চিমা পোশাক কালচারের মাঝে এক আত্মবিশ্বাসী বক্তব্য তুলে ধরেছে। দীর্ঘজীবী হোন, গায়ত্রী।
Can we know a feminist Ramayana with an internal voice for Sita shows her heroism beyond Ramas res ue of her as a modern interpretation that brings to us a greater and renewed relevance of the narrative, of the myth?
More personally...? As Joseph Campbell might suggest...social justice as re-achievable over and over again for woman...more choices between life in the public and private spheres?❤
“…working within an understanding of what they cannot do.” How would such a character view any narration? Certainly as something to undermine, never as something of value. How would such a character write about his/her own intention: write their own narrative? Certainly not with a will to let it be understood by others. Their whole urge is destructive or negative: deconstructive. Literary nihilism. Any book written by such a character is merely a warehouse of deception. They cannot reveal their intentions, not because they do not know it, but because it would undermine their intentions. Their intentions to avoid accountability/responsibility. They are the apostles of the Antichrist whose project is not forgiveness of sins, but absence of sin. They are all atheists. Atheists whose one, fundamental, truth is “this is not God, that is not God”. Therefore there is no God. No creator, no narrator. Only causation, without any first cause or final effect. No morality, no beauty, no truth.
She is clearer in speech than in writing. I wish I heard her speeches more than read her books back in college.
Why can’t she write like this? Lol
😂😅
Howsoever hard ppl defend her by stating that her prose that convoluted bcuz of her content...there cant b a denial of d fact dat she retains an aspiration for d same convolution which she wanted to further deconstruct..
same question ;_;
She can’t write like this because there wouldn’t be enough verbiage to fill a book.
She’s talking in circles. No one needed her to explain that a choice is always both an affirmation and a rejection or an exclusion. This is inherently true. There’s no revelation here.
In the search for social justice, one has to define a problem in such a way that the definition of the problem to be solved is incisive enough that its articulation both highlights steps to be taken and other steps to be rejected or reserved as an alternative in case the initial choice comes to naught.
I could discuss 1000 years of European philosophy, philology, art, history, and political economy, in order to stretch the above into enough chapters to form a book.
But that would not be necessary.
@@ajra4626?
A lot of philosophy is devoted to explaining phenomena that appear trivially true. Clarity is not a problem to be solved, it is a desired state.
The replies kinda miss the point. Spivak is most definitely speaking about something of great value. She just can’t write in terms which would aid her readers along towards her point. I could not finish her Critique of Postcolonial Reason. But I knew a third of the way through what she was trying to get at. She’s sorta mimicking Hegel or Kant or even Heidegger in terms of writing style which isn’t a good thing if there aren’t any prerequisite writings we could gorge on before reading her more complex works.
And here we are with the law of unintended consequences playing out.
they ruined art and architecture!
Her preface to Of Grammatology was superb and clear. Idk what the critics in the comments are talking about.
everyone talking about her grammar no one understands what she is actually speaking about
So it is 100% horseshit . Thanks for confirming
Agreed, doubt is dumb. Let us not ask too many questions, the answers might contradict our enstablished truths.
@@francesco3772 Negating, deconstructing and neutering truth isn’t questioning. It’s bitching for bitching sake , enjoyed and enjoined by bitches.
How do you take that away from the video? Where'd she even come close to suggesting any of that?
People just excessively hate post modernism for no reason man
Postmodernism, like almost anything can be weaponized. I think what frustrates a lot of people (and scares some people) is that if you look at Postmodernism in a certain way, it almost calls into question free will, and people do not like the idea of not having free will.
Over intellectual mumbo-jumbo
If you couldn’t grasp her relatively simple language here then you really aren’t trying hard enough
@@TrueEnglishMan01 hahahaha... people talking theoretical high-sounding blub hasn't changed the world once... If you want to change the world for the better, you've got to keep it simple... Look at all the great leaders and figures in history. Gandhi, Malcolm X, Jesus Christ, etc. all of them made it "plain" and created a change for the better. This person strikes me as an ivory tower professor whose writing is only comprehended by her ivory tower peers.
I have to agree... I love philosophy and Indian culture but this lady said nothing of substance, I don't know why the applause for her lol @@GenerationKill001
@@GenerationKill001
Then start it from you & be the change instead of mocking others' articulate speeches
@@pokemonitishere202 Right. I spent 20 years in academia dealing with this nonsense.
I love her work where’s the full video
th-cam.com/video/cVfTgiE4FAY/w-d-xo.html
@@Philosophy_Overdose great
@@Philosophy_Overdose Can you link the debate where philosophers talked about science? I cant find here anymore.
Debate on Post Modernism (1984)
She speaks like an AI
This was recorded long before generative AI, so it makes more sense to say that AI speaks like her. I dont know if this was some weird form of anti-intellectualism or Im just over stretching.
Exactly. She is indeed AI. Full of nonsense.
If meta-narratives are assumed, where is it stated that there is an end in view? This seems to be a pretty explicit statement for something that is inherently nebulous.
Postmodernism may a certain amount of validity but the more absolutist its adherents get the more contrary and paradoxical it becomes.
Postmodernists, by focusing on the inherent limitations of the structure and content of narratives, throw out the baby with the bathwater. Since time immemorial humans have asked the questions what is truth ? ( epistemic ) and what is real ? ( Ontic). Those perennial questions are not deniable simply because discourse and enquiry is framed in narratives. Narratives are modes and processes of enquiry which of course ask specific questions and leave stuff out in order to focus on those questions. Therefore postmodernists are right to point out that no narrative or roadmap of enquiry stands fully justified on its own but that is not what a metanarrative today should purport to be - which we have learnt from the postmodernist approach. Rather, a metanarrative should be a CONTRIBUTION TO A CONVERSATION ABOUT THE NATURE AND CONTENT OF WHAT IS TRUE towards which we can evolve through relevant conversations approaching topics from different angles and lines of expertise, a closer look at what truth might look like even if absolute truth may lie in fact and in principle always beyond us. But there is no need to dump content for structure or treat all metanarratives as equal or to imply that the search for truth ( a better approximate description of what really is ) is beyond us.
Where can i get the complete lecture?
It make sense that if you
define and end , other things are rejected.
The ends of this social justice , when it's equality
of equalness in all things and matters , human nature
Is left out.
So when its defined how
Social justice is to be
Achieved justice it's self is left out.
...
Ohh she is still alive currently 81 year old.
Is this woman the GOAT of philosophy, as Messi is the GOAT of football?
@@lucasmoreirasantos8377😂 uhhh no, certainly not
I like this woman. And I like how she both demonstrates a sympathetic grasp of postmodernism, while at the same time - seemingly, anyway - expressing skepticism of it...
Well, she's certainly likeable, but the skepticism here is directed at the narratives and not postmodernism.
@@Philosophy_Overdose She definitely is skeptical of narratives, no doubt about it. It's overt. But she also seems to suggest a skepticism towards postmodernism. It's implied in her tone, though maybe I'm reading too much into it. I don't know much about her politics, & maybe you do & so know her to be a postmodernist. I did a little perfunctory Googling after posting the OP comment, & a criticism I saw levelled at her is that she's hard to nail down, politics-wise...
I think that any good postmodernist has to acknowledge that postmodernism is itself a narrative. There doesn't need to be skepticism about or dismissal of it, but there should be a recognition of its limitations.
@@thejimmymeister It being a false dichotomy is a salient observation, & speaks to a basic, flawed premise in her argument. And you're right: any intellectually honest postmodernist would recognize what you're saying. I'm not sure that postmodernists as a group can be relied upon to be so free of cognitive bias, however...
Well I can't argue with that.
Quite clear narrative
“The sleek iridescent cuttlefish,
Does not in its benthic gloom
Emit so darkly obscuring an ink
As Spivak in a drawing room.”
(Apologies to TS Eliot)
I can't find the full video. It was on the channel few days ago
found it
Where?!! I need it for my students and now i cant friggin find it. Help please :)@@SahirKhan-h3f
ow can I identify the limit of the narrative rather than establishing the narrative as the end point, as the solution ? What are the best practices for that?
Where can I get the full video?
Where do I find more of her?
What is left out, is called Leftovers, and so we 'Warm it Up' !
So, what is their narrative?
In the end, you'll get it in the end.
Her name?
Gayatri spiwak
What was left out was "pronounciation" ☠️
Dark humour 🤡
Ok, but this precludes doing ANYTHING if it’s the only method you have. Ideologies and narratives are inherently specific, meaning inherently limiting.
Narrative,the most overused word of the last 5 years.
When your parents don’t give you enough attention.
I find her account of post structuralism to be overly formulaic and transparent. The objective of poststructualism is to demonstrate the opacity of what is projected as transparent by showing how all human assertions of fact, rationality and truth take two things for granted: 1) Being is Being: 2) Language affects a direct relation between Thought and Being.
00:04 what was that word?
"grand récit"
Please upload the full video
th-cam.com/video/cVfTgiE4FAY/w-d-xo.htmlsi=hkScARFlAh7wyjXS
Philosophy on teenager level... like most of postmodernism. It's like saying something that ryhmes and then claiming its poetry
How I wish we still had the dislike option.
গায়ত্রী এক ক্ষণজন্মা বাঙালি। তার বক্তব্য পরিস্কার। পরনের শাড়ি ও ব্লাউজও পশ্চিমা পোশাক কালচারের মাঝে এক আত্মবিশ্বাসী বক্তব্য তুলে ধরেছে।
দীর্ঘজীবী হোন, গায়ত্রী।
Change your language not your accent
Can we know a feminist Ramayana with an internal voice for Sita shows her heroism beyond Ramas res ue of her as a modern interpretation that brings to us a greater and renewed relevance of the narrative, of the myth?
More personally...? As Joseph Campbell might suggest...social justice as re-achievable over and over again for woman...more choices between life in the public and private spheres?❤
Yes you have. Search Bengali Ramayan
“…working within an understanding of what they cannot do.”
How would such a character view any narration? Certainly as something to undermine, never as something of value.
How would such a character write about his/her own intention: write their own narrative? Certainly not with a will to let it be understood by others. Their whole urge is destructive or negative: deconstructive. Literary nihilism.
Any book written by such a character is merely a warehouse of deception. They cannot reveal their intentions, not because they do not know it, but because it would undermine their intentions. Their intentions to avoid accountability/responsibility. They are the apostles of the Antichrist whose project is not forgiveness of sins, but absence of sin. They are all atheists. Atheists whose one, fundamental, truth is “this is not God, that is not God”. Therefore there is no God. No creator, no narrator. Only causation, without any first cause or final effect. No morality, no beauty, no truth.
Her books I want to dig in further!