I think an understanding of topology is important. It isn't geometry. It is, briefly, what is constant under continuous deformation. Take a line, you can bend it, extend it, bound it or not, it is still a line. But you put a hole in it, now matter how you deform it, it will always have a hole in it. Imagine you applied it to school. You can add more students, put it online, change the subject, the location but it all has the same things. Time delineated both in continuous and discrete metrics (number of classes and time in classes), one way (no matter whatever professors tell you it is not really a discussion, hence the need for one person at the head of the room) information, and a linear story. What is school then? It is television. So what is constant about violence under the different regimes of violence? What is constant about violence under deformation? Great stuff!
Toplogy of Violence I. The Macro-physics of Violence 1. 07:32 - The Toplogy of Violence 2. 12:15 - The Archaeology of Violence 3. 21:28 - The psyche of violence 4. 28:10 - The Politics of Violence 4.1. 28:16 - Friend and Enemy 4.2. 34:28 - Law and Violence 5. 40:29 - The Macro-logic of Violence II. The Micro-physics of Violence 6. 43:27 - Systematic Violence 7. 45:55 - The Micro-physics of Power 8. 47:37 - The Violence of Positivity 9. 51:20 - Violence Transparency 10. 52:24 - The Medium Is The Mass-age 11. 53:43 - Rhizomatic Violence 12. 55:02 - The Violence of the Global 13. 56:57 - Homo Liber
The contrast with Marshal McLuhan is telling: in the 1960s the advent of fast electronic media and the promise of a 'global village' of communications was intoxicating. Han looks at current social connectedness and finds it exhausting! His critique of hyper-competitive workplaces is probably accurate and self-inflicted burnout is the result.
I really enjoyed this, thanks for making it. I have just finished Han's The Burnout Society' which was my introduction to him. This video is my introduction to your channel :) I enjoyed the contrast that you offered between yourself and Han while you worked through his text. I've added this text as my next reading of Han's work.
Very helpful analysis, your videos have helped me explore many intellectuals and are a helpful introduction to their works. I want to note one thing, I don’t think that Han using Schmidt’s analytic tool, the Friend and Foe distinction is problematic. I mean he might have been a fascist but he is an important political philosopher, the same way that Heidegger is one of the most important philosophers of the past centuries. Also, the Friend and Foe distinction has also been used by radical philosophers like Chantal Mouffe in her analysis of the political and the democratic paradox of liberal democracy and she bases her arguments for agonistic pluralism and radical democracy on this distinction. Anyways, I just wanted to point that out, love your work.
I hadn‘t read the topology of violence but did read burnout society, psychopolitics and the disappearance of ritual. While there are certainly valid criticisms that I‘d share, there is something especially in those books that resonates a lot with me. It almost seems like a conservative position at face value sometimes - technology bad, we have lost the good things and whatnot. Especially combined with e.g. Eva Illouz‘ cold intimacies I find his diagnosis often intriguing, if somewhat focused on a narrow set of issues.
I agree that Han oversimplifies a lot of the ways in which power works today, in the sense of a reductionist black and white thinking (now there is ONLY positivity, ALL negativity has vanished, etc.) but I don't see how it was tasteless for him to mention the fitness culture. I see more similarities than differences between the ways in which women and men self-exploit themselves with the rising beauty standards. Generally, I think we should approach Han's theory as an addition to the disciplinary power of negativity. That is, disciplinary power and allo-exploitation add auto-exploitation ON TOP. So now we still have the externalized master-slave dialectic and the class struggle, and on top of that, the external masters make the slaves auto-exploit themselves as well. Same with bio/psycho politics. Psychopolitics is added on top of biopolitics. I wonder how much of this black and white thinking is an intentional stylistic choice in Han's part. I am considering that it's very likely that he's doing it on purpose in a sort of "if you can't defeat them, join them" style - same with his short length books. He knows that we live in a fast-paced consumerist culture based on short-term gratification, so very few have the patience anymore to read long books, hence intentionally making his books shorter. Hypocrisy? Perhaps, but perhaps an ethical one.
The title was quite intriguing (the video has a typographical error though) I hadnt come across Han before this video. But , I found the ideas some what half baked. It couldn’t convey the idea of violence transforming into different forms very convincingly. It required a more nuanced deliberation on Han’s part. Yes, you were right, he builds his concepts on the works of other thinkers like Benamin, Agamben, Foucault, Baudrillard etc but then counters those with some very unstable arguments. I do understand the text must be repeatedly conveying the same set of ideas. I like that you critiqued this. It needed critiquing. A neutral explanation of the book would have overlooked the serious inconsistencies. Though I haven’t read it, but I am kind of wary reading this book. While Han talks so much about the other, I wonder why this book doesn’t mention Levinas who has an outstanding body of work on the ethics of the other. Thank you so much , David!
He might not be intelligent,in the way you understand “intelligence” . Byung-chul Han is wise.Wisdom is beyond what you learn.Certainly your comment is infantile.
Consider donating here if you can: blacklivesmatter.com/
I think an understanding of topology is important. It isn't geometry. It is, briefly, what is constant under continuous deformation. Take a line, you can bend it, extend it, bound it or not, it is still a line. But you put a hole in it, now matter how you deform it, it will always have a hole in it. Imagine you applied it to school. You can add more students, put it online, change the subject, the location but it all has the same things. Time delineated both in continuous and discrete metrics (number of classes and time in classes), one way (no matter whatever professors tell you it is not really a discussion, hence the need for one person at the head of the room) information, and a linear story. What is school then? It is television. So what is constant about violence under the different regimes of violence? What is constant about violence under deformation? Great stuff!
Real philosophy content on yt ❤️. I'm gonna share this for sure.
Toplogy of Violence
I. The Macro-physics of Violence
1. 07:32 - The Toplogy of Violence
2. 12:15 - The Archaeology of Violence
3. 21:28 - The psyche of violence
4. 28:10 - The Politics of Violence
4.1. 28:16 - Friend and Enemy
4.2. 34:28 - Law and Violence
5. 40:29 - The Macro-logic of Violence
II. The Micro-physics of Violence
6. 43:27 - Systematic Violence
7. 45:55 - The Micro-physics of Power
8. 47:37 - The Violence of Positivity
9. 51:20 - Violence Transparency
10. 52:24 - The Medium Is The Mass-age
11. 53:43 - Rhizomatic Violence
12. 55:02 - The Violence of the Global
13. 56:57 - Homo Liber
The contrast with Marshal McLuhan is telling: in the 1960s the advent of fast electronic media and the promise of
a 'global village' of communications was intoxicating. Han looks at current social connectedness and finds it exhausting!
His critique of hyper-competitive workplaces is probably accurate and self-inflicted burnout is the result.
I really enjoyed this, thanks for making it. I have just finished Han's The Burnout Society' which was my introduction to him. This video is my introduction to your channel :)
I enjoyed the contrast that you offered between yourself and Han while you worked through his text.
I've added this text as my next reading of Han's work.
Pretty relevant piece for our current political landscape
Thx so much and I am listening to it again and again
Glad to hear that!
Very helpful analysis, your videos have helped me explore many intellectuals and are a helpful introduction to their works.
I want to note one thing, I don’t think that Han using Schmidt’s analytic tool, the Friend and Foe distinction is problematic. I mean he might have been a fascist but he is an important political philosopher, the same way that Heidegger is one of the most important philosophers of the past centuries. Also, the Friend and Foe distinction has also been used by radical philosophers like Chantal Mouffe in her analysis of the political and the democratic paradox of liberal democracy and she bases her arguments for agonistic pluralism and radical democracy on this distinction.
Anyways, I just wanted to point that out, love your work.
I hadn‘t read the topology of violence but did read burnout society, psychopolitics and the disappearance of ritual. While there are certainly valid criticisms that I‘d share, there is something especially in those books that resonates a lot with me. It almost seems like a conservative position at face value sometimes - technology bad, we have lost the good things and whatnot. Especially combined with e.g. Eva Illouz‘ cold intimacies I find his diagnosis often intriguing, if somewhat focused on a narrow set of issues.
what does he mean by "positivity" or "negativity"??? ideas? institutions? actions? feelings? experiences??
Hey can you do a segment on Herbert Marcuse's essay "Repressive Tolerance" ? I just finished reading it and I would like to see you break it down.
I think I can manage that. Will probably be up next Saturday (not tomorrow) or the next.
@@TheoryPhilosophy Awesome man! Love the breakdowns
I agree that Han oversimplifies a lot of the ways in which power works today, in the sense of a reductionist black and white thinking (now there is ONLY positivity, ALL negativity has vanished, etc.) but I don't see how it was tasteless for him to mention the fitness culture. I see more similarities than differences between the ways in which women and men self-exploit themselves with the rising beauty standards.
Generally, I think we should approach Han's theory as an addition to the disciplinary power of negativity. That is, disciplinary power and allo-exploitation add auto-exploitation ON TOP. So now we still have the externalized master-slave dialectic and the class struggle, and on top of that, the external masters make the slaves auto-exploit themselves as well. Same with bio/psycho politics. Psychopolitics is added on top of biopolitics.
I wonder how much of this black and white thinking is an intentional stylistic choice in Han's part. I am considering that it's very likely that he's doing it on purpose in a sort of "if you can't defeat them, join them" style - same with his short length books. He knows that we live in a fast-paced consumerist culture based on short-term gratification, so very few have the patience anymore to read long books, hence intentionally making his books shorter. Hypocrisy? Perhaps, but perhaps an ethical one.
where should one start with calasso? :)
The title was quite intriguing (the video has a typographical error though) I hadnt come across Han before this video. But , I found the ideas some what half baked. It couldn’t convey the idea of violence transforming into different forms very convincingly. It required a more nuanced deliberation on Han’s part. Yes, you were right, he builds his concepts on the works of other thinkers like Benamin, Agamben, Foucault, Baudrillard etc but then counters those with some very unstable arguments. I do understand the text must be repeatedly conveying the same set of ideas.
I like that you critiqued this. It needed critiquing. A neutral explanation of the book would have overlooked the serious inconsistencies.
Though I haven’t read it, but I am kind of wary reading this book.
While Han talks so much about the other, I wonder why this book doesn’t mention Levinas who has an outstanding body of work on the ethics of the other.
Thank you so much , David!
Did you mention Roberto Calasso? Which of his work should I start with?
Good input! As for Calasso, start with The Ruin of Kasch which happens to be his first (kind of). Where was the typo???
Woops ok ya I caught it!! Thanks a bunch
Han mentions Levinas in multiple of his books
A better way to say at 45:05 is "Come at me, Bro."
Good content but waaaaaay to many commercials.
so is it 'topology' or 'typology' lol
18:00 an old father or mother is enough, you don't need a class to make a sacrifice
Ehm, sounds like this guy learnt a lot from Agamben's Homo Sacer (1995)..
❤❤❤
First again!
As an actual mathematician, I think that Byung Chul Han doesn't understand topology, and that he's using these words to appear intelligent.
Speculation. Idk what intelligent means and neither do you. Not critique.
@@ChannelSettingsTvcode Nice evasion. You ever studied philosophy before?
He might not be intelligent,in the way you understand “intelligence” .
Byung-chul Han is wise.Wisdom is beyond what you learn.Certainly your comment is infantile.
@@Arateenteras Byung is a guy that pretends to be wise. He is an obvious fraud mate.