New video in the Existentialism series, in the course of which I discuss why, according to Shestov, logic, science, and morality are "those police agents"
He gives me the possible answers to questions that I thought about during my math classes. why A=A? does it always have to be this way? I didn't think silly questions like these have any significance to "real" knowledge. But he gives these questions importance and care. I think that is one of the thing that makes his work so great to me.
Excellent video! I don't understand why Shestov should be less known than the rest of the Existentialists. I like the overall comparisons you've made with our modern life.
It's interesting how high school social structures, i.e. not wanting to look uncool or not "in the know", manifest themselves in circles of the intellegensia. Even into philosophical circles where one would hope to find critical, individual thinkers who explore and figure things out for themselves, and not simply accept the opinion of the "many" or "mob", to use Existentialist vocabulary. Anyways, you have certainly piqued my interest with Shestov. Thanks again Dr. Sadler.
I've found plenty of "critical, individual thinkers who explore and figure things out for themselves". I've also found plenty of people who can be good colleagues and dialogue-partners (which is way better than being the isolated thinker)
I think you answered my question in the video after watching the whole thing. I commented 20 minutes in because I had never came across a philosopher who laid it all out in such a way. I have thought this way on many occasions in my life when someone claims another's truth or authority and tries to impose it on others. Very interesting stuff. Thanks.
Yes, it's really a matter of something like Pascalian prudence -- if you buy in wholesale to someone else's perspective, and that keeps you from actively looking, thinking, experiencing, that's rather unwise. Of course, one's own perspective could turn out to be all nonsense! But, unless one attempts it, one won't know.
Kierkegaard has been well read and talked about for quite a while. He's unavoidably part of the "official canon" of Existentialism. The marginalization of Shestov occurred considerably earlier, in the 1950s and 60s -- Kaufman's Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre (which has some K.) is already out in the 1950s, and is fairly typical popular secondary lit.
I feel like Shestov understands the fundamentalist myopic viewpoints that we all take. (if that makes sense) If you buy into any certain philosophy or scientific approach, in some way you're giving a credence to say that a particular person "got it right" or has "figured it out". Does he think it negates individual experience when you accept another persons opinions as absolute truth?
It's the same thing with Kierkegaard's philosophy though. It's not the conclusions he makes that move me. One can dismiss the conclusions and enjoy the rest of the philosophy. At least, that's what I do. As much as I don't believe in Kierkegaard's conclusions I love him. The same thing can be said about Shestov's philosophy. I hardly doubt Camus could've formed his philosophy as neatly and elegantly if he hadn't read Kierkegaard or Shestov.
It's also general atmosphere of the society. Sartre was the "revolutionary" figure with his ideas about freedom and all. 30years ago we had the revolution which was followed by a big war. No wonder people started reading his philosophy, even though their concept of freedom was totally different from what Sartre meant. And now that people are sick of religion and look at life as something absurd, they're more into Camus' ideas. That's why people like Kierkegaard and Shestov never got the chance.
Yes, spending a lot of time with Philosophy people can be disappointing! In this case, it's less that direct face-to-face kind of dynamic, and much more that the second-tier philosophers who made Existentialism into something well-known over here were much more into some figures, and not into others. Kaufman is a great example -- you'll not find a reference to Shestov's work, even in his explanation of who he left out. So, when students then came to Existentialism through secondary lit ..
No, it wouldn't only apply to those who study Camus' philosophy -- there's the actual philosophy, which not that many people did or do study, and then there's the broader cultural milieu, which gets formed by opinion-shapers. Over here in the States (and I suppose you can say the same for the UK), Sartre and Camus were the most dominant opinion-formers when it came to what was, and what was important, in Existentialism. And plenty of people bought the story and then reproduced it themselves
Have you considered teaching workshops on the teaching of philosophy? In my experience, even incredibly intelligent professors - those who grasp well the material they teach - fall short in communicating philosophy in way that is cogent and easily digested. From the videos of yours that I have watched, I can tell you have a talent for communicating philosophy. Thanks for the work you do!
You're very welcome That would be interesting, but it would be a bit of a tough sell to fellow philosophers, I think. I do some individual coaching of instructors from time to time - usually because they seek me out.
Well, I'd suspect it has to do with the narratives of late modern modern thought, produced by some of the existentialists, like Sartre and Camus, which became more or less the "standard take" on Existentialism. If Camus is right in basically dismissing Shestov in the Myth of Sisyphus, then why would one read Shestov? And if one doesn't read Schestov, one doesn't realize what's off in Camus' take
Excellent video as always Dr. Saddler. That's interesting that you mention Camus dismissing Shestov. That is in essence what he does, but wouldn't that only apply to people who adopt Camus' philosophy? And considering it's grim outlook and prospects I suspect few actually are full blown Sisyphusians (for lack of a better term). But you do think that Camus played a role in Shestov being under studied?
Dr. Sadler, have you ever encountered Nishitani Keiji; reader of Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky; pupil of Heidegger; author of the books “The Self-Overcoming of Nihilism” and “Religion and Nothingness?” If so, do you have a preference or sense of specific affinities between the two? Shestov wonders, “where is the philosophic theory which, if carried to it’s extreme, would not destroy itself?” (aphorism 44). Nishitani wishes to carry nihilism to its extreme in order that it may destroy itself, clearing the way for what is really real to reveal itself (unless I misunderstand...). For both thinkers, there is a “cult of groundlessness” that’s a bit too cult-y, too “weary-ing-ly familiar.” Shestov and Nishitani both believe in revealed truth maybe and the urgent necessity (“necessity” being a watchword for Shestov) of Revelation? This is my second time listening to your Shestov series. Twice listened to a LibriVox of “All Things are Possible.” Reading “Athens and Jerusalem” and Nishitani’s “Religion and Nothingness.”
I wondering that it is wise to study other philosopher connected with Existentialism, namely Gabriel Marcel. I hear mixed opinion about him, on the other hand his seem to be quite influential in circles which thought absorbing my attention for quit a while. Dr Sadler definitely too many important thing to do, so I don't except wideo about Marcel to appear and maybe someone give my advice? I am apologize for my English.
Marcel is not only influential in some circles -- he's well worth reading in his own right, and I would say certainly as important as Sartre or Camus in terms of Existentialism. I simply haven't gotten to shooting videos on him yet, though I plan to in coming months
Gregory B. Sadler Thank you for the response. I add Marcel to my study list and I will wait for your video about him. I didn't suspect at all that one of them will be devoted to his work and thougt.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
New video in the Existentialism series, in the course of which I discuss why, according to Shestov, logic, science, and morality are "those police agents"
He gives me the possible answers to questions that I thought about during my math classes. why A=A? does it always have to be this way? I didn't think silly questions like these have any significance to "real" knowledge. But he gives these questions importance and care. I think that is one of the thing that makes his work so great to me.
Glad you’re enjoying reading Shestov
@@GregoryBSadlerIndeed, I am. Thanks to you, Prof.
Excellent video!
I don't understand why Shestov should be less known than the rest of the Existentialists.
I like the overall comparisons you've made with our modern life.
It's interesting how high school social structures, i.e. not wanting to look uncool or not "in the know", manifest themselves in circles of the intellegensia. Even into philosophical circles where one would hope to find critical, individual thinkers who explore and figure things out for themselves, and not simply accept the opinion of the "many" or "mob", to use Existentialist vocabulary. Anyways, you have certainly piqued my interest with Shestov. Thanks again Dr. Sadler.
I've found plenty of "critical, individual thinkers who explore and figure things out for themselves". I've also found plenty of people who can be good colleagues and dialogue-partners (which is way better than being the isolated thinker)
Thanks for introducing us to this fascinating author!
You're welcome! He deserves a much larger readership, I think
I think you answered my question in the video after watching the whole thing. I commented 20 minutes in because I had never came across a philosopher who laid it all out in such a way. I have thought this way on many occasions in my life when someone claims another's truth or authority and tries to impose it on others.
Very interesting stuff.
Thanks.
Yes, it's really a matter of something like Pascalian prudence -- if you buy in wholesale to someone else's perspective, and that keeps you from actively looking, thinking, experiencing, that's rather unwise.
Of course, one's own perspective could turn out to be all nonsense! But, unless one attempts it, one won't know.
Kierkegaard has been well read and talked about for quite a while. He's unavoidably part of the "official canon" of Existentialism.
The marginalization of Shestov occurred considerably earlier, in the 1950s and 60s -- Kaufman's Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre (which has some K.) is already out in the 1950s, and is fairly typical popular secondary lit.
I feel like Shestov understands the fundamentalist myopic viewpoints that we all take. (if that makes sense) If you buy into any certain philosophy or scientific approach, in some way you're giving a credence to say that a particular person "got it right" or has "figured it out". Does he think it negates individual experience when you accept another persons opinions as absolute truth?
It's the same thing with Kierkegaard's philosophy though. It's not the conclusions he makes that move me. One can dismiss the conclusions and enjoy the rest of the philosophy. At least, that's what I do. As much as I don't believe in Kierkegaard's conclusions I love him. The same thing can be said about Shestov's philosophy.
I hardly doubt Camus could've formed his philosophy as neatly and elegantly if he hadn't read Kierkegaard or Shestov.
It's also general atmosphere of the society. Sartre was the "revolutionary" figure with his ideas about freedom and all. 30years ago we had the revolution which was followed by a big war. No wonder people started reading his philosophy, even though their concept of freedom was totally different from what Sartre meant. And now that people are sick of religion and look at life as something absurd, they're more into Camus' ideas. That's why people like Kierkegaard and Shestov never got the chance.
Yes, spending a lot of time with Philosophy people can be disappointing!
In this case, it's less that direct face-to-face kind of dynamic, and much more that the second-tier philosophers who made Existentialism into something well-known over here were much more into some figures, and not into others. Kaufman is a great example -- you'll not find a reference to Shestov's work, even in his explanation of who he left out. So, when students then came to Existentialism through secondary lit ..
You're welcome
I think you're quite right about that -- Camus is in some way indebted to him.
No, it wouldn't only apply to those who study Camus' philosophy -- there's the actual philosophy, which not that many people did or do study, and then there's the broader cultural milieu, which gets formed by opinion-shapers. Over here in the States (and I suppose you can say the same for the UK), Sartre and Camus were the most dominant opinion-formers when it came to what was, and what was important, in Existentialism. And plenty of people bought the story and then reproduced it themselves
Have you considered teaching workshops on the teaching of philosophy? In my experience, even incredibly intelligent professors - those who grasp well the material they teach - fall short in communicating philosophy in way that is cogent and easily digested. From the videos of yours that I have watched, I can tell you have a talent for communicating philosophy.
Thanks for the work you do!
You're very welcome
That would be interesting, but it would be a bit of a tough sell to fellow philosophers, I think. I do some individual coaching of instructors from time to time - usually because they seek me out.
Well, I'd suspect it has to do with the narratives of late modern modern thought, produced by some of the existentialists, like Sartre and Camus, which became more or less the "standard take" on Existentialism. If Camus is right in basically dismissing Shestov in the Myth of Sisyphus, then why would one read Shestov? And if one doesn't read Schestov, one doesn't realize what's off in Camus' take
Excellent video as always Dr. Saddler. That's interesting that you mention Camus dismissing Shestov. That is in essence what he does, but wouldn't that only apply to people who adopt Camus' philosophy? And considering it's grim outlook and prospects I suspect few actually are full blown Sisyphusians (for lack of a better term). But you do think that Camus played a role in Shestov being under studied?
Goosebumps on goosebumps
Dr. Sadler, have you ever encountered Nishitani Keiji; reader of Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky; pupil of Heidegger; author of the books “The Self-Overcoming of Nihilism” and “Religion and Nothingness?” If so, do you have a preference or sense of specific affinities between the two? Shestov wonders, “where is the philosophic theory which, if carried to it’s extreme, would not destroy itself?” (aphorism 44). Nishitani wishes to carry nihilism to its extreme in order that it may destroy itself, clearing the way for what is really real to reveal itself (unless I misunderstand...). For both thinkers, there is a “cult of groundlessness” that’s a bit too cult-y, too “weary-ing-ly familiar.” Shestov and Nishitani both believe in revealed truth maybe and the urgent necessity (“necessity” being a watchword for Shestov) of Revelation?
This is my second time listening to your Shestov series. Twice listened to a LibriVox of “All Things are Possible.” Reading “Athens and Jerusalem” and Nishitani’s “Religion and Nothingness.”
I have not
Oh sorry I remembered. I was *really* cue:Rios about your Derridean Phase. Dmitry.
Did Nassim Taleb know about Shestov? This book is The Black Swan written 100 years earlier.
You'd have to ask Taleb. I don't know his work
I wondering that it is wise to study other philosopher connected with Existentialism, namely Gabriel Marcel. I hear mixed opinion about him, on the other hand his seem to be quite influential in circles which thought absorbing my attention for quit a while.
Dr Sadler definitely too many important thing to do, so I don't except wideo about Marcel to appear and maybe someone give my advice?
I am apologize for my English.
Marcel is not only influential in some circles -- he's well worth reading in his own right, and I would say certainly as important as Sartre or Camus in terms of Existentialism. I simply haven't gotten to shooting videos on him yet, though I plan to in coming months
Gregory B. Sadler
Thank you for the response. I add Marcel to my study list and I will wait for your video about him. I didn't suspect at all that one of them will be devoted to his work and thougt.
This ideas (existentialism...were vary popular in imperial Russia and also Germany.
Nowadays they have moved to th3 new world
They moved here a long time ago. Not now