The Social Context of Philosophy - Ernest Gellner & Bryan Magee (1977)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 кві 2022
- In this program, Ernest Gellner discusses the social context of modern philosophy with Bryan Magee. This is from a 1977 series on Modern Philosophy called Men of Ideas.
#philosophy #bryanmagee #epistemology
I really enjoyed Professor Gellner speak. Very insightful and like a breath of fresh air.
I dream of being this articulated
@@terencedenman702 English is not my first language so sometimes I can't express my ideas fully using it. However, I am well-spoken in my native language.
@@ahmedabdelsabor7087 The comment you responded to, was already deleted, so I never saw it. But by your response, I'd guess this guy made some ignorant remark, about you using 'articulated,' rather than 'articulate.' I realized what you meant, immediately, despite the small grammatical error, you made. But this type of person (informally referred to, as a 'troll') is quite abundant, on here (as with other social media sites). Their only occupation, is to trawl the internet, making such comments. They are immature, indeed.
What is ironic, is that I was checking this comment section, in hopes of finding some reference to Gellner's obvious speech impediment, as he is rather difficult to understand. As well, his first language was not English (he was from Czechoslovakia), and had to learn it, upon coming to England, as you obviously had to.
One of the more interesting aspect of modern philosophy Is the intertwining beetwen theory of knowledge, history and sociology (think for example of Foucault or Kuhn). I didn't know Gellner First to seeing this video and, i Hope, from now to find out more about him
This discussion was in 1978 now its 2023 and everything they say is still true about knowledge but with the rise of the internet things are now a hundred times even more unstable. Knowledge is now so fragmented as is society its like living in a constant blur.
But not for the better. Our present moment is dissolving knowledge as is society
Ten thumbs up for this summary.
Funny how few years later, on the same program, Bryan Magee will have quite different opinion about the philosophy of the Middle Ages. :)
Bryan is a master philosopher
Im am glad I was never examined by professor Gellner 😅
I’ve understood and felt the price of dehumanization when these perspectives are taken in modern philosophy. In epistemology my professor said I was onto something when I made this exact point. Understanding the relationship and change over time in thought, being able to categorize this in different ways. Theoria praxis for example😛☺️☺️😉😉😉😉. Patterns of such. Like how much is there to say it’s nuts but let’s chill
LOVE IT
Fabulous ❤
excellent points made about Marxism, the juxtaposition of science and modern ethics in the dillemas of modern society
like sanskrit pramāṇa is in the instrumental case: the means by which valid knowledge is discovered
At 10:30 Magee offers an amateur sociological account of sociological development of scientific knowledge progression. And the professor who was staid till the time, goes in absolute beast mode. 🤣
Impressive guest and conversation. There does not seem to be a lot of this today-let alone on the BBC. I recommend the 2010 intellectual biography on Gellner. Magee does not bring up a couple of names which could have made the talk more interesting: Isaiah Berlin and Heidegger. Gellner was not a fan of either and it could have given the conversation more of a contemporary feel: Heidegger had died only a few years before and Berlin was still very much alive.
One thing I noticed, is how Gelner seems to tire of Magee going on. He'll make as if to answer quickly but then abruptly stops, as Magee is still going on. The frustration is clearly evident in his expression, in the first few minutes of him beginning to speak.
Brilliant psychologizing.
@@caylynmillard76 Is that sarcasm? It's merely simple observation.
@@ShannonFreng idk about simple. But you may be simple with that comment. Who cares if he is frustrated? What does that have to do with what they are talking about-which is, after all the point?
@@caylynmillard76 It's got nothing to do with what they're talking about. My point was that Magee often doesn't know when to shut up, sometimes. This guest showed an annoyance to it, as have others. Why would this concern you, in the first place? It seems you had the original problem, or maybe you're just one of those bullshit trolls, I've heard about. A child of 12 could have inferred my point, in my original comment. But as is obvious with many commenters upon here, shit has to be drawn out for you.
@@ShannonFreng He “often” doesn’t know when to shut up “sometimes”. Ok….he is the host why would he have to shut up? He never interrupts or cuts them off so who cares… “this guest showed an annoyance to it the thing I made up aka McGee not knowing when to shut up”. How do you know he showed an annoyance to it? Again, brilliant psychologizing by reading thoughts from peoples faces… I think that’s mostly you imposing some interpretation based on your subconscious biases and lack of attention to the heart of the issue, namely what the video is about.
I think Geller correctly observes "the right question is to look at the preconditions of the emergence of the modern world" and goes on to discuss how Satre and others' "truths" are only so post the Cartesian era.
However I wonder if he would have noticed how it was likely the access to abundantly cheap fossil fuels that allowed the growth of human dominion over nature that is unsustainable.
Does this mean an end to this "Western" tradition of philosophy? The lack of understanding of natural limits probably is where it comes up short. I believe some linkage or reemergence of indigeous thinking as humanity begins its long return to real sustainable ways of living (giving up the green growth myth) will offer a path forward
And how does this have any relevance, to this interview? Your writing is a tad incoherent--even more so, than Gellner's speech impediment, makes him.
@@ShannonFreng Modernity depends on fossil fuels. Without fossil fuels we would not have the modern world. That is the point. Gellner speaks about the preconditions of modernity so it is relevant in that sense.
And then it beggers the question, what will happen to modernity once the invariable decline of fossil fuels occurs (since renewable energy cannot substitute in energy density)....my answer is that modernity will no longer be possible and we will return to nature in some shape or form
@@chookbuffy 'Beggers the question?' The proper phrase is 'begs the question.' You're obviously a hack, whose writing is little more, than mere gibberish. Go take an English literacy course.
8 12 26 29
Lustig: 26:50
It's ironic that Gellner dismisses Marxism as unsuccessful in explaining political realities when his later analysis of nationalism amounted to bog standard Marxism.
Nope.
Found the Commie.
Interesting that at no point does Gellner allude to nationalism as a contemporary form of social organization and social-political-historical understanding. Despite his fame for his theory of nationalism.
Nationalism doesn’t seem to have played much of a role in modern philosophy.
@@Philosophy_Overdose Very interesting when you consider the immense role it's played in modern politics and culture
The show (and Magee) is dated. He peddles the nonsense that medieval philosophy was under the thumb of the "church". Philosophy of that period while it took place in catholic universities is now understood to have been a lively and innovative affair. In the same vein, many modern historians do not use "dark ages", "renaissance" or even the "enlightenment" without some caution.
Galileo was imprisoned for his views. Roger Bacon (c. 1220-1292) tried to prove that Aristotle was not a threat to Christian doctrine by demonstrating that Aristotelian theories could be used to prove faith and to convince non-believers of the validity of Christianity. Another theologian, Albert Magnus (1200-1280), St. Albertus Magnus tried to "Christianize" Aristotle by replacing Aristotle's atheism with Plato's (427-348 BCE) demiurge. In the 13th century, a student of Albert Magnus and a colleague of Roger Bacon, Thomas Aquinas (c. 1224-1274) built on their ideas. Aquinas' great works, Summa contra Gentilesand Summa Theologica (unfinished at his death), attempted to finally resolve the conflict between reason and faith. Great thinkers of the age entirely dominated by the church. Religion was absolutely central to life in those times.
I didn't hear any attempt to argue against relativism only, as is common with philosophers, an almost parroted dismissal of it. The cities he speaks of, with their varying moralities, is surely an account of relativism? Relativism isn't saying that morality is meaningless, simply that what constitutes morality is relative to the social framework you bring to bear.
As far as I understood what the relativists say, they wouldn’t say that in the hypothetical city people have ‘varying moralities’, more they would say there is no difference between moral and immoral, no right no wrong etc, just various constructions, all ‘equal’ in their state of correctness/wrongness. As the relativists are fond of saying, there is no truth.
Like many, you confuse relativism with subjectivism.@@HkFinn83
It is ironic how Gellner, a non-native speaker has a superior vocabulary and such a fluid thought, that it makes Magee look terribly out of place in this discussion.
Where was he from
These scholarly English speakers, like Gellner, inhabit their own, insular world which appears to have no regard or consideration for how unintelligible their funky speaking style is.i
But what do you make of his ideas?
Further, his biography suggests he was anything but insular. He escaped Czechoslovakia to flee the Nazis. Studied in England. Fought the Germans in Europe. Left Czechoslovakia foreseeing the Soviet takeover etc.
I’m sorry this Philosopher has no understanding of history.
I'm sorry you have no understanding of this philosopher.
You might disagree with him. If so, present your case. Otherwise, your comment is simply a personal attack.
@@jasonrose6288 I will Jason, give me a chance good sir. And good point. I shouldn’t have made a blanket statement, my bad.
@@bpatrickhoburg It's UA-cam, not an academic journal. All good.
It’s ok. Next time just shut the fuck up.
He sounds a little like Sean Connery.
Looks like his little brother too