This feels like a slippery slope to post-modernism... I'm a perennialist, so naturally my conception of truth is going to be imperial, but that doesn't mean that I "have nothing to learn, or nothing to take." That's wildly reductionist. Simply because someone brings up modernist ways to knowledge "they are being violent"???
There has been a misunderstanding. Perhaps I was not clear enough. Bringing up modernist ways to knowledge (Can you define this?) is not considered 'violent'; violence is dismissing knowledge and believing that someone has nothing that they can teach you. I would never insinuate that I have nothing to learn from someone; this reeks of arrogance.
@@exchangehe7047 Forgive me for not rewatching to adjust myself to the context of the video better, but if I could better explain my comment I'd like to try. I'd argue that in the context of decolonization, modernism is that rationalistic clash against the epistemic and metaphysical ideas of the culture being colonized. Perhaps that's a modern view, because colonist of old were of the fundamentalist-type, but I think that the argument still stands in regard to rationalist colonialization of cultures in current times. My issue, as someone who'd describe themselves as a metaphysical perennialist, is that there are things to be found in every philosophy, but that doesn't justify the entire system. A culture may function well and display a positive characteristic, or have a developed ideology, but it is a closed system if we don't allow it to be critiqued. To me, without the critique of reason on their pre-modernist conceptions, you might as well build walls around those people and call it an art exhibit. It's philosophical infantilization. Having them teach us, involves us teaching them as well. You wouldn't very well accept the native indigenous metaphysical myth that the earth is supported on the shell of a tortoise knowing modern astronomy and geology, unless you wanted to treat that person like a child and tell them "Sure, buddy, whatever grandma told you." You'd do some "violence" and explain the methodology of how we can deduce that we probably don't live on a turtle. IMO. And I'm only an armchair philosopher as of now, so no videos from me, lol!
@@Signum7 Brilliant stuff! I know you refer to yourself as an armchair scholar, but I was captivated by your argument. I would love to see this fleshed out more; if you do decide to expand this argument into a video, please consider four points. First, you talk about reason as neutral, objective and detached from this world. Isn't reason largely informed by culture and context? So it seems that you advocate that we judge culture by another culture. There is a brilliant discussion on the objectivity of reason in this clip th-cam.com/video/FY_g8HBTs5E/w-d-xo.html . Second, could it be that this indigenous genesis story is informed by what they know, they are working with what is concrete to them, so for instance, minus numbers were used in the Indian subcontinent hundreds of years prior because Europeans had a hard time conceiving of minus numbers because they were not 'concrete' to them. If we were truly interested in the education of the indigenous peoples, we would start with what they know, and build from there. Likewise, I disagreed with your comment, but I haven't dismissed it, and I haven't done 'violence' to it; I see so much value in what you discussed; I want to start with your comment and build together from there, and I will learn something along the way. I have not seen this approach to knowledge with the English or French colonial forces. Third, the real issue is not disregarding that one genesis story; it is disregarding all their indigenous knowledge and using that genesis story as an excuse to demean everything they have; this is the issue. We only discover how indigenous knowledge led to scientific breakthroughs many decades/centuries later. Rarely do Indigenous people receive praise for what they get right, but they are always stigmatised for what they get wrong. Fourth, this point is the most controversial and problematic, are they happier for believing our scientific explanations or their own myths? Have their lives exponentially improved? Are they more content? I personally struggle with this. Most of us in the West will say that truth will set you free; ignorance about science is dark and depressing; happiness lies with scientific discoveries. I have travelled the world a fair bit, and I can't say that I agree. Life is short, Sigma. I am beginning to see the importance of contentment. Nonetheless, this is a good discussion, it is good to have a 'critical friend' who is not a 'friend', I am working on some stuff in the summer, I would love to hear some critique from you. Even if you agree, that is not the point; it is good to hash these things out because it helps me clarify my points.
Hi Dr Arthur, thank you so much for this work!! just a kind request: would you/ could you maybe state your source(s) somewhere - e.g., which of Fanon's works were you referring to? thank you in advance!!
Thank you sir for this very esay to understand video this really helps me a lot 🙏 from India
This feels like a slippery slope to post-modernism... I'm a perennialist, so naturally my conception of truth is going to be imperial, but that doesn't mean that I "have nothing to learn, or nothing to take." That's wildly reductionist. Simply because someone brings up modernist ways to knowledge "they are being violent"???
There has been a misunderstanding. Perhaps I was not clear enough. Bringing up modernist ways to knowledge (Can you define this?) is not considered 'violent'; violence is dismissing knowledge and believing that someone has nothing that they can teach you. I would never insinuate that I have nothing to learn from someone; this reeks of arrogance.
I was hoping that you had videos on perennialism on your channel. It would be good to understand about your reading of perennialism.
@@exchangehe7047 Forgive me for not rewatching to adjust myself to the context of the video better, but if I could better explain my comment I'd like to try. I'd argue that in the context of decolonization, modernism is that rationalistic clash against the epistemic and metaphysical ideas of the culture being colonized. Perhaps that's a modern view, because colonist of old were of the fundamentalist-type, but I think that the argument still stands in regard to rationalist colonialization of cultures in current times. My issue, as someone who'd describe themselves as a metaphysical perennialist, is that there are things to be found in every philosophy, but that doesn't justify the entire system. A culture may function well and display a positive characteristic, or have a developed ideology, but it is a closed system if we don't allow it to be critiqued. To me, without the critique of reason on their pre-modernist conceptions, you might as well build walls around those people and call it an art exhibit. It's philosophical infantilization. Having them teach us, involves us teaching them as well. You wouldn't very well accept the native indigenous metaphysical myth that the earth is supported on the shell of a tortoise knowing modern astronomy and geology, unless you wanted to treat that person like a child and tell them "Sure, buddy, whatever grandma told you." You'd do some "violence" and explain the methodology of how we can deduce that we probably don't live on a turtle. IMO. And I'm only an armchair philosopher as of now, so no videos from me, lol!
@@Signum7 Brilliant stuff! I know you refer to yourself as an armchair scholar, but I was captivated by your argument. I would love to see this fleshed out more; if you do decide to expand this argument into a video, please consider four points. First, you talk about reason as neutral, objective and detached from this world. Isn't reason largely informed by culture and context? So it seems that you advocate that we judge culture by another culture. There is a brilliant discussion on the objectivity of reason in this clip th-cam.com/video/FY_g8HBTs5E/w-d-xo.html . Second, could it be that this indigenous genesis story is informed by what they know, they are working with what is concrete to them, so for instance, minus numbers were used in the Indian subcontinent hundreds of years prior because Europeans had a hard time conceiving of minus numbers because they were not 'concrete' to them. If we were truly interested in the education of the indigenous peoples, we would start with what they know, and build from there. Likewise, I disagreed with your comment, but I haven't dismissed it, and I haven't done 'violence' to it; I see so much value in what you discussed; I want to start with your comment and build together from there, and I will learn something along the way. I have not seen this approach to knowledge with the English or French colonial forces. Third, the real issue is not disregarding that one genesis story; it is disregarding all their indigenous knowledge and using that genesis story as an excuse to demean everything they have; this is the issue. We only discover how indigenous knowledge led to scientific breakthroughs many decades/centuries later. Rarely do Indigenous people receive praise for what they get right, but they are always stigmatised for what they get wrong. Fourth, this point is the most controversial and problematic, are they happier for believing our scientific explanations or their own myths? Have their lives exponentially improved? Are they more content? I personally struggle with this. Most of us in the West will say that truth will set you free; ignorance about science is dark and depressing; happiness lies with scientific discoveries. I have travelled the world a fair bit, and I can't say that I agree. Life is short, Sigma. I am beginning to see the importance of contentment. Nonetheless, this is a good discussion, it is good to have a 'critical friend' who is not a 'friend', I am working on some stuff in the summer, I would love to hear some critique from you. Even if you agree, that is not the point; it is good to hash these things out because it helps me clarify my points.
Hi Dr Arthur, thank you so much for this work!! just a kind request: would you/ could you maybe state your source(s) somewhere - e.g., which of Fanon's works were you referring to? thank you in advance!!
and who was the first of the speakers? the second I recognised as Edward Said, but here also, a source would be incredibly helpful.
Hi Mariah, if I am not mistaken, you will find the references in this article: www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09502380601162548
@@mariahsmallaxe311 Stuart Hall
@@exchangehe7047 thank you so much for engaging!! I'll have a look soon