Timothy Morton in Conversation with Verso
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 лип 2024
- Timothy Morton discusses the political idea of the collective, subscendence, solidarity, fighting Nazis, and lots more. Humankind: Solidarity with Non-Human People, by Timothy Morton, is out now www.versobooks.com/products/3...
This guy is peak art school theory.
“Researchers have found that violence and cruelty has four general causes: greed and ambition; sadism; high self-esteem and moral idealism. Popular belief and clichéd stories tend to have it that greed and sadism are dominant. In fact, they’re vanishingly small. It’s actually high self-esteem and moral idealism-convictions of personal and moral superiority-that drive most acts of evil.” -Will Storr
Really clear and articulate speaker. intelligent and interesting. hopefully this is the future of our social ideas.
Wow, this is extraordinarily helpful
The whole is greater than the sum of its parts also stands for the realization that your hand is now something in and of itself that does not exist if you take the parts and separate them, something that becomes a hand when the parts are there to some extent... nothing to do with one thing being "greater" than another. Problem is we make too much of words.
Excellent as there is no right or wrong in our symbiotic real :)
Sim Senhor! largar o soft-umbiguismo, coragem para poetizar contra o agrupamento medíocre. Excelente conversador, pensador!
Nargajuna anyone? Epistemic establishment, (how a thing becomes a thing), if not dependent on infinite regression (where whole>part>part>part>...n), but acknowledges interdependence (where n..
I enjoyed listening to him talk, nice voice... But, he should probably revisit his former teacher, Terry Eagleton's work, specially in his book "Ideology".
How so? Just out of interest. I used to study Eagleton, especially his book ideology.
having not read the book (yet, and congratulations Timothy) I add this comment only to annotate the interview's content, where the fact is that work in ANIMISM has been developing into what now can be called a well-established academic tradition, though obscure in contrast to Morton's acclaim for amalgamating the following content: mel y. chen, from where much of this thought is pulled, published "Animacies" in 2012, Eduardo Vivero de Castros has been on this for the entirety of his academic career, Zoe Todd writes an enlightening bit on how OOO is largely snatched and re-contextualized from indigenous thought, Fernando Santos-Granero is writing on the occult life of things in Amazonian thought + culture in 2009, a full 4 years before Morton's "Realist Magic", and I'm leaving many others out, others who never wrote books or went on podcasts. Radicality in politics may very well end up with us squeezing our teddy bears and asking falling sycamore leaves what they think about income taxes (this is very edifying, and they have some great things to say, recommend it)but before that happens there should be a revolution in the footnotes, as per Sarah Ahmed. Citational politics indeed are something like a cyborg politics: actually Tim's "hand" IS an extrusion, a reconstitution'd mass of unacknowledged sources, and there's no amount of pouting as if one's feelings have been hurt by pointing out the fact that genius, as the ancient greeks knew it but most other non-Western cultures too, belongs to no one, but is a shared name: and politics begins with naming.
@alexandra de leon: fantastic reply! A revolution in the footnotes indeed! I came here thinking that "Humankind" could be on my 2018 reading list -- now I've got works by Todd, Vivero de Castros and Santos-Granero jumping the queue. thank you.
There will always be work that has come before, some ideas infiltrate our spheres without being linked to the people who have first expressed them. but this happens naturally and I don't see why there is anything wrong with popularising the more obscure parts of politics and philosophy...
quite respectfully, nothing happens "naturally". nature itself, as Morton has said in the past, isn't real. or rather, there it nothing natural about Nature any longer, if there ever was to begin with.
Gregory Whitmore "Humankind" by?
I was told the "greater than" from the original gestalt theory was closer to "other than", like a different quality, rather than "better" or "more complex than". I have a bad memory, don't know where I heard this and am no expert on gestalt. I will check up but would love to hear from anyone who does know if this sounds right or not. Cheers (I do like the idea of subscendence though)
i guess im asking randomly but does anybody know a method to get back into an Instagram account?
I was stupid forgot my password. I would appreciate any tricks you can offer me.
@David Mark Instablaster ;)
@Jon Russell I really appreciate your reply. I found the site through google and im waiting for the hacking stuff now.
Takes quite some time so I will reply here later with my results.
@Jon Russell it worked and I now got access to my account again. I am so happy!
Thank you so much you saved my ass !
@David Mark glad I could help xD
Why not, the whole is different than the parts.
Yes, exactly what I was asking myself. And surely, a more faithful representation of the phrase's intention.
Chop shops: cars are less than the sum of their parts
heidegger x white-buddhism
@@DM-ks1pj the Heidegger is the ontology. Object oriented ontology was developed by Graham Harman from Heidegger's analysis of "tool being" in being and time. Idk about the buddhism part. Pantheism maybe, but that is in no way synonymous with buddhism
@Space Monkey Alfred north Whitehead
@Space Monkey but yeah, you're right.
This helped me to understand his other talks available here on youtube. I agree with most of what he's saying, except the bit about vampires. Everyone knows there's no such thing as vampires, right? Hang on a sec while I get this thing off my neck...
I hope you're not a comedian because that last line was seriously not funny. Hold on, I think... I'm... giggling (?)
there are no wholes. what are referred to as wholes are actually many things while also being another part in a larger assemblage.
We call the "soft toys" myth.
Hard to really clarify what he is getting at. He starts with one point and then just mumbles away, dropping a new word everynow and then until he concludes with some other nonsense. This is the only video I have seen of his so I hope he has more interesting and clear insights given his profile.
Uphold the imortal science of "marxism"-Porcupinism
@6:36 He says the whole is LESS than the sum of its parts and then say @7:14 the whole is GREATER than the sum of its parts.... so which is it??!!
The first time he is stating what he thinks. The second time he is talking about the IDEA that the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. I don't understand why you seem so angry.
And this is what you ask after going through the entire interview?
Hey There Timothy you know Einstein said if you can't explain it to a sixth grader , you don't understand it well enough yourself : Well My Friend YOU NAIL IT , PAL !! AWESOME !!
Einstein also (apparently) said "If I could explain it to the average person, I wouldn't have been worth the Nobel Prize." Your comment says more about you than about Morton.
Hold on to those soft toys and love the peanut thats not..without the pecking
Then go to solidarity in a non human form...love the corny.
Objects.
Go goofy yoda. Im ok with that too.
I take it he isnt a biologist?
Ontololgy, lion, ontology, ashtray, ontology, daffodil, ontology, blue whale, blah blah blah. May I have some dressing on that word salad?
Bunch of malarkey
Morton is right to critique Marx's human species-being. However, where does this leave non-humans? Two issues arise:1) Ontology has to ground difference: the answer is that matter, space and time are ontologically distinct.2) Individual humans are different such that 'human species-being' is real but not significant in the way Marx thought since Marx thought he could build socialism upon this hypothetical notion of human equality. Rather, human personality differences are fundamental, such that only a differentiated hierarchy can rule mankind in anything larger than a tribe.At 19:30 he sees that objects also consist of potentiality not mere actuality - hence difference within objects and thus fundamental differences in human personality, politically significant ones - precluding the egalitarian democracy which grounds Anarchism and modern Marxism. As for the political differences required of human governance, the Hindu caste system gives a powerful hint! However, Morton remains utterly confused because of his belief in Big Bang creationism.
This makes absolutely no sense
You seem to be trying to get at something which I think I know, I just don't know what it is specifically.
I would agree that hierarchies are needed in a society that is larger than a tribe, that is why I believe that the State is important, but I don't really see how this connects to personality differences. A state is ignorant of personalities and by extension Law should also remain ignorant of personalities. A differentiated hierarchy is by no means simply a difference in personalities and a hypothetical hierarchy based on personality differences is not why rule is established, hierarchy is not simply rule. This is fallacious and historically inaccurate.
"precluding the egalitarian democracy which grounds Anarchism and modern Marxism"
This is just false. There's potentiality in Marx, hence why he believes that human knowledge and its productive forces remain repressed (alienated) in a capitalist society and only with a communist society will we enter into what he called the kingdom (or reign) of freedom for leveling the material conditions of humanity.
"As for the political differences required of human governance, the Hindu caste system gives a powerful hint! However, Morton remains utterly confused because of his belief in Big Bang creationism"
Lmao. I love this, it sounds so crazy, but it would seem that you believe the Big Bang seems to provide some sort of ontological equality instead of the ontological grounding of difference you seem to long for above, and you consider this a confusion of some sorts. I agree that the Big Bang is itself a crazy proposal which physicists still can't explain in best terms, but non the less I believe that we should follow scientists here on these sort of developments. Labelling the Big Bang "creationism" is not really a term that supports the idea of his being confused. And returning to the grounding of difference in ontology topic, of course you don't provide an argument on why this arises. I would suppose that the notion of multiplicity could serve this well and is functioning at a certain level.
And again, even entertaining the idea of ontological grounding of difference wouldn't imply at all a certain "o-d therefore personality difference - therefore hierarchy" talk about a huge non sequitur and poor grasp of the notion of " the ontological grounding of difference". And if any, the Hindu caste system would be a very poor example, there are many Indians, specially the so called untouchables (the non-humans), those who are at the end of the caste (out of the cupola), and they are the main ones challenging and denouncing the inequalities and oppression they experience. This fact just serves the idea that no social or political system is without a certain level of instability and challenging, class conflict here again is the Real (in the lacanian sense) of politics. The "excess" is not something you give its place in society, but it is at the very core of the structure which challenges the structure. The Hindu caste system is not a future model of stability, but could be a future model of class politics.
I would suggest that next time you should at least develop your arguments minimally instead of jumping around, this style implies schizophrenia or non philosophical training.
Sorry this guy just seems...not as good as past philosophers in the fact that he is just saying the same mumbo the next guy could come up with...Not impressed lol..with this dude's intelligence or anything he has come up with really...its all been said already by people way before him.
Thanks for contributing to nothing
I just listened to two and half minutes and you managed to vomit all the intersectionalist buzz words: "sexist", "racist", "white"... You give me the creeps, sir.