I personally get really uncomfortable when people look at me. So I can relate to his idea that we are masters of our own world when we are alone as the subjects of our reality. But as soon as another person steps in we become objects and it's fundamentally threatening to our freedom. Especially because we can get into power struggles over 'what we are'. If someone defines us as a bad person and we define ourselves as a good person there is an automatic battle over who's view is more correct. Who has the greater authority of judgement. I think it explains why sensitive people prefer to be alone. Because when your alone you are free to define yourself and to live freely in that definition.
This is why I like god's way of seeing us, to god, everyone is valuable. We may do horrible things when young, but we deserve more chances to change, because we mean something to him and others and to ourselves. Our value is not something that can be changed, no matter how much people want to be above us or make us lower. Such people are still children.
I know exactly what you mean... I get really uncomfortable when people look at you too. I wish you would stay home more. Sorry, couldn't resist... but I am seriously the same way.
i remember being 7 or 8, riding in the backseat of my mother's car. a stranger on the street locked eyes with me as we rode by. at that instant, i felt that we could exchange souls or bodies.... now, in my 70s, the boundaries between me and other people, dog, spiders, blocks of wood are all fading away. and, soon, i will fade away as well.
You are a water drop descending towards a body of water - you can view the water, as it is, and the water views you, as you are, but only for a fleeting moment before you are the body of water. Existence is everywhen and everywhere - what may seem like empty space between you and I is not in fact empty or void of existence. I feel that, with life and beyond the furtherance, there is no fading away, but a constant motion of existence.
@@thatonehoots Good answer. *wish I could remember the name of the video, it's about children who remember things they shouldn't be able to; one kid describing a 'big man who opened a door so I could get out' -he was delivered via cesarean section by a tall doctor. “There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
This helps me considerably to understand my social anxiety. It's very situational and I've never been able to quit put into words what triggers it. Oddly, it's not when people perceive me as an object. Contrary to the "shame" that Sartre talks about, I am comfortable with that. I am comfortable blending into the background as if I'm just part of the scenery. Or, to use an analogy of the gaming world, being a "non-player character". Like in the movie "Free Guy". It's when they elevate me to being a subject that I have difficulty, when they elevate me to player status. There is a different sort of expectation or judgment that goes with that.
This explanation made me think of our current technology, wherein virtual spaces like Facebook, Instagram, UA-cam, etc. are having the effect of transforming young people into 'objects' for others' gaze, as if their very personhood (or subjectivity) is on view as a 'brand,' a commercial entity, a consumer commodity. And then, the negative emotional effects of constantly 'needing' that attention, that outside validation of their inherent worth as a person. It's as if they've lost their subjectivity in the electronic morass of object-hood presence. They've become dehumanized by an addictive technology, which cares not for the soul of man, but for its own proliferation which is monetized for profit.
Keep an eye out for a forthcoming podcast episode on "Influencers," in which we discuss this! You might also enjoy our episode on Zoom and self-objectification from 2021: www.overthinkpodcast.com/episodes/episode-11 The audio podcast has a lot more conversation and detail! Our UA-cam channel here is an offshoot :)
I get so excited when a theory I have on something is actually a real thing that somebody else thought too. It makes me know that I'm not alone in my deep introspection on the psyche. Very cool explanation of this theory I otherwise wouldn't know about.
Man I’m glad that this stuff has been written about and articulated, because I’ve felt this and thought about this a lot, without ever feeling like anybody else was realising the same thing
Nothing you will ever feel or think is truly original... whether that is comforting or horrifying depends on your mood and general temperament. It's like the saying "this too shall pass"
altough one might feel unique, we are anything but, any conceivable feeling, idea, situation we might experience was already lived thousands of time by others
@@bubbafug00gle51 Yeah, I guess it's loneliness, not originality. That being said, it's very possible to be original amongst the people you're around. In the history of all thought, nobody is really original, but in the scope of a sample of average people I believe it is very possible to have realisations others don't have.
@@prod.hxrford3896 I am sure that is true in some sense. It's definitely possible to be the first person to articulate feelings or ideas in a culturally unique way. Einstein's relativity theories being an example from science instead of philosophy.
I find it fascinating how i'll have these nebulous exisential thoughts only to realize later that it has been thoroughly examined and articulated by someone else. This is a perfect example where my struggle in the past has been seeing others as "objects" and thus realizing that I am nothing but objects to them as well. This creates that feeling of shame in Sartre's view as well as a feeling of insignificace.
So clearly explained. Sartre’s being-for-others is, I think, a key insight to understanding our contemporary world in which we are understood and understand ourselves primarily in terms of how others see us.
This video showed up in my UA-cam recommended page. I decided to give it a try and... I've binged watch all your videos on continental philosophy! You really have a gift of explaining complex ideas in a simple and clear way. It's also nice to see a fellow woman in mostly men dominated field. Great job and keep it up :)
@Ali Al-Mahdi you're just projecting bro, every one of your "women think that" can be replaced by "i think that" Example : Moreover, I think that bleeding reflects a deficiency, and that is why I see women as generally insecure, and as a result, I don't see them as capable beings worthy of engaging in societal affairs, so that's why I tend to see them as submissive!
I remember being a kid in my yard at home and seeing a girl from elementary school down the street walking with her family and not expecting to see her there. I was existing in the bubble of being at home, and at ease. When I saw her, I instantly felt like I was at school, and under the gaze of the entire classroom and no longer at ease. Basically, I was transported in spirit to my sort of habitual emotional alignment at school, which was different than my at home at rest state. I understood it because there was only one factor that made that happen, the act of seeing her and no longer feeling alone because of the potential of being seen back by her.
I'm so glad I found your channel. You have such calmness and deep wisdom in your field of study. You are a great professor and I appreciate your message 🙏❤ . Thank you for your service to the awaking humanity.
He's talking about going from a playable character to a non-playing character in the simulation, which changes with being observed versus observing, Observing is active, playable. Being observed is passive, non-playable. It's that helplessness in suspense stories when the viewpoint character feels watched, stalked. Power drains, fear builds.
I feel that there are many leaps of thought in this reasoning. The thinking goes linearly, and no alternatives seem to be explored. "I am an object of a gaze and my sense of self completely collapses. (....) my subjectivity vanishes. (...) Feeling of being an object circles shame". How are these things supposed to follow from one another? To me it could be quite the contrary. For example: "I am an object of a gaze and my sense of self completely collapses." - the sense of self is, on the contrary, built and strengthened through the eyes of the beholder(s). We get to, moreover, know ourselves and our place and agency in the world more readily through the eyes of others.
The subject/object feeling is artificially created by thought. Douglas Harding in his book "On having No Head" says: we see our image in a mirror 3 feet away, turn it around, place it on our shoulders and take it to be ourselves. Further, our parents give us a name and our personality coalesces around it. In a Zen kensho experience, the subject object dichotomy disappears. In neuroscience, it is the left hemisphere that thinks and the right hemisphere is the holistic. I realize that this is an over simplification. But when we live from our senses more than from our thoughts, we enter this holistic way of being in the world.
Wow I switched these without even knowing, now I look rather than feeling of being looked at and I tell you it's Soo relaxing, even wen I feel like the object of the look, am still able to at from my subject point and what a wonder to behold. Namastê
You explain a very complex subject in such a clear way. It reminds me of my philosophy teacher, she was one of the best teachers i've ever had. thankfully in my school we had a k-12 program that included philosophy and music since kindegarten. i arrived at seventh grade but i'm still thankful for all the skill it has given me in my life, now that i'm "transitioning" to adulthood. i'm glad that this video randomly played while i was doing my chores, this seems like a great podcast. :)
Tuned in for some overthinking - wasn't disappointed. I'm generally oblivious to other humans but I manage to bumble through life with a pleasant demeanor.
No shade, This is one of the coolest channels I've found in years. New, but immediate big fan. I'm surprised the professor didn't draw a parallel to how Sartre's concept of The Gaze relates to existing within a State. You *are* an object, now and forever. If that guy over there isn't looking at you that way, it's only because he feels an appointee is handling the responsibility. "Hey, I'm no cop. We got cameras."
One side of the coin for this world. Not sure if with 'State' you only refer to the system of control, anyway this is not the only program running. Capitalism figured out profit can be made from subject desiring, marketing cashes in on the subject-object perception split. Social media inherited traditional art's place for capitalising on subjects' creativity. Reminding you that you can really 'be understood', so do try expressing yourself. "Don't waste ideas, we got space"
Wow. Quite a bit to think about tonight before bed. Thank you for spreading the opportunity for personal insight and a different perspective on others.
This was a very positive video and I enjoyed the insight it provided! I also thoroughly appreciated Dr. Anderson's reading of Sartre's interpretation of 'the look' and adding her understanding of it. This is a great video and I can't wait to see more :)
Im studying english and her tongue and speaking is very good to understand and practice my listening! And i like so much philosophie, specially ancient greeks, and medieval Fathers... Perfect! Lets start! Hard working! 😎👍
Agree with Sappho and others. These are exceptionally well-organized and intelligently presented talks. Good work Ellie. I always enjoy seeing someone who's good at what they do.
Very nice evaluation of Sartre. I feel that Sartre failed to take curiosity into account. I can easily see how Sartre's gaze, taken from Sartre's point of view, can be used to divide the races and genders. Such a shame. Personally I believe that curiosity trumps fear.
It's this "Personally I believe..." That gets-in-the-way. Spock would never say "Personally I believe..." Nevertheless, you have proven that Romanticism can never 100 percent be factored-out of our Consciousness. All Human Beings, even Ludwig Wittgenstein (ha), is a Subject and he is Personal... Same for Yuval Noah Harari...Sam Harris...even though Harari and Harris profess that they "see" no "I" for themselves but are 100 percent Observational Empirical Buddhists.
This sounds a great deal like an immature personality. We aren't genuinely threatened by the presence of others, we see every day the spectrum of how individuals cope with the presence of other people. Overthink is an apt description for this material.
great stuff, thanks! I could only imagine that endless feedback loop he must have felt when you have one of those very deep, heart to heart conversations that always seem to go into the wee hours of the morning because they're so enjoyably intense! For me, when I get into this situation, I start feeling; WOW, this person is me and I am them, or we are one! No shame, no intimidation, no guilt, just pure mind boggling amazement that we almost feel inseparable when engaging in such a deep, intimate way. Both subject and object. both observer and the observed without the sense of being either one or the other, for just a magical moment in time!
Agreed, accepting we are mammals and allowing that feeling of an 'undifferentiated us' in a moment of abandon is an integral part of the mystery of being human. It's been a long time since I grappled with Sartre, but he seems very Apollonian in this case!
This was super interesting, it gave me a lot to think about. I'm in my last undergraduate year at uni, and I just started writing for a research proposal that compares different ontologies, which I think relates to Sarte. Initially, I started with a tension that exists between Husserl and Frege, which basically begins with Frege's review of Husserl's 'Philosophy of Arithmetic', (his work that came prior to 'logical investigations'). In Philosophy of Arithmetic, Husserl's position is to try and define what a totality is as it relates to our conception of number. His argument is that a totality is a multiplicity of particulars which has a unique identity with its own unique content, and in this unique content we find a unity. A unity is a continuum which we may represent numerically: two apples, three apples, etc. We are able to do this because of their unity of multiplicity, that is, because we quantify a particular identity again and again. I.e, the numbers 'two' and 'three' are the multiplicity of the unity of particulars that consists of the unique content of 'apples'. Frege's position in regards to Husserl, is basically that as we further expand on a given thing external to ourselves, it becomes increasingly more abstract and subjective as opposed to objective, (Frege thinks the original conception of a thing is objective because it is the starting point upon which prior 'determinations' led to that conception), (this is sought of how sense-datum became a hot topic I think). An example he gives is where he asks us to imagine two cats sitting in a room, one cat is white, the other is black. Imagine those cats are colorless, what do they look like in the room? Can they still be imagined? Now continue this process of removing more qualities. Imagine that they have no bodies, and that there is no room, and try and see if there are still two cats. Frege says it is still possible to imagine that there are two cats, despite the fact that we have removed many of their qualities. The reason for this is because we have obtained the general concept of the cat, by continuously representing them, which leads to abstraction and hence more subjectivity. Frege thinks that our ability to represent things numerically then, has nothing to do with the unique particular content of our numerical representations as such. So on one end we have Husserl who thinks that we can begin from this particular subjective position that can be objectively represented whereas Frege thinks this is the wrong way to think about it, rather, the 'object' in the case of numerical representation is actually prior to the subject. So who is correct, Husserl or Frege? Also, I think this tension is relevant to Sartre, because if Frege is correct, then this flips the script about how objectivity is viewed, but if Husserl is correct, Sartre makes way more sense to me, and I think Sartre's description of objective and subjective is quite humanistic and sincere. But I can't say I'm ontologically certain about any of these concepts a priori. I probably just need to read more... Sorry for the messy explanation.
I like that idea of possibilities vs probablities. I think this is why it’s so satisfying to prove people wrong when they underestimate you. Your possibilities have trumped their probabilities. It’s honestly one of the best feelings in the world.
This channel is well named. Overthink indeed. Sartre was no great philosopher, but an archetype of French intellectualism spun out of control. He was dangerous. His work could be a guidebook on how to achieve mental illness. He will mess with your head if you allow it. Georges Simenon had great contempt for Sartre’s ideas. Simenon was a great artist. When I was much younger, for years I regularly tied myself in emotional knots, obsessing about how people looked at me or what they might say about me. I really suffered from that! But eventually I matured, got stronger, and grew a thicker skin. This video has taught me one thing. Now I know where the millennial/Gen Z notions of micro-aggressions, being triggered, and feeling threatened by a word, an idea, or even someone’s name comes from. The children of Sartre and the Existentialists. What a legacy!
When I was an atheist I felt this so strongly that I couldn't maintain some friendships. Turning the gaze on yourself can sometimes even flip to the object orientation which induces existential dread and "nausea". This was what life felt like all the time to me. The possibilities of what I might be as a object to another person (or even in reality) were completely unknown to me and yet felt threateningly limiting. Now that I believe in God, I don't have this feeling at all. When you feel the gaze of God you are both subject and limitless object, even more full of possibility to God than you are to yourself. Then when others perceive you, it doesn't affect you in any way at all. Your self is stable, unaffected by additional observers, yet full of infinite possibility. It's not an idea or a concept, it's a physically felt and richly experienced reality. God is closer to me than I am to myself.
@@AnastasiaR Pantheism /=/ Panentheism. Panentheism Christianity is a thing but most Christians dont think like that. Its just interesting the way you explained it.
@@BioChemistryWizard Oh yes, I know what panentheism is. There was a step in my journey where I got really into consciousness research and neuroscience which is getting eerily panentheist-sounding these days. It was a bridge to other things for me. I'm not a panentheist though.
thank you for this excellent video, on the technical side: there are hardly any cuts, you go through it so easily, you seem so much inside your field, that it leaves me speechless
I understand the sentiment of feeling "limited" or "encumbered" in being perceived by others. The phrase I used to use was being "beholden." I eventually concluded that the desire to be the sole perceiver from the outside was narcissistic and avoidant in nature. Reality belongs to all, and there is a strength and relief in giving yourself to other's for the enrichment of their experience and vice versa.
"the inability to see myself as others see me" is the root of my anxiety. But I think the social constructs we have around expression color how any particular "look" makes you feel. Are they smiling? Are they waving? Are they squinting? Are they making a rude gesture? Do they quickly look away? Do they stare directly into your eyes? Do they give you the up-down full body scan? You mentioned the racial component and that matters. Is the person the same race as you? The same gender? The same height? Dressed in a way that implies they are part of your socioeconomic class? There are so many things that can influence how you feel. But, agreed that we can never "know" what they think or feel. We can be told the truth and we can contemplate it, but we can only ever experience our own self, at least for now. Also, subbing to this channel because of this video.
The realization that we aren’t along and the realization knowing others know of our presence does change our perspective and our experience. But it’s up to you to control your perspective and experience. We aren’t alone, deal with it.
This feels strangely like a missing scene from Annie Hall. Joking aside, I can relate to this in part when I travel on the bus and you sit looking forward and are not sure if the person in the opposite row of seats are looking at you or not. In some ways this reminds me a lot of RD Laings The Politics of Experience where he explores how we cannot see ourselves through the eyes of another, how we cannot know their experience of us.
As an autistic person I did and still do see myself as equal to everyone else, as people. It still gets me in trouble when meeting people with more education and anyone in authority. If I am interested in a subject I will explore it and have read new things that educated people in a particular subject have not learned, which instead of exciting them, actually irritates them. When someone in authority tells me to do something, they can see me pondering it, which also irritates them. I don't follow laws or rules because I have to. I do so out of kindness, orderliness, or love. Like many autistic people, I created my own social contract with society. I was just blessed to not have created a sociopathic contract which makes everyone else something to be used, as many scientists and business people have done. I can feel shame, but I try to remember that others do too, so I try to be a gentleman and not make them uncomfortable. I used to hate my autism and naivety, but it has made me a more caring person to others and myself.
OMG I do the same. I don't know if I am in the spectrum or not, but I life is easier if I think I am. So going back to to the topic, I always feel that I am the one who is observing, and trying to grasp all the information I can, at the point that I forget that I am being seen also hahaha. Can you please explain a little bit about that you created your own social contract with society? That sounds very interesting. Thank you in advance ^^
I'm on the spectrum and I feel the same way about authority. Because I'm free from mental constraints of the rest of society and able to flout authority without any self conscious doubt, I set out for the past couple decades to create a new set of rules for a new society. It's just a matter of finding a way to recruit people to this new order.
Your comment about deciding whether or not to do something when told totally makes sense as to why authority figures hate my guts, always wondered that, not gonna stop though.
@@BigJuice69 The foundational tenant of my philosophy is people of European descent are the creators and thus the inheritors of Western civilization and it's our authority to guide it in the direction that most favors our survival. Still down? ;)
This video couldn't have popped up in my reccomended tab at a better time. Just a few days ago while I was at work, for seemingly no reason I look up from what I'm doing to see one of my coworkers looking at me. And for whatever reason I was filled with this incredible flash of fear. It was bizarre.
Sarte is so deep. I like how you broke down this theory. I wonder if you wouldn't mind tackling his theory of hate in the same book. I'm having a hard wrapping my mind around it.
im a Allan Watts fan and really enjoy listening to his lectures, to me he makes a lot of sense. Now I have stumbled upon overthink and am enjoying your videos too. thx for taking the time to do this.
@@jysmtl In my experience, yes. Without going into details, Watts educated me about much of life that would be hard to overstate. History, philosophy, religions, and more. An approach to life that has been enriching. I find the Existentialists, including Sartre, bleak and downbeat. What you are left with is a kind of emptiness and despair. An almost oppressive absurdity of life. I recall hearing many years ago a lecture of Watts in which he mentioned the Existentialists. He said, “Watch out for them.” Implying that if you are not careful, they can lead you down a dark and dangerous path. At that point I had already read a bit of Sartre and some others. It left me cold. After hearing Watts comments about them I began to understand my reaction. I’m not saying don’t read Sartre, not at all. Study what you like. I only urge a kind of intellectual caution.
Excellent exposition of Sartre’s ideas. It’s interesting to note that the feeling of shame as described is a product of subjective error in that the subjective position is identified with the body-mind complex and its thoughts and feelings. This complex is itself objective to the subjective position. I “have” a body and mind with their perceptions, sensations, conceptions and emotions. I am aware of them as objects. Shame arises through a misapprehension of my actual subjective position by which an erroneous identification is made with what is objective. The “look” of the perceived “other” accentuates this error in that it highlights my own misidentify. This amounts to a diminution of subjectivity which is, in my point-of-view universe, that which is not an object, but rather A field of receptivity in which all objects arise.
So fantastic to finally put terminology to this phenomenon of the gaze or being' looked' at, the switch between being the looker and being looked at. Also the last idea about black in a 'white space'.. simply fascinating. I wonder if this also explains the psychology of imposter syndrome? Really insightful stuff, thank you!
First time watcher. Love it. I stopped your video to journal a little. I feel like the subject/object also has a strong relation to authority. When I speak with authority, it feels like subject me, but when I am recognizing authority, it is as object me. Of course, we need both to be functionally social. But I also extended it to the personal dilemma of finding meaning. As subject or object? I don't know yet. As to extra-human look givers, I will concede that my dog objectifies me.
great video, glad to see more inspection of B&N other than bad faith. It’s also interesting how much solipsism lingers in Sartres ideas even despite his attacking it quite heavily in the text.
Interesting. I'll think about it and work out my own version. One thing I might say, however, is that I've spent my life rarely connecting with people, but instead observing them. So when somebody looks at me and I don't know why, it's actually a pleasant experience to be the object for a change.
My subjective understanding of the function of 'emptiness', (in the context of Tibetan Buddhist Philosophy), is the method, whereby one's experience of the nature of being is 'toned down', in order to allow a co-relationship to occur, between self and other. As an example: during a domestic argument between a couple, say, if one participant opts to apologise, and take responsibility for the source of friction **, even temporarily, the other is allowed 'space' to vent and therefore, rest their 'fight or flight' response. This 'example', then allows the 'other protagonist' to regain their temper, and begin to communicate from a calmer and more generous part of themselves. (* see 'the Chimp paradox', by Professor Steven Peters). Equally, in the case of a random encounter with another person, we might challenge ourselves in a similar way. In his Book 'the heart of compassion', Dilgo Khyentse says: "Every person we meet, we do so as the result of shared experience over more than five hundred lifetimes",: and "Each person we encounter has been our Mother or we have been theirs in a previous life-time". Now, leaving aside the speculation as to the veracity of re-incarnation as a fact, these are actually highly effective attitudes to bring to a chance meeting in the present moment, so that if our approach is based on this supposition, suddenly, our internal dialogue is quietened out of curiosity, (again, temporarily), and a space of compassionate enquiry may occur. The other person, in my experience will almost always pick up on this quality of attention, and be made aware of it's unimaginable potentiality. * One need not fear the loss of our unique self/ view / outlook/ or customary line of Philosophical inquiry, in this process. These habitual thoughts, ideas, and responses will quickly return, after one has broadened the scope of awareness with a brief experiment.* ...** The main character, Matthieu Delarue in 'Roads to Freedom', often, does exactly this.
i was into existentialism for long time; philosophy in general. after 20 years of studying i have found that quantum physics is greater than philosophy in it's role in our existence. i am addicted now and rather confident it has brought me deeper into my mind than any philosophy. i suggest to all quantum physics/mechanics if you are interested in this experience called life
@@blaketheshepherd ooh that's a tough question actually. All quantum stuff is by nature counter intuitive; you are SUPPOSED to be confused. But to answer your question, everything begins with Superposition and Entanglement. I suggest your first inquiry be some UA-cam of the "double-slit experiment"
He is talking about ego, the image we make of yourselves. Seeing yourself and others as an object is a mechanical process. Meaning it is a thought which can only be in the past. You don't see people as they really are, you rather see an image of the past. This is separation of the ego.
A very interesting and informative video, despite now possibly holding the record for most misunderstood post on the Internet. Comments appear to be largely from that school of people who think that "begging the question" means "raising the question", and that Stephen Fry is an intellectual.
This is such an interesting topic, loved how such a complex philosophical idea was articulated perfectly! This has literally allowed me to understand how I feel around others vs being alone, thank you!x
great video, thanks for reminding me of this passage from being and nothingness. it also reminds me of two song lyrics: i am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together - j. lennon strangers passing on the street by chance two separate glances meet and i am you and what i see is me - r. waters
Oh, this is so interesting! I have that experience hearing my upstairs neighbors. And this dovetails with a few things in my therapy. Thank you for this!
I remember having a thought years ago which was founded in the belief that I couldn’t physically relinquish that “possession of self” as being the center for all things, and consent to another person to feel that same feeling, but wanting to be capable of this so badly and now I’m able to do so. It’s a very odd but empowering feeling to compare these perspectives.
@@auroraborealis13579 good question. I guess I just had it on my mind so often and as I grew up I was just more capable of wrapping my head around it. I’m not entirely sure?
Fascinating video Dr. Anderson. The duality of unlimited orientation and possibility vs. probability on observation seems very familiar. It seems akin to the particle/wave duality where the observed takes a known position in the distribution. I appreciate you triggering my imagination.
I personally get really uncomfortable when people look at me. So I can relate to his idea that we are masters of our own world when we are alone as the subjects of our reality. But as soon as another person steps in we become objects and it's fundamentally threatening to our freedom. Especially because we can get into power struggles over 'what we are'. If someone defines us as a bad person and we define ourselves as a good person there is an automatic battle over who's view is more correct. Who has the greater authority of judgement. I think it explains why sensitive people prefer to be alone. Because when your alone you are free to define yourself and to live freely in that definition.
🐱🚀🐱🚀
This is why I like god's way of seeing us, to god, everyone is valuable. We may do horrible things when young, but we deserve more chances to change, because we mean something to him and others and to ourselves. Our value is not something that can be changed, no matter how much people want to be above us or make us lower. Such people are still children.
It's also why delusional/stubborn people prefer to be alone lol
Great comment!
I know exactly what you mean... I get really uncomfortable when people look at you too. I wish you would stay home more. Sorry, couldn't resist... but I am seriously the same way.
i remember being 7 or 8, riding in the backseat of my mother's car. a stranger on the street locked eyes with me as we rode by. at that instant, i felt that we could exchange souls or bodies.... now, in my 70s, the boundaries between me and other people, dog, spiders, blocks of wood are all fading away. and, soon, i will fade away as well.
that’s beautiful
You are a water drop descending towards a body of water - you can view the water, as it is, and the water views you, as you are, but only for a fleeting moment before you are the body of water.
Existence is everywhen and everywhere - what may seem like empty space between you and I is not in fact empty or void of existence.
I feel that, with life and beyond the furtherance, there is no fading away, but a constant motion of existence.
@@thatonehoots Good answer.
*wish I could remember the name of the video, it's about children who remember things they shouldn't be able to; one kid describing a 'big man who opened a door so I could get out' -he was delivered via cesarean section by a tall doctor.
“There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
@@thatonehoots well said.
@sleethmitchell that’s interesting. I never had that experience as a child, but I have, as an adult. Thanks for sharing your story.
This helps me considerably to understand my social anxiety. It's very situational and I've never been able to quit put into words what triggers it. Oddly, it's not when people perceive me as an object. Contrary to the "shame" that Sartre talks about, I am comfortable with that. I am comfortable blending into the background as if I'm just part of the scenery. Or, to use an analogy of the gaming world, being a "non-player character". Like in the movie "Free Guy". It's when they elevate me to being a subject that I have difficulty, when they elevate me to player status. There is a different sort of expectation or judgment that goes with that.
This explanation made me think of our current technology, wherein virtual spaces like Facebook, Instagram, UA-cam, etc. are having the effect of transforming young people into 'objects' for others' gaze, as if their very personhood (or subjectivity) is on view as a 'brand,' a commercial entity, a consumer commodity. And then, the negative emotional effects of constantly 'needing' that attention, that outside validation of their inherent worth as a person.
It's as if they've lost their subjectivity in the electronic morass of object-hood presence. They've become dehumanized by an addictive technology, which cares not for the soul of man, but for its own proliferation which is monetized for profit.
Keep an eye out for a forthcoming podcast episode on "Influencers," in which we discuss this! You might also enjoy our episode on Zoom and self-objectification from 2021: www.overthinkpodcast.com/episodes/episode-11
The audio podcast has a lot more conversation and detail! Our UA-cam channel here is an offshoot :)
BINGO
@@marciasloan534 Wow! I was just going to reply the same...
@@marciasloan534 I think we've been thinking about this for a long time
Yes, you're right, the lady presenter is very attractive.
I get so excited when a theory I have on something is actually a real thing that somebody else thought too. It makes me know that I'm not alone in my deep introspection on the psyche. Very cool explanation of this theory I otherwise wouldn't know about.
Man I’m glad that this stuff has been written about and articulated, because I’ve felt this and thought about this a lot, without ever feeling like anybody else was realising the same thing
Nothing you will ever feel or think is truly original... whether that is comforting or horrifying depends on your mood and general temperament. It's like the saying "this too shall pass"
altough one might feel unique, we are anything but, any conceivable feeling, idea, situation we might experience was already lived thousands of time by others
@@bubbafug00gle51 Yeah, I guess it's loneliness, not originality. That being said, it's very possible to be original amongst the people you're around. In the history of all thought, nobody is really original, but in the scope of a sample of average people I believe it is very possible to have realisations others don't have.
@@prod.hxrford3896 I am sure that is true in some sense. It's definitely possible to be the first person to articulate feelings or ideas in a culturally unique way. Einstein's relativity theories being an example from science instead of philosophy.
I find it fascinating how i'll have these nebulous exisential thoughts only to realize later that it has been thoroughly examined and articulated by someone else. This is a perfect example where my struggle in the past has been seeing others as "objects" and thus realizing that I am nothing but objects to them as well. This creates that feeling of shame in Sartre's view as well as a feeling of insignificace.
So clearly explained. Sartre’s being-for-others is, I think, a key insight to understanding our contemporary world in which we are understood and understand ourselves primarily in terms of how others see us.
Ellie Anderson is brilliant. She never wastes a word, making the complex concise and understandable, even for laymen like me.
This video showed up in my UA-cam recommended page. I decided to give it a try and... I've binged watch all your videos on continental philosophy! You really have a gift of explaining complex ideas in a simple and clear way. It's also nice to see a fellow woman in mostly men dominated field. Great job and keep it up :)
@Ali Al-Mahdi hahahahaha! The thoughts of a man who can't get any because he is sick in the head.
@Ali Al-Mahdi Pls seek professional help....
@Ali Al-Mahdi you're just projecting bro, every one of your "women think that" can be replaced by "i think that"
Example :
Moreover, I think that bleeding reflects a deficiency, and that is why I see women as generally insecure, and as a result, I don't see them as capable beings worthy of engaging in societal affairs, so that's why I tend to see them as submissive!
@Ali Al-Mahdi You're diseased if creativity is called a disease.
@Ali Al-Mahdi bro! علوش! Are you okay my man! You seem to be having a lot of fun with LSDs, that's definitely not Ramesses' piss, homie!
I remember being a kid in my yard at home and seeing a girl from elementary school down the street walking with her family and not expecting to see her there. I was existing in the bubble of being at home, and at ease. When I saw her, I instantly felt like I was at school, and under the gaze of the entire classroom and no longer at ease. Basically, I was transported in spirit to my sort of habitual emotional alignment at school, which was different than my at home at rest state. I understood it because there was only one factor that made that happen, the act of seeing her and no longer feeling alone because of the potential of being seen back by her.
This is so intuitive! Because when I look through the screen into your eyes, you become the centre of my universe…
Emile your libido is bigger than your intellect
So where is your shame entering in?
This was great, glad I found this channel! Looking forward to watching more of your stuff!
Thank you for this video. I'm a nonnative speaker but my love for philosophy is beyond any language💖💖
I appreciate that there was no nonesense up top. She got straight into it and didnt waste my time.
I'm so glad I found your channel. You have such calmness and deep wisdom in your field of study. You are a great professor and I appreciate your message 🙏❤ . Thank you for your service to the awaking humanity.
I am learning about Sartre, and this lecture helps me immensely in understanding the subject! Thank you so much!
These are really difficult concepts to understand. Your videos make the really hard a bit easier. Thank you.
He's talking about going from a playable character to a non-playing character in the simulation, which changes with being observed versus observing, Observing is active, playable. Being observed is passive, non-playable. It's that helplessness in suspense stories when the viewpoint character feels watched, stalked. Power drains, fear builds.
I feel that there are many leaps of thought in this reasoning. The thinking goes linearly, and no alternatives seem to be explored. "I am an object of a gaze and my sense of self completely collapses. (....) my subjectivity vanishes. (...) Feeling of being an object circles shame". How are these things supposed to follow from one another? To me it could be quite the contrary. For example: "I am an object of a gaze and my sense of self completely collapses." - the sense of self is, on the contrary, built and strengthened through the eyes of the beholder(s). We get to, moreover, know ourselves and our place and agency in the world more readily through the eyes of others.
He hated himself for lusting after children. Every axiom starts at misanthropy
I love your videos Professor Anderson! You're really good at explaining concepts. Looking forward to reading your paper 💜
Thanks especially for the link to the article, expanding on this. I really look forward to reading it.
The subject/object feeling is artificially created by thought. Douglas Harding in his book "On having No Head" says: we see our image in a mirror 3 feet away, turn it around, place it on our shoulders and take it to be ourselves. Further, our parents give us a name and our personality coalesces around it. In a Zen kensho experience, the subject object dichotomy disappears.
In neuroscience, it is the left hemisphere that thinks and the right hemisphere is the holistic. I realize that this is an over simplification. But when we live from our senses more than from our thoughts, we enter this holistic way of being in the world.
Wow I switched these without even knowing, now I look rather than feeling of being looked at and I tell you it's Soo relaxing, even wen I feel like the object of the look, am still able to at from my subject point and what a wonder to behold. Namastê
You explain a very complex subject in such a clear way. It reminds me of my philosophy teacher, she was one of the best teachers i've ever had. thankfully in my school we had a k-12 program that included philosophy and music since kindegarten. i arrived at seventh grade but i'm still thankful for all the skill it has given me in my life, now that i'm "transitioning" to adulthood. i'm glad that this video randomly played while i was doing my chores, this seems like a great podcast. :)
Thank you ..clear and crisp, handling complexity with grace.
Sartre's view on shame is pretty mind blowing, glad I stumbled upon this video and channel 👍
Tuned in for some overthinking - wasn't disappointed. I'm generally oblivious to other humans but I manage to bumble through life with a pleasant demeanor.
health and wellness to you Prof. Anderson. decades ago I was in the milieu of Logic and Philosophy and Greek mythology... fascinating disciplines!
Very interesting concept to know about. Thank you for making this video.
No shade, This is one of the coolest channels I've found in years. New, but immediate big fan.
I'm surprised the professor didn't draw a parallel to how Sartre's concept of The Gaze relates to existing within a State. You *are* an object, now and forever. If that guy over there isn't looking at you that way, it's only because he feels an appointee is handling the responsibility. "Hey, I'm no cop. We got cameras."
One side of the coin for this world. Not sure if with 'State' you only refer to the system of control, anyway this is not the only program running.
Capitalism figured out profit can be made from subject desiring, marketing cashes in on the subject-object perception split. Social media inherited traditional art's place for capitalising on subjects' creativity. Reminding you that you can really 'be understood', so do try expressing yourself. "Don't waste ideas, we got space"
Your videos are outstanding, and your teaching skills are amazing. I analyze your style and incorporate it into my own pedagogical approach.
I feel this as I transition from working quite isolated to being around a lot of people from day to day
So glad you showed the picture of the grass, bench and tree otherwise I wouldn’t have understood what you meant.
Wow. Quite a bit to think about tonight before bed. Thank you for spreading the opportunity for personal insight and a different perspective on others.
UA-cam’s algorithm can’t be all evil if it recommended your channel. Subscribed!
This was a very positive video and I enjoyed the insight it provided! I also thoroughly appreciated Dr. Anderson's reading of Sartre's interpretation of 'the look' and adding her understanding of it. This is a great video and I can't wait to see more :)
I'm looking at U😍
Im studying english and her tongue and speaking is very good to understand and practice my listening! And i like so much philosophie, specially ancient greeks, and medieval Fathers... Perfect! Lets start! Hard working! 😎👍
Agree with Sappho and others. These are exceptionally well-organized and intelligently presented talks. Good work Ellie. I always enjoy seeing someone who's good at what they do.
Very nice evaluation of Sartre. I feel that Sartre failed to take curiosity into account. I can easily see how Sartre's gaze, taken from Sartre's point of view, can be used to divide the races and genders. Such a shame. Personally I believe that curiosity trumps fear.
Excellent comment.
or even love - though i believe that curiosity is a component of love
@@user-ph6we3bz6b That's an interesting thought
It's this "Personally I believe..." That gets-in-the-way. Spock would never say "Personally I believe..." Nevertheless, you have proven that Romanticism can never 100 percent be factored-out of our Consciousness. All Human Beings, even Ludwig Wittgenstein (ha), is a Subject and he is Personal... Same for Yuval Noah Harari...Sam Harris...even though Harari and Harris profess that they "see" no "I" for themselves but are 100 percent Observational Empirical Buddhists.
This sounds a great deal like an immature personality. We aren't genuinely threatened by the presence of others, we see every day the spectrum of how individuals cope with the presence of other people.
Overthink is an apt description for this material.
Self conscious vs. Confidence is what you just described from my perspective.
This is the clearest explanation of Sartre I've heard, thanks!
great stuff, thanks!
I could only imagine that endless feedback loop he must have felt when you have one of those very deep, heart to heart conversations that always seem to go into the wee hours of the morning because they're so enjoyably intense! For me, when I get into this situation, I start feeling; WOW, this person is me and I am them, or we are one! No shame, no intimidation, no guilt, just pure mind boggling amazement that we almost feel inseparable when engaging in such a deep, intimate way. Both subject and object. both observer and the observed without the sense of being either one or the other, for just a magical moment in time!
Agreed, accepting we are mammals and allowing that feeling of an 'undifferentiated us' in a moment of abandon is an integral part of the mystery of being human. It's been a long time since I grappled with Sartre, but he seems very Apollonian in this case!
Dude, the world needs more Content Creators like you & fewer TikTok BS in general
The death of possibilities on observation by an outsider is VERY similar to wave function collapse in quantum physics. Great stuff.
This was super interesting, it gave me a lot to think about. I'm in my last undergraduate year at uni, and I just started writing for a research proposal that compares different ontologies, which I think relates to Sarte. Initially, I started with a tension that exists between Husserl and Frege, which basically begins with Frege's review of Husserl's 'Philosophy of Arithmetic', (his work that came prior to 'logical investigations').
In Philosophy of Arithmetic, Husserl's position is to try and define what a totality is as it relates to our conception of number. His argument is that a totality is a multiplicity of particulars which has a unique identity with its own unique content, and in this unique content we find a unity. A unity is a continuum which we may represent numerically: two apples, three apples, etc. We are able to do this because of their unity of multiplicity, that is, because we quantify a particular identity again and again. I.e, the numbers 'two' and 'three' are the multiplicity of the unity of particulars that consists of the unique content of 'apples'.
Frege's position in regards to Husserl, is basically that as we further expand on a given thing external to ourselves, it becomes increasingly more abstract and subjective as opposed to objective, (Frege thinks the original conception of a thing is objective because it is the starting point upon which prior 'determinations' led to that conception), (this is sought of how sense-datum became a hot topic I think). An example he gives is where he asks us to imagine two cats sitting in a room, one cat is white, the other is black. Imagine those cats are colorless, what do they look like in the room? Can they still be imagined? Now continue this process of removing more qualities. Imagine that they have no bodies, and that there is no room, and try and see if there are still two cats. Frege says it is still possible to imagine that there are two cats, despite the fact that we have removed many of their qualities. The reason for this is because we have obtained the general concept of the cat, by continuously representing them, which leads to abstraction and hence more subjectivity. Frege thinks that our ability to represent things numerically then, has nothing to do with the unique particular content of our numerical representations as such.
So on one end we have Husserl who thinks that we can begin from this particular subjective position that can be objectively represented whereas Frege thinks this is the wrong way to think about it, rather, the 'object' in the case of numerical representation is actually prior to the subject.
So who is correct, Husserl or Frege? Also, I think this tension is relevant to Sartre, because if Frege is correct, then this flips the script about how objectivity is viewed, but if Husserl is correct, Sartre makes way more sense to me, and I think Sartre's description of objective and subjective is quite humanistic and sincere. But I can't say I'm ontologically certain about any of these concepts a priori. I probably just need to read more... Sorry for the messy explanation.
see Monty Python,
why not Heidegger?
I like that idea of possibilities vs probablities. I think this is why it’s so satisfying to prove people wrong when they underestimate you. Your possibilities have trumped their probabilities. It’s honestly one of the best feelings in the world.
This channel is well named. Overthink indeed.
Sartre was no great philosopher, but an archetype of French intellectualism spun out of control. He was dangerous. His work could be a guidebook on how to achieve mental illness. He will mess with your head if you allow it.
Georges Simenon had great contempt for Sartre’s ideas. Simenon was a great artist.
When I was much younger, for years I regularly tied myself in emotional knots, obsessing about how people looked at me or what they might say about me. I really suffered from that! But eventually I matured, got stronger, and grew a thicker skin.
This video has taught me one thing. Now I know where the millennial/Gen Z notions of micro-aggressions, being triggered, and feeling threatened by a word, an idea, or even someone’s name comes from. The children of Sartre and the Existentialists. What a legacy!
what are you on about
Excellent, very well displayed concept of the Look by Sartre: clear, precise, and just fun to watch, thanks!!
The explanation given is extremely simple. Extremely enriching !
When I was an atheist I felt this so strongly that I couldn't maintain some friendships. Turning the gaze on yourself can sometimes even flip to the object orientation which induces existential dread and "nausea". This was what life felt like all the time to me. The possibilities of what I might be as a object to another person (or even in reality) were completely unknown to me and yet felt threateningly limiting. Now that I believe in God, I don't have this feeling at all. When you feel the gaze of God you are both subject and limitless object, even more full of possibility to God than you are to yourself. Then when others perceive you, it doesn't affect you in any way at all. Your self is stable, unaffected by additional observers, yet full of infinite possibility. It's not an idea or a concept, it's a physically felt and richly experienced reality. God is closer to me than I am to myself.
Very panentheist
@@BioChemistryWizard interesting that it read that way. I'm actually just theist. I'm a Christian.
@@AnastasiaR Pantheism /=/ Panentheism. Panentheism Christianity is a thing but most Christians dont think like that. Its just interesting the way you explained it.
@@BioChemistryWizard Oh yes, I know what panentheism is. There was a step in my journey where I got really into consciousness research and neuroscience which is getting eerily panentheist-sounding these days. It was a bridge to other things for me. I'm not a panentheist though.
@@AnastasiaR I know what you mean. The problem of consciousness seems to invoke "God" a lot these days. But I dont know what that means.
This is all over my head but you are captivating
thank you for this excellent video,
on the technical side: there are hardly any cuts, you go through it so easily,
you seem so much inside your field, that it leaves me speechless
I understand the sentiment of feeling "limited" or "encumbered" in being perceived by others. The phrase I used to use was being "beholden." I eventually concluded that the desire to be the sole perceiver from the outside was narcissistic and avoidant in nature. Reality belongs to all, and there is a strength and relief in giving yourself to other's for the enrichment of their experience and vice versa.
This is so engaging and well presented! So glad I found this channel! Thank you
"the inability to see myself as others see me" is the root of my anxiety.
But I think the social constructs we have around expression color how any particular "look" makes you feel. Are they smiling? Are they waving? Are they squinting? Are they making a rude gesture? Do they quickly look away? Do they stare directly into your eyes? Do they give you the up-down full body scan?
You mentioned the racial component and that matters. Is the person the same race as you? The same gender? The same height? Dressed in a way that implies they are part of your socioeconomic class?
There are so many things that can influence how you feel.
But, agreed that we can never "know" what they think or feel. We can be told the truth and we can contemplate it, but we can only ever experience our own self, at least for now.
Also, subbing to this channel because of this video.
That's a great explanation for what I (we) have perceived, but never consciously thought out. Thank you.
The realization that we aren’t along and the realization knowing others know of our presence does change our perspective and our experience. But it’s up to you to control your perspective and experience. We aren’t alone, deal with it.
Yup. Convoluted ideas for narcissists to keep themselves in isolation. I’ve been there. Then I realized that only together does the “world-go-round”.
Thank you for providing a crystal clear explanation.
This feels strangely like a missing scene from Annie Hall. Joking aside, I can relate to this in part when I travel on the bus and you sit looking forward and are not sure if the person in the opposite row of seats are looking at you or not.
In some ways this reminds me a lot of RD Laings The Politics of Experience where he explores how we cannot see ourselves through the eyes of another, how we cannot know their experience of us.
As an autistic person I did and still do see myself as equal to everyone else, as people. It still gets me in trouble when meeting people with more education and anyone in authority. If I am interested in a subject I will explore it and have read new things that educated people in a particular subject have not learned, which instead of exciting them, actually irritates them. When someone in authority tells me to do something, they can see me pondering it, which also irritates them. I don't follow laws or rules because I have to. I do so out of kindness, orderliness, or love. Like many autistic people, I created my own social contract with society. I was just blessed to not have created a sociopathic contract which makes everyone else something to be used, as many scientists and business people have done. I can feel shame, but I try to remember that others do too, so I try to be a gentleman and not make them uncomfortable. I used to hate my autism and naivety, but it has made me a more caring person to others and myself.
OMG I do the same. I don't know if I am in the spectrum or not, but I life is easier if I think I am. So going back to to the topic, I always feel that I am the one who is observing, and trying to grasp all the information I can, at the point that I forget that I am being seen also hahaha. Can you please explain a little bit about that you created your own social contract with society? That sounds very interesting. Thank you in advance ^^
I'm on the spectrum and I feel the same way about authority. Because I'm free from mental constraints of the rest of society and able to flout authority without any self conscious doubt, I set out for the past couple decades to create a new set of rules for a new society. It's just a matter of finding a way to recruit people to this new order.
@@Aeimos I'm down
Your comment about deciding whether or not to do something when told totally makes sense as to why authority figures hate my guts, always wondered that, not gonna stop though.
@@BigJuice69 The foundational tenant of my philosophy is people of European descent are the creators and thus the inheritors of Western civilization and it's our authority to guide it in the direction that most favors our survival. Still down? ;)
What a great delivery and such clarity. I hope to listen to many more of Prof. Anderson's lessons.
One gaze from the other can make one feel wholly devoured, extinguished, owned, possessed, transformed, displaced. It's all in the look.
I find it so compelling and vital to delving into this type of introspection
This video couldn't have popped up in my reccomended tab at a better time. Just a few days ago while I was at work, for seemingly no reason I look up from what I'm doing to see one of my coworkers looking at me. And for whatever reason I was filled with this incredible flash of fear. It was bizarre.
Sarte is so deep. I like how you broke down this theory. I wonder if you wouldn't mind tackling his theory of hate in the same book. I'm having a hard wrapping my mind around it.
An excellent explanation of this concept. Thank you.
im a Allan Watts fan and really enjoy listening to his lectures, to me he makes a lot of sense. Now I have stumbled upon overthink and am enjoying your videos too. thx for taking the time to do this.
Alan Watts is far superior. In fact, he frequently called the Existentialists “dangerous.”
@@odietamo9376 “superior”!?
@@jysmtl In my experience, yes. Without going into details, Watts educated me about much of life that would be hard to overstate. History, philosophy, religions, and more. An approach to life that has been enriching. I find the Existentialists, including Sartre, bleak and downbeat. What you are left with is a kind of emptiness and despair. An almost oppressive absurdity of life. I recall hearing many years ago a lecture of Watts in which he mentioned the Existentialists. He said, “Watch out for them.” Implying that if you are not careful, they can lead you down a dark and dangerous path. At that point I had already read a bit of Sartre and some others. It left me cold. After hearing Watts comments about them I began to understand my reaction. I’m not saying don’t read Sartre, not at all. Study what you like. I only urge a kind of intellectual caution.
Thank you so much Professor ! ! I am really grateful for the subtitles since English is not my first language. Your channel is so underrated~💙
Thank you for a lucid and engaging talk. Tank you for the link to your Philosophy Today paper.
Excellent exposition of Sartre’s ideas. It’s interesting to note that the feeling of shame as described is a product of subjective error in that the subjective position is identified with the body-mind complex and its thoughts and feelings. This complex is itself objective to the subjective position. I “have” a body and mind with their perceptions, sensations, conceptions and emotions. I am aware of them as objects. Shame arises through a misapprehension of my actual subjective position by which an erroneous identification is made with what is objective. The “look” of the perceived “other” accentuates this error in that it highlights my own misidentify. This amounts to a diminution of subjectivity which is, in my point-of-view universe, that which is not an object, but rather A field of receptivity in which all objects arise.
Fascinating. I am going to get Being and Nothingness right away.
Thank you. Wonderful way of explaining concepts. I'm Italian but I can understand your American English with no effort.
👏👏👏
So fantastic to finally put terminology to this phenomenon of the gaze or being' looked' at, the switch between being the looker and being looked at. Also the last idea about black in a 'white space'.. simply fascinating. I wonder if this also explains the psychology of imposter syndrome? Really insightful stuff, thank you!
Also, being white in a "black space" (or being a minority for that matter)
First time watcher. Love it. I stopped your video to journal a little. I feel like the subject/object also has a strong relation to authority. When I speak with authority, it feels like subject me, but when I am recognizing authority, it is as object me. Of course, we need both to be functionally social. But I also extended it to the personal dilemma of finding meaning. As subject or object? I don't know yet.
As to extra-human look givers, I will concede that my dog objectifies me.
Clear, concise, instructive, excellent 😘
great video, glad to see more inspection of B&N other than bad faith. It’s also interesting how much solipsism lingers in Sartres ideas even despite his attacking it quite heavily in the text.
You have a great speaking voice. I hope your channel keeps getting bigger!
Thanks for the article.
Thank you so much! This was such a good prep for my lecture! The reading on this broke my brain a little hah
I loved Being and Nothingness, was the first philosophy text I ever read cover to cover some years ago, got a copy on my dresser as we speak.
Interesting. I'll think about it and work out my own version. One thing I might say, however, is that I've spent my life rarely connecting with people, but instead observing them. So when somebody looks at me and I don't know why, it's actually a pleasant experience to be the object for a change.
I love listening to you!
My subjective understanding of the function of 'emptiness', (in the context of Tibetan Buddhist Philosophy), is the method, whereby one's experience of the nature of being is 'toned down', in order to allow a co-relationship to occur, between self and other. As an example: during a domestic argument between a couple, say, if one participant opts to apologise, and take responsibility for the source of friction **, even temporarily, the other is allowed 'space' to vent and therefore, rest their 'fight or flight' response. This 'example', then allows the 'other protagonist' to regain their temper, and begin to communicate from a calmer and more generous part of themselves. (* see 'the Chimp paradox', by Professor Steven Peters). Equally, in the case of a random encounter with another person, we might challenge ourselves in a similar way. In his Book 'the heart of compassion', Dilgo Khyentse says: "Every person we meet, we do so as the result of shared experience over more than five hundred lifetimes",: and "Each person we encounter has been our Mother or we have been theirs in a previous life-time". Now, leaving aside the speculation as to the veracity of re-incarnation as a fact, these are actually highly effective attitudes to bring to a chance meeting in the present moment, so that if our approach is based on this supposition, suddenly, our internal dialogue is quietened out of curiosity, (again, temporarily), and a space of compassionate enquiry may occur. The other person, in my experience will almost always pick up on this quality of attention, and be made aware of it's unimaginable potentiality. * One need not fear the loss of our unique self/ view / outlook/ or customary line of Philosophical inquiry, in this process. These habitual thoughts, ideas, and responses will quickly return, after one has broadened the scope of awareness with a brief experiment.* ...** The main character, Matthieu Delarue in 'Roads to Freedom', often, does exactly this.
i was into existentialism for long time; philosophy in general. after 20 years of studying i have found that quantum physics is greater than philosophy in it's role in our existence. i am addicted now and rather confident it has brought me deeper into my mind than any philosophy. i suggest to all quantum physics/mechanics if you are interested in this experience called life
Can you link me something for beginners?
@@blaketheshepherd ooh that's a tough question actually. All quantum stuff is by nature counter intuitive; you are SUPPOSED to be confused. But to answer your question, everything begins with Superposition and Entanglement. I suggest your first inquiry be some UA-cam of the "double-slit experiment"
Can you give me a photo of a sub atomic particle
Until then
NOT REAL
@@off6848 there is no subatomic particle; there is only a wave until it is observed. Your comment fully displays your ignorance to the subject
@@brownriceprod nope you’re right where I want you.
Now show me a wave
this was so well put together, amazing video
He is talking about ego, the image we make of yourselves. Seeing yourself and others as an object is a mechanical process. Meaning it is a thought which can only be in the past. You don't see people as they really are, you rather see an image of the past. This is separation of the ego.
Very now nice. Great job! Thank you
I enjoyed this ! Thank you ,Professor Anderson ,for making these videos available !
A very interesting and informative video, despite now possibly holding the record for most misunderstood post on the Internet. Comments appear to be largely from that school of people who think that "begging the question" means "raising the question", and that Stephen Fry is an intellectual.
This is brilliant - thank you for posting it.
This is such an interesting topic, loved how such a complex philosophical idea was articulated perfectly!
This has literally allowed me to understand how I feel around others vs being alone, thank you!x
Interesting how many of you left comments that are almost the same. It's quite obvious the whole comment section for this video is fake
So glad I stumbled upon your channel!
Wonderful! Thank you for explaining the look.
great video, thanks for reminding me of this passage from being and nothingness. it also reminds me of two song lyrics:
i am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together
- j. lennon
strangers passing on the street
by chance two separate glances meet
and i am you and what i see is me
- r. waters
Oh, this is so interesting! I have that experience hearing my upstairs neighbors. And this dovetails with a few things in my therapy. Thank you for this!
GREAT JOB -- I LOVED YOU IN FIRESTARTER AND I LOVE YOUR NEW CHAT SHOW
I remember having a thought years ago which was founded in the belief that I couldn’t physically relinquish that “possession of self” as being the center for all things, and consent to another person to feel that same feeling, but wanting to be capable of this so badly and now I’m able to do so. It’s a very odd but empowering feeling to compare these perspectives.
I’m curious! How did you become able to do so?? 🧐
@@auroraborealis13579 good question. I guess I just had it on my mind so often and as I grew up I was just more capable of wrapping my head around it. I’m not entirely sure?
@@Geist1 thanks. I guess sometimes just being aware of something helps an issue just work itself out. 💁🏻♀️🤞🏻🫶🏼
Fascinating video Dr. Anderson. The duality of unlimited orientation and possibility vs. probability on observation seems very familiar. It seems akin to the particle/wave duality where the observed takes a known position in the distribution. I appreciate you triggering my imagination.
Amazing idea for a series. Can't wait to delve into this.