Can't get any better, absolutely in love ❤️ with all your philosophy playlist. My 7 year long search for the meaning of life finally ends/begins with you guys. Thank you so much once again.
Qualifying your understanding of crypto by saying someone out there probably understands it better than you do feels so much like the 'lack' or 'gap' you described previously. Edit: Fantastic lecture. Thank you.
Hi from Scotland! I studied Philosophy at the University of Dundee with Frank Ruda (who has co-authored a couple of books with Zizek) as one of my lecturers who got me interested in Lacan 😊
Thank you! And if you’d like to keep up with the current lecture series you’re very much invited to become a patrons and get them sent to you every week 😊 link is: www.patreon.com/jenalineandjulian
Can u please make a video upon how to start studying philosophy in a proper way ?? .... I read and watch philosophy stuff from here and there but i would like to have a deep knowledge of it ... I dont know how to start .
There is no proper way, unless your goal is to understand every philosophical idea which I wouldn't wish on my enemy. just read whatever you're most interested in, based on what other people say about the book, and go from there. For me, I was really interested in truth, so I read about Nietzsche, and then turned more toward psychology, so I read some Freud, and then I got into more axiomatic stuff through research papers. But if youre trying to do it "properly" you'll never finish a book. It's not supposed to be a job, it's only supposed to be interesting
As others have said, there's no one way in. But one book I really liked was "Sophie's World", as it does a really solid sweep of the history of philosophy.
"The signifier, producing itself in the field of the Other, makes manifest the subject of its signification. But it functions as a signifier only to reduce the subject in question to being no more than a signifier, to petrify the subject in the same movement in which it calls the subject to function, to speak, as subject. There, strictly speaking, is the temporal pulsation in which is established that which is the characteristic of the departure of the unconscious as such - the closing." Pg 207 Seminar XI, Lacan
1:00:40 Hmm I feel like this point could be misinterpreted as avoiding pushing towards material confrontation to enact change, in favor of some individualistic pursuits.
I always had difficulties to understand the Hegelian notion of “abstract” vs. “concrete” as applied to “human being” or “person.” Does it mean a living body concretizes as a person for me in its symbolic functioning for me, e.g., as a “friend,” “parent,” or “partner” etc.? So, in addition to nft discussion, how do we come up with “assigning” values to people? And if it’s true and we have to do so, this means we will always act selfish or egoistic toward people “dear” to us and this means that assigning values to and “valuing” something or someone has to be learned (and thus is not inherent to us). Capitalism lives off the very idea of accumulating power (most valuable asset) and monopoly over the assignation of values (most likely always “overpricing”).
because he enjoys denying her praise and fair social engagement. you can see it in the way he pulls his gaze away as she pouts for attention repeatedly for an hour.
Great presentation! Two small but not so small point though: first, subject is not another name for the ''person,'' the ''individual,'' or even the ''human being,'' at least not in Lacanian theory; second, the Lacanian register of the Imaginary has nothing whatsoever to do with illusion or fiction, but with images. Otherwise very interesting talk. Keep up the good work!
It's interesting that he cared so much about her leaving to get water. He requires her to act as an audience as he talks. Watching the way they exchange glances, and the emotions apparent on her face, I feel like he enjoys withdrawing his attention from her. And she keeps hoping for praise
You aren’t actually a Christian. In essence you are actually Buddhist. This is because you are the something counting what is perceived to be nothing as something for the purpose of healing the something that is counted by number as nothing based on the ejected concept of the something for the purpose of Nam Myoho Renge Kyo.
I don’t think you’re wrong, but I have a hard time accepting your argument because I don't think you entirely succeeded in surpassing the vulgar interpretations. Perhaps the vulgar is just sublated but the metaphysical bivalent opposition remains? (I’m not a philosopher obviously). The rejection of the pillars of society in favor of hollow space at the center has obvious vulgar meanings, right? And if there’s anything to the innuendo, then it’s not too surprising that Foucault couldn’t accept the fundamental conclusion of structuralism. In my opinion, both are needed not just for the sake of balance, but because the margin loses its edge if everyone starts going there. Along a similar vein, the example of cheating simply inverts the standard social value, which isn’t bad but I’m afraid in the end that that’s all the argument in this lecture is proposing. I think it’s possible to have both pillars of society and take care of the marginal. I think left, right and center should come together to prevent the emergence of a system that wants to try to count the indivisible remainder. The CCP has a social credit system where they “rate their friends”, and I don’t think they’re exactly bourgeois. I think you're an exceptional lecturer & you’re both enjoyable to watch, so I hope you take my objections as a friendly comment and are not offended by it. I know that there is a lot I can learn from you.
I don't know if I've achieved class consciousness, but I am very glad to be conscious of your classes. Great vid!
good lecture for Zizek’s Birthday :)
Can't get any better, absolutely in love ❤️ with all your philosophy playlist. My 7 year long search for the meaning of life finally ends/begins with you guys.
Thank you so much once again.
I would do things for a Jenaline finance class.
Yes 100%
Re-watching this one for a paper I'm writing. Wishing y'all the best-thanks for all y'all do👌
This is probably the most brilliant lecture I’ve heard you give out of the few that I have.
Qualifying your understanding of crypto by saying someone out there probably understands it better than you do feels so much like the 'lack' or 'gap' you described previously.
Edit: Fantastic lecture. Thank you.
Hi from Scotland! I studied Philosophy at the University of Dundee with Frank Ruda (who has co-authored a couple of books with Zizek) as one of my lecturers who got me interested in Lacan 😊
What a ride. Thank you Julian
ya'll are so good at this
Wise man and even wiser woman!
2nd video of yours I've watched; just subbed. Will enjoy exploring and journeying with your content.
Amazing, thank you!
Thank you enormously ❤
The girl looks like De Beauvoir
I am from Tallahassee, Florida.
Wonderfull
Thank you! And if you’d like to keep up with the current lecture series you’re very much invited to become a patrons and get them sent to you every week 😊 link is: www.patreon.com/jenalineandjulian
Can u please make a video upon how to start studying philosophy in a proper way ?? .... I read and watch philosophy stuff from here and there but i would like to have a deep knowledge of it ... I dont know how to start .
start is an interesting word here, but look into things and arguments that trouble you the most
There is no proper way, unless your goal is to understand every philosophical idea which I wouldn't wish on my enemy. just read whatever you're most interested in, based on what other people say about the book, and go from there.
For me, I was really interested in truth, so I read about Nietzsche, and then turned more toward psychology, so I read some Freud, and then I got into more axiomatic stuff through research papers. But if youre trying to do it "properly" you'll never finish a book. It's not supposed to be a job, it's only supposed to be interesting
As others have said, there's no one way in. But one book I really liked was "Sophie's World", as it does a really solid sweep of the history of philosophy.
I live in egypt and i can't reach your patreon for some reason . Is there other ways to get your book?
"The signifier, producing itself in the field of the Other, makes manifest the subject of its signification. But it functions as a signifier only to reduce the subject in question to being no more than a signifier, to petrify the subject in the same movement in which it calls the subject to function, to speak, as subject. There, strictly speaking, is the temporal pulsation in which is established that which is the characteristic of the departure of the unconscious as such - the closing." Pg 207 Seminar XI, Lacan
1:00:40
Hmm I feel like this point could be misinterpreted as avoiding pushing towards material confrontation to enact change, in favor of some individualistic pursuits.
Brasilian living in Berlin, love the classes.
Is that a Brasilian/Portuguese last name, Julian? 😎
I have a question: the class ladder you speak about is that an illusion in the same way that money is an illusory way to value objects?
I always had difficulties to understand the Hegelian notion of “abstract” vs. “concrete” as applied to “human being” or “person.” Does it mean a living body concretizes as a person for me in its symbolic functioning for me, e.g., as a “friend,” “parent,” or “partner” etc.? So, in addition to nft discussion, how do we come up with “assigning” values to people? And if it’s true and we have to do so, this means we will always act selfish or egoistic toward people “dear” to us and this means that assigning values to and “valuing” something or someone has to be learned (and thus is not inherent to us). Capitalism lives off the very idea of accumulating power (most valuable asset) and monopoly over the assignation of values (most likely always “overpricing”).
switching it up i see
nice
What is zizek view on law?
Pure ideology.
Make a video on critical thinking and its importance?
Julian you are putting your hands in front of Jenalaine’s face. ( name spelling, I apologize. )
Why is she always behind u instead of next to you?
because he enjoys denying her praise and fair social engagement. you can see it in the way he pulls his gaze away as she pouts for attention repeatedly for an hour.
54:49 Riddler to Batman!!!!!!
Not gonna lie, didn't get it. But will watch again
Are you portuguese?
Great presentation! Two small but not so small point though: first, subject is not another name for the ''person,'' the ''individual,'' or even the ''human being,'' at least not in Lacanian theory; second, the Lacanian register of the Imaginary has nothing whatsoever to do with illusion or fiction, but with images. Otherwise very interesting talk. Keep up the good work!
I was confused why she was there as he spoke 99% of the time and spoke to the camera
It's interesting that he cared so much about her leaving to get water. He requires her to act as an audience as he talks. Watching the way they exchange glances, and the emotions apparent on her face, I feel like he enjoys withdrawing his attention from her. And she keeps hoping for praise
This is not a comment
You aren’t actually a Christian. In essence you are actually Buddhist. This is because you are the something counting what is perceived to be nothing as something for the purpose of healing the something that is counted by number as nothing based on the ejected concept of the something for the purpose of Nam Myoho Renge Kyo.
I don’t think you’re wrong, but I have a hard time accepting your argument because I don't think you entirely succeeded in surpassing the vulgar interpretations. Perhaps the vulgar is just sublated but the metaphysical bivalent opposition remains? (I’m not a philosopher obviously). The rejection of the pillars of society in favor of hollow space at the center has obvious vulgar meanings, right? And if there’s anything to the innuendo, then it’s not too surprising that Foucault couldn’t accept the fundamental conclusion of structuralism. In my opinion, both are needed not just for the sake of balance, but because the margin loses its edge if everyone starts going there. Along a similar vein, the example of cheating simply inverts the standard social value, which isn’t bad but I’m afraid in the end that that’s all the argument in this lecture is proposing. I think it’s possible to have both pillars of society and take care of the marginal. I think left, right and center should come together to prevent the emergence of a system that wants to try to count the indivisible remainder. The CCP has a social credit system where they “rate their friends”, and I don’t think they’re exactly bourgeois.
I think you're an exceptional lecturer & you’re both enjoyable to watch, so I hope you take my objections as a friendly comment and are not offended by it. I know that there is a lot I can learn from you.