Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 вер 2024
- Philosophize This! Clips: / @philosophizethisclips
Get more:
Website: www.philosophi...
Patreon: / philosophizethis
Find the podcast:
Apple: podcasts.apple...
Spotify: open.spotify.c...
RSS: www.philosophiz...
Be social:
Twitter: / iamstephenwest
Instagram: / philosophizethispodcast
TikTok: / philosophizethispodcast
Facebook: / philosophizethisshow
Thank you for making the show possible. 🙂
This helped me a lot to prep for a lecture I'm giving on Foucault, because you give a create overview.
Dear Mr West, thanks from Italy!!! I'm studying english and your transcriptions are very useful, even if your speaking is really clear. I can read while listening, it helps me a lot. Studying english is not boring anymore, because I can listen about my favourite subject.
I wonder what Foucault would have to say about the Capitalistic surveillance created for giving users a "tailored experience"......
galaxy brained comment, please write a black mirror episode off this concept.
I mean, I'm sure we can all imagine what he might say if he were alive. Ofcourse technology was always going to be used to determine the perfect commodity for us, to keep us participating in, and becoming cops reinforcing these systems.
but this is more about judge judy and COPS
Kafkaesque big tech panopticon. Our brave new world
theres a book by byung chul han which takes some of foucault’s concepts of the panopticon and biopolitics and uses it to analyse modern big tech. its called ‘psycho-politics’
Excellent stuff, as always. I guess I'm in the minority here but my heart started racing at the end of last episode when you mentioned fleshing out the ideas of (later) Wittgenstein and Heidegger to set the stage. I've never heard them mentioned together before but after reading both of their later works, I saw so many connections. These connections are ridiculously exciting to me but I have the hardest time actually articulating them into something coherent and sensible (I think maybe because their methodologies were so different) so I was really, really looking forward to hearing you talk about both of them. Maybe I'm the only one who feels this way, but if you ever end up making this episode, I'll be over the moon. Please, please reconsider. 💓
Fuck that fucking Nazi.
@@jonathanogden3519 What do Heidegger's philosophical ideas have to do with Nazism? Nothing. He started his philosophical career before the NSDAP even existed and even prominent Jewish philosophers like Hannah Arendt and Hubert Dreyfus derive a lot of value from his works. Even if you think his philosophical ideas are utter trash or that they shouldn't be taken seriously because he was a Nazi, refusing to learn about them would deprive one of the context needed to understand many other developments in philosophy in the 20th century. Don't let hate turn into ignorance.
I'm part of this minority. Such a shame, and for what? Some phony 'philosophers' sent a bunch of emails. I'm actually considering stopping with the podcast from here.
I see the connection brtween the two in yerms of restarting the whole philosophical enterprise. Heidegger revisited the thoughtforms of the preSocratics; L.W. returned to "what do we mean by what we say."
Damn, this is much better than I expected. Around the 24 minutes mark, yikes. I feel like a mechanical ant now. Time to clock in for work...
I think this is your best episode. I've heard them all.
I am a huge fan of this show and I know that it will be a great day when I see a new episode got released, but I dislike your decision to change your original plans (Wittgenstein and Heidegger).
If you deem it necessary to take a step back and give us a good foundation for future episodes then you should do so, no matter what other people say.
I fear that it will lead to problems in the future when you want to point out certain developements and you are unable to do so because we lack the backround information.
"We're all chained to the rhythm", Foucault, Michel
i want to hear this 90s house song
"No one man should have all that power" - Kanye Foucault
Doesn’t Foucault says “soul” not mind.
You made an abstruse article easy to understand and thought provoking! TY!!!!!
"baby birds the burrito supreme back into his mouth." What an epic quote. It's near the 25 minute mark.
the famous Fuckall, best philisophers name ever haha
Once someone said to me that true freedom can be found only within limitations, or walls. I answered that if I am to live in a cage, I want to build it myself.
Seriously disappointed that you didn’t follow your plan to work through Wittgenstein and Heidegger
Like buses, these episodes - you wait and wait and then three come along. Thank you.
Jesus' mother of Christ... scary stuff.
This podcast is the best EVER. I've heard all episodes twice and I'm now revisiting some to help me while I write my Master's thesis.
I hope to be financially rich one day soon and give Stephen West a MASSIVE cash donation.
It's coming, brother! It's coming...
Who is steven west?
2 years later. Is it here yet? ;)
This seems obvious to me. Am I missing something? Surely most philosophy is not describing the intuitive.
You might say philosophy is always describing the 'intuitive' to make sense of the 'intuitive' for it then becomes knowledge
Hey Steven! I just endorsed you on a Wisecrack channel so they would do a collab with you! I also donated today because I value what yo do! I would loce to see some short videos animated explainer videos narrated by you. It's not that I don't enjoy your current format but that is what sells on this market of 'infotainment'. Which would sell your longer videos in the up-sale phase. Thank you soo much for your hard work each and every week!
i'm curious... what do you think Foucault would say about the latest trend of right and left leaders like Maduro, Bolsonaro, Trump and their firm positions against science.
and even before that... what would he say about the rise of this huge bunch of non scientifical views?
of course there's a side to be celebrated in our era which is: people are not adhering to all the norms blindly... but they are adhering to most and being maneuvered by their impressions of what it means to be a good person by doing the dirty job of those mofos, going into whatever is the direct reverse/opposite side of those norms like a spoiled child that had never got any attention from their parents... and it's actually pretty funny (dramatically/ironically funny) that both sides are using the same narrative of media victims.
it's a transitional point but... well, i'm curious to know your insights! thanks for the quality material
This totally blew my mind lol. Excellent episode 😎👍
I have never commented on a UA-cam video before, but I absolutely loved this! I'm learning about Foucault in my class and this video helped so much. Foucault is explained in an easy way with wonderful examples. I will be watching more. Hoping there is a Derrida video.
Whaaaat! Triple threat day boys!
Power must surveil, conceal, and manipulate to maintain advantage. Power’s greatest enemy is public knowledge.
Thank you for this very thorough and intelligible breakdown of his arguments.
11:57 12:01
You will never see a channel like mine!
I go LIVE everyday and you can ask me anything you like, I answer all questions with no filters.
I am looking for people to discuss everything with, come hang out with me and discover something about yourself.
Social Contract notwithstanding, the relationship between leadership and people evolved into a more rational kinship, paternal, type of relationship.A relationship built on common moral values . Punishment is a correction not an exercise in cruelty that ultimately alienates leaders from the masses. As always power is the wedge between groups that ensures power over those without it. That is the history of civilization and failure most often assures power in the fewest hands possible to start up yet again should cooperation become necessary and it always becomes necessary because the powerful are also in competition wirh each other.
Excellent! So helpful and explained in a really clear and concise manner.
1961 Histoire de la folie à l'âge classique - Folie et déraison (Paris: Plon, 1961)
This is gonna be a good one
Speaking of “Billy the Kid”, or “Bonney and Clyde”: Did the inhabitants of the South West, where Billy the Kid, and his gang rode, shooting up places and killing other citizens mythologize him, and others like him; or “Bonney and Clyde”-did the citizens they directly affected mythologize them? How about the “James Gang?” I would would argue that the romanization of these outlaws increased the farther away from their criminal acts the viewer is from them.
We can mythologize them from the safe distance of 1000 miles, or 150 years or, even, 25years. There’s no problem with me looking at them as some anti-system heroes, because neither myself, nor my family nor friends, can be directly affected by their destructive activities.
Do I, however, look at the hold-up man who robs the local Taco-Bell, slaps around, or shoots, an innocent clerk (male or female); and, when they’re not engaged in that anti-system activity, mugs, or assaults, those less strong than them walking on the street? Does Mr. Foucault really believe I’m going to mythologize them for the struggle against the system? If he does, he’s dead wrong. I want those SOBs locked up, and the key thrown away, and, if, while imprisoned, they break any one of the three rules! throw them in the “cooler”-or whatever the special punishment is.
Miller Dorothy White Betty Young Cynthia
I really enjoyed this video. I found the things you discussed very interesting. Thank you.
I was sent here by Joe Rogan and Bryan Callen.
They mentioned this channel? Cool!
My birthday is today thanks for coming back :)
Joshua H happy birthday
Dam this is one the best episodes
You presented Foucault's argument way more clearly than he did! Or perhaps you actually filled in the gaps in his argument...
I found the whole book trivial. Yes, we live in a society and any society needs rules, and a rule is not a rule if it can be ignored. In an ideal society we ought to discuss and agree to those rules, and then police ourselves. If someone doesn't feel that those rules are likely to work out for them, then they will break them: and we need surveillance to detect and prevent those that break the rules for their own ends. If enough of us don't want to play by the rules then we may have to look at changing the rules: that is a completely separate issue to whether the rules should be followed, of course the rules should be followed, the more surveillance the better. I did not sense any alternative suggestions from Foucalt, as I do not think there are any. Society = rules. Rules = surveillance/detection/policing/punishment.
Cannot agree more completely. Foucault was delusional and like some crazy painters or artists was given heaps of praise for being incoherent in a possibly deep way.
THIS IS EXCELLENT IVE BEEN STRUGGLING TO UNDERSTAND THIS BOOK FOR AGES BRILLIANT ANALYSIS
29:01 31:23 17:30 22:50 (argument) 20:27
Thank you Steve for the great episode!
I couldn't help but notice, the words prison, and trap were brought up very often. These words embody with it, -ve connotations; hinting that we exist in an adverse society that is getting worse (i.e. people are enslaved into becoming good, tax paying citizens). What is important to establish here, is that there is no distinction between a home and a prison; being trapped and belonging. These are words are merely used to describe the exact same situation, but through the lens of different perspectives.
For example, a person that is raised in a loving family may call their house, a home; while another person that is raised in poverty with domestic violence may call their house a prison. Someone who is working a bad job, may call that environment a trap; while another, that is enjoying their work may feel a sense of belonging.
So, while it is true that there is much adverse and unintended consequences in society; we must not forget that this method of conditioning has resulted in tremendous progress in society such as air-travel, healthcare and media. Is society today a prison or a home? probably a bit of both.
Therefore, decision makers need to get together to think about how to make progress from here. Do we still need more technological advancements, more AI, more media, more consumerism? Or do policies need to be re-scoped so as to allow mankind to be more human.
As Einstein said "Many of the things we can count, don't count. Many of the things we can't count, really count".
We live in a prison society.
i find your channel to be extremely helpful.
thank you for your efforts!
Whats the rush. Agree
Also, the “9 times out of 10” figure you give for a man robbing a burrito stand would no longer stand in many major cities, at least in the US.
Thank you for this amazing lecture. I'd just point out that it's important that you mention that people who hold power have a racial, gender and sexual identity. To me, social norms are actually white heterosexual rich men who have to power to dictates what kind of human performance is normal or abnormal. And that definitely has a different impact on the daily lives of people from marginalized groups.
So by this presentation, Foucault is telling us what tactics ruling elites use to maintain control in a society, evolves. Giorgio Agamben, who might be considered to follow in Foucault's footsteps says that 2020 (in as many words) a new tactic for societal control is being implemented: biosecurity. Our rulers no longer resort to threats of invading armies (as they did during the Cold War) or threats of terrorism (the GWOT) but now it is the threat of disease, real or fictitious that now is being used to usurp civil liberties w/o barely a peep of protest.
autonomies.org/2020/05/giorgio-agamben-biosecurity-and-politics/
Don't be a whistleblower (Manning). Don't publish secret documents (Assange). Just eat.
Loved it. So…. Our own rebellion might be just normalizing too!
Honestly the best philosophy channel on UA-cam - Academy of Ideas is also a close 2nd.
I have not had any formal training in philosophy so I apologise if I fail to use the correct language but I have been looking into this after having a conversation with someone who fancies themselves a philosopher.
I was telling him that my opinion was that we are practically justified in not accepting or even dismissing arguments if any of the premises can not be verified. And I do not mean just unverified but premises that are defined in such a way as to be unverifiable such as supernatural or metaphysical claims. My question to this guy was how could these arguments ever be useful in reality and he basically laughed me off as parroting long debunked empiricism and positivism but never addressed the issue of practical value.
Could someone explain to me how arguments of this type could ever have practical value and what the consequence in reality would be for dismissing them?
Muy bueno. Thank you.
Brilliant
27:38 does anyone knows on what page in book is this written on? thankss. need it ASAP
Any chance of getting the late Heidegger/Wittgenstein episode? I was super excited to hear it
'Freakin Awesome.' Sure wish we could see you speak as well!
Thank you! :)
Panopticon is the evolved form of religion.
Great stuff, video with the audio would be icing on the cake
You sound exactly lke somone else we all know.
Huggs
Love you.
I still don't know what an Amazon banner is xD How come half of this series isn't on UA-cam? Like plato and aristotle.
15:00
How do I know what's is to be human being.
Is this book a philosophy book?
I always listened to these using my podcast app, but didn't realize Steve had a youtube channel! I so love his podcasts.
Wow man i get real nostalgia listening to this podcast! Like it instantly brings me back to a certain time
great show. Thank you so much
sounds like joe rogan
Amazing episode
Great. Thanks!
With all due respect to the effort, too much of the subtlety of Discipline and Punish is lost in this presentation (to the point of it being sometimes misleading), I'd suggest anyone to read the actual book.
When is next podcast?
I love you
Thank you for this ✨
Amazing Great job!
fascinating!
Where is episode episode 1
This was so good. have to buy this book asap
Don't. This was way better than the book.
Excellent
GSOL
Yaas!! MOAR MOAR!!
Welcome back
When I dislike putting masks on but I still do it anyway👀I am normalizing that behaviour and putting pressure on those who don't. Is this the kind of surveillance Foucault is talking about
Foucault is a post-modern philosopher . . . ? I know he is critiquing modernity, but that doesn't make him po-mo.
In every single way he is yes
@@googleacount3611 I disagree. So would he.
@@sblaney66 i dont care
@@googleacount3611 You don't care what you say isn't true. Hmmmm . . .
@@sblaney66 I would characterize all poststructualist philosophers as being postmodern
what would your definition be
I absolutely hate Foucoult, there is nobody who writes more incoherently than him. I've been listening to all the podcasts up until this point. Last episode you made a promise, and now there's four totally unrelated episodes.... I'm really DISAPPOINTED.
Why do you beg for money and subscribers right off the bat?
fucking get a job if you want money.. you are lame dude.
@@michaelg7520 did u just create a new account just to post this comment?
@@YM-cw8so likely. like your content, just asking for the moeny being handing the goods is bad form bro.. some goods - ask for money - even more goods I can handle. no goods - give me money -- I would at least try an a/b roll to iff it actually works. peace..
Fourth year sociologist here! Thank you so much for this series. We’re currently studying bodies in society and Foucalts work is essential to this. It can be pretty difficult trying to take of my sociologist hat and put on a philosophical one, but listening to this series has made it just a little easier. Thank you!
What I find most disturbing about my species is that trauma and abuse are what cause most people to stop caring about the rules of society. How do we fix these broken individuals? More abuse. We "fix" abuse with abuse, and then stand around wondering why the rate of recidivism is so high. We are not an intelligent species.