Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 сер 2018
- Philosophize This! Clips: / @philosophizethisclips
Get more:
Website: www.philosophizethis.org/
Patreon: / philosophizethis
Find the podcast:
Apple: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/2Shpxw7...
RSS: www.philosophizethis.libsyn.org/
Be social:
Twitter: / iamstephenwest
Instagram: / philosophizethispodcast
TikTok: / philosophizethispodcast
Facebook: / philosophizethisshow
Thank you for making the show possible. 🙂
One of the most underrated channels on UA-cam
Im utterly obsessed with the content of this channel - AWESOME job and contributions.
This is stellar quality explanation!
Thank you! Just in time for a pivotal moment in my life, I really needed this!
You are the best. Subscribed for eternity!
You uploaded some new ones! Awesome!
YESSSSSS just yesterday I was wondering where you went & I had to double check that bell was rung!
Thank you so much for your podcasts. You make me feel free during labour hours :)
i adore your channel.
The baby who hasn't uttered their first word yet doesn't need language to ascribe meaning to their bottle. The baby cannot yet articulate their feelings toward the bottle, but he/she can have a meaningful experience with it.
This is the distinction between articulation and sense perception. The former needs language as its vehicle; the latter doesn't need language at all.
Exactly the analogy I needed - thanks for posting!
And I should add that I am enjoying these podcasts like so many others. I will probably support it through Patreon.
thank you.
Thank you...
This was absolutely amazing. What book by Derrida would you consider to be fundamental to explore more in depth his semiotic theory?
Had to listen to this one in .75 speed
Put it in .5, it suddenly becomes a casual conversation between two stoned friends. He's the one that talks about his understanding of the things and you are the one that goes "bro that's so true, wtf"
Great. I can’t sleep now
lost my Spotify app.. and you stopped uploading . Thanx for the return !!
L.p
• Logical positivism, also called logical empiricism, a philosophical movement that arose in Vienna in the 1920s and was characterized by the view that scientific knowledge is the only kind of factual knowledge and that all traditional metaphysical doctrines are to be rejected as meaningless.
My captions think you're speaking portugese! When I click "auto-translate: English", it's still trying to read off Portuguese, but then translate the Portuguese to english! :P
"Woed inception" 😃
Derrida did NOT say there is nothing outside the text-he said there is nothing without context, and that mistake constantly creates too much distance between post-modernism and phenomenology.
Yeah people commonly misunderstand Derrida.
"il n'y a pas hors text", J Derrida = writing precedes language
The proposition that “because the meaning of words changes over time that it’s impossible to discern the meaning of words” seems wrong on so many levels:
1. Just because meanings vary, doesn’t mean they vary infinitely.
2. The word “sun” is not typically learned in terms of a dictionary definition. Instead it’s learned through the felt experience of the actual sun. The association of words to felt/shared experiences breaks the “circular reference” that Derrida seems to be so worked up about.
3. Language can be viewed as a mechanism that allows for collaboration via the representation of abstract ideas. Just look around to see the progress of civilization as a measure of the effectiveness of words to convey stable meaning.
4. All of the people reading this sentence will not have an infinitely variable interpretation of it. There’s certainly some variability but it’s limited. The limits of this variability implies an inherent stability in the words used.
Perhaps I’m completely missing the point here? Would love your thoughts/guidance!
Regarding 2. Even in this case we have the same problem. There is a seemingly endless number of things one needs to understand the word sun at even a really basic level based on a shared experience. They need to have a concept of a sky, of light, of heat, of distance, of shared experiences, and so on. And each of those things require their own set of basic understandings. To even understand that a word can be a stand in for a shared experience requires an understanding of many concepts.
@@WillEnj0y I'm not so sure. A toddler learning about the word "sun" needs nothing more than to look up when outside.
That same toddler doesn't have to know the words for sky/light/heat/etc. or even know about the concept of word abstraction.
I think this whole train of thought is over-intellectualization.
@@AdvaitShinde but in order to distinguish the sun from other things, they at least need a capacity to recognize some of its properties (warmth, color, brightness, shape, position) and also recognize the fact that another person is associating this sound with this thing, and also recognize that this word can serve as a representation for this thing that other people can understand. I think you’re getting too caught up in the dictionary thing.
Sad to say, the more I think about this the more absurd Derrida’s philosophy and claims become. The proof that it is patently absurd is this channel itself. The reason why I greatly appreciate Stephen West’s work, and have said so, is precisely because of his excellent discourse on these great philosophers of the past. If Derrida’s assertions were true, then there is no way we can possibly understand Kant, let alone Plato or Socrates, and it would be pointless for you or I to listen to this channel. And as W Serba poignantly pointed out in the comments below, this would be impossible: ua-cam.com/video/t6SztY6rvh0/v-deo.html.
Are you afraid of the lack of meaning?
@@OjoRojo40 Interesting question. Could you be a bit more specific? Meaning of words, meaning of life, meaning of ...?
@@irlc1254 meaning in general, but I guess meaning of life is close enough.
Cheers!
@@OjoRojo40 Thanks for the clarification. I think the answer is I don't have much fear in either case, because I believe in meaning in general and that there is meaning of life. I'm afraid I just think Derrida well overstates his case to the point of being ridiculous.
Doesn't Steven West's example of the "free throw" prove exactly the opposite point he's trying to make? There are millions of basket ball fans in the world. They weren't born as basket ball fans, and they can be of any culture, nationality, language, sex, age, etc., etc. But they had to become a fan at some point in life. If Steven West, in explaining Derrida, is right, they all have tremendous difficulties understanding what a "free throw" is! Sorry, but that just does not ring true to me.
@@irlc1254 You think there is meaning in everything? In that sense, Derrida would convey a meaning you don't agree on, but not a lack of it. On the other hand, if only some things have meaning, who decides what's meaning and meaningless?
The example of the "free throw" is about the concept of "difference" in Derrida.
You derive understanding of a concept because of his relation to other concepts in the language.
The word "house" derives its meaning more as a function of how it differs from "shed", "mansion", "hotel", "building", etc. than how the word "house" may be tied to a certain image of a "real" house (i.e. the relationship between signifier and signified).
You know something is called a "car" because it's not called a track or a plane or a motorcycle.
the full meaning is always postponed; it is never total. The dictionary example given in the video is very good to illustrate the point. A simple test of this is to look up the definition of a word, then look up the words that define that word, and so on. This procedure never ends. A symbol is defined by its relationship to other symbols.
A free throw is a free throw because it’s not a 3 point attempt or a dunk or a 7 foot jumper. It has nothing to do with the difficulty (or lack of) to understand the concept, but the formation of meaning (understanding) of it.
Hope this helps to clarify the point, and thanks so much for engaging in a polite way in the conversation, something more and more rare around. Have a good day and take care!
15:50 Lacan’s *signifying chain*
Errors abound in this episode - not least of which is a complete misinterpretation of a central Derridean tenet: namely, that, absent language, reality itself is imperceptible. This is incorrect. As another commenter pointed out, it's not that without language the tree will not appear to the eye, or that its brown bark will somehow be rendered indistinguishable from its green leaves; it is rather that, as Derrida argues, only within the pregiven sign-system within which one exists can one ever ascribe meaning to external reality. - Language is the precondition of meaning, not of raw sense perception.
Superb channel! So glad I found it. Thanks for your work! I find myself disagreeing with Derrida. A 'free throw' is not that difficult to understand, once you've watched basketball and have had some, not even all, rules explained to you. It takes all of 30 mins, or even less. I compare it to gravity. You could argue that unless you can account for the interconnectedness, and know the gravitational forces from every star, every galaxy, right out to the edge of the universe, you don't really know what the gravitational force is that's acting on you. That is clearly true, but it's a pointless statement. That statement, however, becomes more applicable when we are trying to send a probe to Jupiter. Even then, you only take into account the objects nearby and in the flight path (and like words, these objects are in constant flux and constantly influencing one another). Personally, by overstating the case, he's not helped - it becomes a slight of hand. But I could be wrong.
If what you say about Derrida is accurate to his ideas, I would have to disagree with them. Without language, there are still ways to understand the world. Semiotics is not just about words and text. There are images, gestures, and emotions as well. With the "lone human" example you provide in this video, they would put meaning into a tree, but it would not be explained in a language. The tree would provide shade, a respite for birds and insects, a source of nuts and fruit, etc., all these things that could not be expressed, but would be understood in the mind of a person who experienced the tree. There was a time before language; how could we create words and language if we had no concept of meaning that they express?
Think of animals, and in particular, Pavlov's dogs. Dogs have no language. Yet, the sound of the bell symbolized the arrival of food. Thus, the sound of a bell ringing had meaning to the dogs. If Derrida's ideas (as you have described them to the best of my understanding) are to be taken as valid, this could not be possible since there is no text or language.
Regarding the notion that language cannot be undone, that we can never revert back to a prior way of explaining meaning by forgetting language, I think that this is true on a societal scale. For an individual, though, if they spend enough time away from others and refrain from using language for a number of years, it would be possible to unlearn language, or relearn sensual (i.e. pertaining to the senses) meanings.
"There is not outside text," is where Derrida's premise went wrong, and everything that follows is seriously suspect. The documentary "Breaking the Maya Code" wouldn't be possible without outside text. Zipf's Law exists and is another piece of evidence of outside text. He never defined trace, on the premise that words lead to words, and thereby made himself the high priest of a new cult. Only he understands, and can ever understand. The whole point of communication is the conveyance of ideas, the refusal to do so because of a faulty premise is ridiculous. Words have meaning in contemporary culture, because The King's English extinguished the competing forms of English (for the most part). This allowed countries to be able to communicate within their realms and effectively tax and raise an army. Over a long period of time I totally agree about the ambiguity of the meaning of words, because in the past words were dependent upon a worldview, or frame of reference, that we can not have in the modern world. What has been seen cannot be unseen. You can't unlearn your contemporary world view and place yourself into the shoes of someone from the past. The King's English -- is -- the common meaning. It's why there is a dictionary to begin with. Derrida basically uses circular logic to deify himself. No thanks.
The problem with constructivism and postmodernism, i think, is that they use the word "perception" as if it meant "understanding". We, as humans, can project aaaaany meaning we want over things, and that IS actually up to time and geography, or in other words, to culture. But perception is a much much more simple process. If any of us was sprinting (or even any animal), and after turning a corner were faced by a giant wall, wouldnt we all stop? Either a cow, a human or a bee, we all PERCEIVE a wall, and we all know that if we hit at full speed, we would at best get slightly hurt. This is no construction, this is not up to culture. The way we perceive enviroment, the way we relate to it and our basic needs, the way we realte to basic laws of phisics, that is constant, not only through humans, but to the entire nature. Plants and animals evolved and adapted to a certain atmosphere, and a certain gravity, amongst other factors that were involved. Our percetion evolved through millons, and millions of years, since we were a tiny cell photosinthesizing (or however its spelled, im sorry im not native in english) and floating in the vast ocean. There is no such thing as a human perception. Our perception is almost the same of apes (and i would dar to say of all mamals). The difference is the MEANING we cast over that wich we perceive: our UNDERSTANDING of the world.
If organism adapt then they are not constant!
I always disagreed with the idea that we define words by what they don't mean. Our brains are amazingly complex and efficient why would you remember a word (assuming you know 40 000 words) by 39999 words? And then all other words by that same number (ignoring words that are identical meaning). Sounds terribly inefficient.
I dont think structuralists are referring to how our memory works but more to how meaning itself itself is created. so we can remember the word cat by coleration to 🙀 but that alone doesn't make it significant collectively. the other 39999 words are behind the meanings, not our brains.
@@bentaro9743 What do you mean by meaning? As in literal definition or are you talking about a more 'spiritual' definition of meaning? Not sure what the word is I'm looking for. I ask this because you say "significant" and regarding the latter part; I'm a materialist in this sense, the words are some complex inner-workings of our minds/brain. Which means they need to be realistically stored and then re-interpreted. Perhaps, this makes placing these 'strings' into a form to be checked by some system of syntax (probably functioning partly due to memory). Of course, I do not know any of this and I am merely hypothesising. I may have missed your point though.
I guess Derrida is no longer speaking or enunciating in any way haha
Who's here cause of Jordan Peterson?
I got here because of Adam Curtis and cancel culture
Yup, I needed somebody with a better understanding of post-structuralism.
ditch jordan peterson
No but thought of him
If Derrida is correct then this whole podcast is a waste of time. At 15:10 Steven West says "You're starring at a tree." I think when Steven says this he expects the listener to understand what he is referring to. If this kind of "naive" communication is not possible then human relationships and community become impossible.
That's the magic of it and Derrida is not correct or incorrect, it's just a different lens to look at semiotics.
This one seems circular ... and kind of pointless.