Відео

I have seen like four times this video, I liked it a lot. The relationship between colour and the subject is interesting as hell.

Is the imaginary analogous to the ideological? And if the symbolic governs what we see, the ideological/imaginary governs how we see it?

enormous thanks to you !!

A good example of this is from Amy Tan's Joy Luck Club, "Rule of the Game," where they have to replace chess pieces with lifesavers because they're missing.

Hume didn't say that things tell us what they are. He wasn't sensualist. He said that we as human species create ideas. This ideas represent our sensation. Human mind then mix this ideas using to this three rules and this creat more complex sets of ideas. Our ideas interact with our emotions and our social life and by this, our knowladge of things becomes practical and by this historical. Our knowladge is a matter of habit and tradition. Please read Deleuze interpretation of Hume or any other book about him, because in your video He is misrepresented. Kant wouldn't create his critical method and philosophy without Hume.

Maybe I'm off, but I'm pretty sure I'm detecting a Dutch accent here?

Another beautiful video- thank you 🙏 ❤🎉

Great vid! Please could someone help me understand the the retroactive movement from A to s(A)? Sure it is s(A), the signifier of the Other, which retroactively signifies A? Or is it just that we mistakenly (and retroactively) imagine s(A) to be an effect of A?

one of my favorite book, now I have more reason for loving it, hee

Can someone pls clarify if the cc is a mix of English & German? Bc I began to notice or read in the 2nd half of the video & by just English language, Closed Captions are atrocious. If it's just supposed to be English, another cc technology can be used, thanks

Can someone pls tell me if the cc is a mix of English & German? Bc I began to notice or read in the 2nd half of the video & by just English language, Closed Captions are atrocious. If it's just supposed to be English, another cc technology can be used, thanks

Was this the last video of the CPR series? It's very helpful, I wish there was more

:]❤

Great vid. Thank you!

Thanks. "Those who like to watch hard-core philosophy videos before falling asleep." I resemble that statement.

This helped massively. Please keep making content. Subscribed!

Brilliant and humorous! 🎉Great video!❤

lovely the way you convey these information ^^<3

I only saw the white, was I supposed to see violet? I might be partly color blind lol

Great

<3

Color is subjective. There are blind people who cannot see (color) at all. There are people with only one cone class who see in grayscale. Yet other people are dichromats with only two functioning cone classes who only see two hues (excluding white). Most people are trichromats, hence humans design their surroundings trichromatically. And yet other people, though only a very small number, are tetrachromats who can see *a lot* more colors than even trichromats. Color vision is very subjective and context dependent. For example, while you are not be able to differentiate between a yellow and a red-green mixture, for me these two colors are entirely different hues. Or, where I see a red-cyan mixture, you will just see 'white'. In my opinion, color is the brain's attempt to make sense of different light intensities and wavelength combinations. Color (as in hue) is not needed (e.g. grayscale), but it surely makes differentiating and compartmentalizing things a lot easier.

Excellent use of Zizek's book to help create this video. I just read it, and I like how you go back to Zizek's footnotes and then show the passage in Lacan's writings. I actually read the Zizek book so that I would better understand how he understands (and thus uses) Lacan, rather than to understand Lacan himself. But I do think that there is some use in using Zizek's book to understand Lacan. That said, Halberstam makes an interesting critique of Zizek: Zizexk claims to use Lacan to explain popular culture, but often uses popular culture to explain Lacan. Certainly, that critique makes sense when you read "How to Read Lacan."

I cannot show my appreciation for this channel enough, thank you.

Newton's calculus (Fluxional) is about functions and there is, what would now be called, a limit built into every operation. Leibniz's calculus (Infinitesimal) is about relations defined by constraints and the limit is a separate operation.

Amazing stuff. Goethe's idealism has interested me for a while. It's great to have such clear explanations.

wow...mind blown! Thanks man

Beautiful. Thank you!

Your videos are great in content, crazy you have so few subsrcibers. Maybe work on the dutch accent?

Kant would have been perplexed by both the theory of Cosmic Foam and the theory of the three Enneagram laws, the law of one, the law of three and the law of seven. It is obvious he focused much attention on the structures of mind but making the law of three within and becoming receptive to Divine Mercy or Intuition of a spiritual order eluded his attention. Pore Kent, he would never have realised gravity was linked to Cosmic Foam and Universal Intelligence between all things.

I'm really looking forward to those next videos. Fascinating ideas.

For the first time, despite reading about it a lot, I have understood the meaning of 'object petit a' and why it is in the centre...

Hey! Just wanted to comment. In this video, you claim that the Unconscious is placed in order of the Real; however, it's more fittingly placed in the Symbolic order, as it is composed of repressed signifiers. The drives, on the other hand, are definitely in the Real.

Excellent

It is a greater tragedy to never attain one's object of desire, for it is only by its attainment that it can be falsified whether the object-cause of our desire is satisfied by our objects of desire. Isn't it better to have gotten everything you wanted and to learn it does not bring happiness than it is to be forever uncertain whether it will or will not?

I agree with guattari and deleuze here, these priests telling us that jouisannce is impossible should promptly blow their heads out of their own asses and stop shaming life for wanting what it wants. Obviously lacan was on to some very profound things, he must have had something very wrong with his ontology to take his critique to such ass backwards and life denying conclusions. It pisses me off, lack, they say. Pfft, desire lacks nothing, and everything is nothing until it means something. Everything is possible, get some!

No no, what a picture of a dragon depicts is exactly what it looks like, a dragon. It's an icon, it's actuality is that it looks like a dragon. This is the point, a dragon-icon can only come to signify something other than the dragon it looks like, by virtue of it being a dragon depicted, it is exactly what it looks like. Without this potential there could be no dragons standing to psychoanalyze or play word association with.

Just makes me so happy I started with Peirce then deleuze and guattari. This helps me understand the later 2, thanks a bunch. This signifier-signified nonsense seems to me to be a distinctio formalis a parte rei, in reality signifier=signified and it's useless as conceptual distinction, it only does harm to semiotics, like the distinction between subject and object, haha, im just taking an opportunity to practice my craft of psuedointellectualism

thank you for this video!!!!!! learned so much❤

Amazing video, one of the best about Sickness Unto Death!

So, father's sleeping senses perceived smoke and fire coming from the next door (incorporating reality's perception), which made him construct a dream to keep him out of the (bleak) reality of his son's death. But the guilty trauma wakes him up as a representation of his son, in the dream. Mille grazie.

excellent thank you very much

I can smell the dutch accent