The effect that we’re talking about in the comments seems to be the thing I like the most about Butler’s writing, which is that it has taken the advice of reading writing aloud before cementing it in print (maybe to an annoying point for some readers/listeners). Reading Butler feels like you’re doing the thing she’s doing up there at that too-big podium-constantly clarifying what was said one second ago as you’re talking about it and that’s a big ol’ tip o’ the nib to Derrida. I don’t think it totally serves speaking for all that speeches can do, ok fine, but as far as lectures go, wow that’s clear, prepared, and thoughtful. Butler really be like, I want to make a claim, but first, I should unpack the machination of uttering that I, which begins with the Big Bang.” And I love that.
@@tonyfubu no, not really. More like they’re a great speaker was my whole point and Derrida is not read as a fiction writer, but pretty squarely in the signifier/fied conversation so that would actually be philosophy. The story is not the issue, instead it’s the mechanism that language is, which is a more philosophical concept than creative writing.
I listened to this all the way through and loved it all. Because I'm been making an effort to read as much dense theory as possible, I was actually able to understand pretty much everything they said. One of my future creative projects may be to make a summary of this speech and rely it in more easily digestible terms.
s: The guy in the hotel sounds robotic. He just got stuck and started skipping. However, I understand the class element. He had to gender his cient before going on to the next part of his task. It is part of his job and his role.
+sunho lee Subjecthood arises from a 'matrix' of relation to other beings, the pronoun 'I' arises conditionally from a formative process which none can escape (all humans having passed through individuation at the very least including dependency of infancy). 'Independence' is actually founded in a bunch of relations, which leave 'the I' with an 'impressionability'.
Being so overly detailed about a few simple timeframes seems to me either a very specific niche or a form that is easier and clearer caught by zen and such eastern thoughts. The 'I', being at all - afterall - is always present even if 'I' dwells in memories. Secondary ( told ) stories about me by others are not that significant for that (this) presence. The structure of time does have its impact on us, even more so since we are self-reflective to a degree. That is one level. On two other levels we are not self reflective: when we are just doing - or when we are present as such. These differences are somewhat illusionary and 'just ' modes of being we experience and have (can have) knowledge about. Well, maybe I didn't get her point.
I am not sure about your argumentation, but I think you are right about Zen. She is here on a very zen-like lead, however, to approach it, she puts herself in an impossible and confused position, since she still utilizes the very tools of language she agues against. To put it in more of a zen term, paraphrasing Nansen, she is close to the right path, but as she seeks it, it runs away.
@@szymonharbuz9052 I don't think Butler's interest is involved with being "against" the "I". I think she is looking to both complicate and identify implications of "I" relative to its function. How it may or may not "refer" and to what.
I actually find this a pretty solid quick summary, although it does require understanding the particular meaning of some specific terminology. But religion and philosophy and theory is just like learning a new language. Anyone can do it given enough support and benefit.
Gender and discourse on self are over-indulgent, & a distraction, 'we' should gather forces such as feminism into a new narrative capacity that channels energies with a multi-disciplinarian approach that challenges inequality.
Not a good speaker. She could have emailed participants the paper since she is just reading. Very monotone. I have seen her speak many times and she always reads.
The effect that we’re talking about in the comments seems to be the thing I like the most about Butler’s writing, which is that it has taken the advice of reading writing aloud before cementing it in print (maybe to an annoying point for some readers/listeners). Reading Butler feels like you’re doing the thing she’s doing up there at that too-big podium-constantly clarifying what was said one second ago as you’re talking about it and that’s a big ol’ tip o’ the nib to Derrida. I don’t think it totally serves speaking for all that speeches can do, ok fine, but as far as lectures go, wow that’s clear, prepared, and thoughtful. Butler really be like, I want to make a claim, but first, I should unpack the machination of uttering that I, which begins with the Big Bang.” And I love that.
so you're saying, as a philosopher, she's amazed by the difficulty and joys of writing. how is this philosphy, and not just fiction writing?
@@tonyfubu no, not really. More like they’re a great speaker was my whole point and Derrida is not read as a fiction writer, but pretty squarely in the signifier/fied conversation so that would actually be philosophy. The story is not the issue, instead it’s the mechanism that language is, which is a more philosophical concept than creative writing.
I listened to this all the way through and loved it all. Because I'm been making an effort to read as much dense theory as possible, I was actually able to understand pretty much everything they said. One of my future creative projects may be to make a summary of this speech and rely it in more easily digestible terms.
Fantastic. For those seeking further knowledge, do read the Pshychc life of Power (1997).
Judith
That podium is a human shield!
That podium is way too big
Based on the cover image for this video and I came to seek Judith Butler play rock, paper, scissors. I am bitterly disappointed :(
I love the story lol!
s: The guy in the hotel sounds robotic. He just got stuck and started skipping.
However, I understand the class element. He had to gender his cient before going on to the next part of his task. It is part of his job and his role.
I just listened for few minutes in the beginning but I merely understood what she is really saying. I hope someone can explain her main point to me.
+sunho lee Subjecthood arises from a 'matrix' of relation to other beings, the pronoun 'I' arises conditionally from a formative process which none can escape (all humans having passed through individuation at the very least including dependency of infancy). 'Independence' is actually founded in a bunch of relations, which leave 'the I' with an 'impressionability'.
about whom does she tals about at 19:02? it's a french name..
Merleau-Ponty
Nope, it is Malebranche
@@alexanderaerts9490 No, it is Mösjöö Plöplö Plöö.
@@alexanderaerts9490 Butler says "For Merleau-Ponty and indeed with Malebranche..."
Being so overly detailed about a few simple timeframes seems to me either a very specific niche or a form that is easier and clearer caught by zen and such eastern thoughts. The 'I', being at all - afterall - is always present even if 'I' dwells in memories.
Secondary ( told ) stories about me by others are not that significant for that (this) presence.
The structure of time does have its impact on us, even more so since we are self-reflective to a degree. That is one level. On two other levels we are not self reflective: when we are just doing - or when we are present as such. These differences are somewhat illusionary and 'just ' modes of being we experience and have (can have) knowledge about.
Well, maybe I didn't get her point.
I am not sure about your argumentation, but I think you are right about Zen. She is here on a very zen-like lead, however, to approach it, she puts herself in an impossible and confused position, since she still utilizes the very tools of language she agues against. To put it in more of a zen term, paraphrasing Nansen, she is close to the right path, but as she seeks it, it runs away.
@@starlight0002 Nah, that's me
@@szymonharbuz9052 I don't think Butler's interest is involved with being "against" the "I". I think she is looking to both complicate and identify implications of "I" relative to its function. How it may or may not "refer" and to what.
Her speeches are readings...
better than digressing
Transcript?
Damien Olivares YT generates transcripts
This was decent
When will people learn that the "I" is only a negative subjectivity in the impossible, yet necessary belated immanence.
Word salad
I actually find this a pretty solid quick summary, although it does require understanding the particular meaning of some specific terminology. But religion and philosophy and theory is just like learning a new language. Anyone can do it given enough support and benefit.
Yer nice.
Not quite 10 minutes and it's been a waste of ten minutes my life.
The Dalai Lama, Krishnamuthi, Rajneesh (Osho), etc. will explain all this in a very easy, simple and interesting way without reading a speech 🙄
Tedious!
Gender and discourse on self are over-indulgent, & a distraction, 'we' should gather forces such as feminism into a new narrative capacity that channels energies with a multi-disciplinarian approach that challenges inequality.
Word salad
Not a good speaker. She could have emailed participants the paper since she is just reading. Very monotone. I have seen her speak many times and she always reads.
sphinx333 that’s what academics do in an academic talk when the audience are others academics