Wow! I first viewed this video 7 months ago when I commenced my post-grad module. Revisiting it and reading the great comments and arguments adds to the learning experience.
This lady's theory is nearly bogus. It excludes 70% people of the world. The ones who are not white, not living in the global north. Pathetic institutional verbiage and this digital hierarchy slavery.
I'm quite late to this video but still i got a lot information here for my thesis in AB Philosophy using Martha Nussbaum capability approach in vis-á-vis the Filipino value of bayanihan in particular community pantry in the Philippines.
This lady's theory is nearly bogus. It excludes 70% people of the world. The ones who are not white, not living in the global north. Pathetic institutional verbiage and this digital hierarchy slavery.
@@AudioPervert1 How? There's nothing about her views that say people who are not white or not living in the global north shouldn't be helped based off their level of capability to achieve success. There's no contradiction with her views when, say, a wealthier country provides help to a poorer country so the population of the poorer country's capabilities to achieve prosperity are improved. Do you know the other major academic who developed the capabilities approach in cooperation with Nussbaum? The economist Amartya Sen. Guess what. He's not white, he's of Indian-Bengali heritage. Guess also what. India isn't considered part of the 'global north' club of high income nations. Sen in large part developed his capabilities approach based off his life experiences of people in the Indian subcontinent not having the capabilities and positive liberty to ensure their wellbeing despite still nominally having their negative 'freedom from' liberties, eg. The Bengali Famine. It seems a bit ironic that your criticizing her for verbiage and verbosity when your literally being verbose yourself. you literally could have just said her academic terms are too complicated for a lot of people to understand, but instead you had to say 'institutional verbiage', as if big words give your evidence lacking views more weight. The same with 'digital hierarchy slavery'. What the hell is that supposed to mean? Does it actually mean anything concrete in the real world or is that just a blah blah phrase designed to sound serious but not actually mean anything in the real world?
On the contrary, several of the comments here display deep understanding and add to the discourse. They put forth some convincing arguments challenging Nussbaum.
Nussbaum is great, but I think she puts too much emphasis on listing and outlining fundamental capabilities... For me, I consider the capacity to determine ones own values and priorities as a fundamental capability. Let people make their own lists!
As ipiesings noted, Nussbaum explicitly says that these lists are just a starting point and different states with different cultural and historical experiences can and should adapt them. Secondly, you are missing the point that human agency cannot be adequately realized unless one has a certain base level of education. Only by having some basic level of education can one really determine one's own values and priorities--that was the whole point of the anecdote about the Indian woman at the beginning.
I don't quite understand. A good welfare system is not possible without resources. In fact Kerala is a poor country in terms of per Capita GDP but it is not poor in terms of social, political AND economic development. I mean, you may have "social wages" instead of " private wages" but you still need to produce them!
The whole presentation makes me sad: I think it explains a lot why misery continues to exist and international policies and politics are not working - they target - universally - performance (quality measure) not structural change, as this would endanger concepts of GDP and prosperity (here: economic), utility and social justice within a capitalist society. I think Zizek, as outrageously confusing he may be, has a point: social justice within the capitalist society and orientation is an oxymoron! Also, reading her works, she has not thought through bigger systemic concepts, as she uses terms of nation state, world citizenship, social policies and welfare freely in one sentence and one approach. I noticed the the key element, the linchpin of all human activity, has ominously been left out in her list of central human capabilities: LANGUAGE, to be able to use her own (native?) languages(s) to create a life, understand the dimensions of capabilities and orient her life toward its free and fulfilled expression holistically and meaningfully. I believe it is Language in a philosophical and its applied sense Martha Nussbaum struggles most with! Another note: "sensitivity" is just a reflex by the worried armchair academic and is diluted in a relativism that keeps problems and conflicts away at arm (chair's) length!
James Joyce zizek’s comment about social justice is poorly conceived as government has the ability to regulate capitalist structure, to secure social justice.
The Capabilities Approach is open-ended. It was developed by Amartya Sen, who is Bengali. Bangladesh fought for its independence and for its rights to maintain its own language and national identity. They have a whole week every year now to celebrate their language. So I do not think it is a due criticism of the Capabilities Approach to say that it doesn't account for the importance of language and identity. The Capabilities Approach is open-ended.
What is new in this jargon. If someone has enough money he can have everything. This is known to a child as well. Sen has nothing new to offer, he is just playing with words.
Madam you know nothing about India.You worshp Aristotle, the greatest racist and misgynist of all time. India has benn misogynic as has the rest of the world , but offers a better theoretical paradigm that can challenge the Aristotlian restrictive binary world. I like your capabilities approach, but this cannot be based on quasi utilitarian thsisi, it needs an ontological base. Starting from the human condition. The materiaL CONDITIONS must dictate .
It sounds like your pride is making you somewhat blind. I invite you to consider that Martha's well-supported discussion offers insights that you could profit from.
Nussbaum Is a dogmatic thinker who thinks everything comes from the west knows nothing about Indic philosophy but pretends otherwise she has accepted wedtern paradigm as the only possible narrative hagiography lionizing the west Aristotle through his dogmatism hsve veridicality to Doxa and she is fine with that
ah, yes, the world renowned philosopher, that has studied and teached in some of the most prestigious schools of philosphy worldwide, that has reshaped the way that we study political and social philosophy has been denied the title of philosopher because a youtube comment says so
Trini Fernandez yes trini aristotle. Was famous and wrong on everything nussbaum is a journalist with no critical thinking ability being famous dies not make you great content does
@@arunjetli7909 right, because Aristotle's contributions to moral, social and political philosophy are definitely all useless, despite there being strong arguments and evidence against that statement, eg. his views are a precursor to many foundational concepts in economics, sociology and communitarian political philosophy and his virtue ethics philosophy being applied in areas such as psychotherapy. Here's a possibility. Have you ever considered that even thought Indian Ontology definitely is brilliant, it isn't the only brilliant or useful area of philosophy? Have you ever considered the possibility that there are also good contributions to philosophy in Europe, East Asia, Africa, America, that have value independent of their comparison to Indian ontology? Also, why are you using the field of ontology as a reference point for the argument that her value as a philosopher is limited, when she specializes largely in political and legal philosophy? What does in depth Ontology have to do with social liberalism or interpretations of law. As far as i can see, only a handful of basic ontological positions would have any importance in political philosophy or legal philosophy, with these fields having much more to do with the study of normative ethics, power, praxis and hermeneutical interpretation.
@@jamesclarke2789 ontology is of the essence as all Vadic premises are based on on that politicsl ideology is based on class structure plus sn understanding of human condition DrNyssvsum is oblivious to the biases that are subliminal in her premises. Thst is why she us not a philosopher but s person who assumed the narrative of Aristotle KS Mill or Durkheim as the base.the entire corpus is dogmatic assuming that the premises mediated premises are A prior capability approach us s feel good bourgeois propaganda She writes volumes about Indua based on her JS Milnmythology she never made an attempt to study Indic thought thst is closer to Parmenides snd Plato the philosophers she does not understand philosohy nowadays is just grandstanding as it ignores the rekationdhip between ontology snd epistemology
@@jamesclarke2789 Aristotle was weak in due diligence. His politicsl and ethical stands represent the ruling class attitudes of the Hellens hagiography built around us astounding as this guy could not Matc Plato or the dialectic so he throws out monologues to satiate his needs
Wow! I first viewed this video 7 months ago when I commenced my post-grad module. Revisiting it and reading the great comments and arguments adds to the learning experience.
Such a great speaker and the myriad perspectives...so enlightening. Thank you ma'am.
A great legend in in 21st century Philosophers
I am a social worker student, and I have enjoyed your lecture
I am student of Political Science, theory of justice. I am influenced by your justice philosophy with CAPABILITIES APPROACH
What a brilliant lecture.
I wonder if the capabilities approach could be applied successfully to ICT4D.
This lady's theory is nearly bogus. It excludes 70% people of the world. The ones who are not white, not living in the global north. Pathetic institutional verbiage and this digital hierarchy slavery.
I'm quite late to this video but still i got a lot information here for my thesis in AB Philosophy using Martha Nussbaum capability approach in vis-á-vis the Filipino value of bayanihan in particular community pantry in the Philippines.
Amazing, love her teaching skills.
I just heard about her and I also love her teaching skills.
This lady's theory is nearly bogus. It excludes 70% people of the world. The ones who are not white, not living in the global north. Pathetic institutional verbiage and this digital hierarchy slavery.
@@AudioPervert1 How? There's nothing about her views that say people who are not white or not living in the global north shouldn't be helped based off their level of capability to achieve success. There's no contradiction with her views when, say, a wealthier country provides help to a poorer country so the population of the poorer country's capabilities to achieve prosperity are improved.
Do you know the other major academic who developed the capabilities approach in cooperation with Nussbaum? The economist Amartya Sen. Guess what. He's not white, he's of Indian-Bengali heritage. Guess also what. India isn't considered part of the 'global north' club of high income nations. Sen in large part developed his capabilities approach based off his life experiences of people in the Indian subcontinent not having the capabilities and positive liberty to ensure their wellbeing despite still nominally having their negative 'freedom from' liberties, eg. The Bengali Famine.
It seems a bit ironic that your criticizing her for verbiage and verbosity when your literally being verbose yourself. you literally could have just said her academic terms are too complicated for a lot of people to understand, but instead you had to say 'institutional verbiage', as if big words give your evidence lacking views more weight. The same with 'digital hierarchy slavery'. What the hell is that supposed to mean? Does it actually mean anything concrete in the real world or is that just a blah blah phrase designed to sound serious but not actually mean anything in the real world?
I am writing about the dignity of women based on Martha nussbaum. is it a nice topic?
Simplifying development economics so we can all learn economics
Thank you for this lecture.
Omg! This video is a jewel!
Is your list of central capabilities applicable on Disabled people's employment as a framework?
How can we apply the capability approach on poverty? And what would be a good intervention based on the capability approach?
well, It's a good Research Topic, my bachelor's Thesis topic is quite similar to your question.
Thanks a lot for these insights
Why would you dislike this video? Maybe because your tiny mind doesn't comprehend it.
On the contrary, several of the comments here display deep understanding and add to the discourse. They put forth some convincing arguments challenging Nussbaum.
It's crazy how inequalities impair and rigs the system while directly stifling capabilities. Thus, leaving society with less able people.
Nussbaum is great, but I think she puts too much emphasis on listing and outlining fundamental capabilities... For me, I consider the capacity to determine ones own values and priorities as a fundamental capability.
Let people make their own lists!
What if the values someone values are more negative than positive? Like imagine if someone values theft..it's possible😂😂
But she also says that the list is not limited
As ipiesings noted, Nussbaum explicitly says that these lists are just a starting point and different states with different cultural and historical experiences can and should adapt them. Secondly, you are missing the point that human agency cannot be adequately realized unless one has a certain base level of education. Only by having some basic level of education can one really determine one's own values and priorities--that was the whole point of the anecdote about the Indian woman at the beginning.
Really nice lecture
Erstwhile dancer/model and socialite. Now a famous intellectual.
I don't quite understand. A good welfare system is not possible without resources. In fact Kerala is a poor country in terms of per Capita GDP but it is not poor in terms of social, political AND economic development. I mean, you may have "social wages" instead of " private wages" but you still need to produce them!
The whole presentation makes me sad: I think it explains a lot why misery continues to exist and international policies and politics are not working - they target - universally - performance (quality measure) not structural change, as this would endanger concepts of GDP and prosperity (here: economic), utility and social justice within a capitalist society. I think Zizek, as outrageously confusing he may be, has a point: social justice within the capitalist society and orientation is an oxymoron!
Also, reading her works, she has not thought through bigger systemic concepts, as she uses terms of nation state, world citizenship, social policies and welfare freely in one sentence and one approach. I noticed the the key element, the linchpin of all human activity, has ominously been left out in her list of central human capabilities: LANGUAGE, to be able to use her own (native?) languages(s) to create a life, understand the dimensions of capabilities and orient her life toward its free and fulfilled expression holistically and meaningfully. I believe it is Language in a philosophical and its applied sense Martha Nussbaum struggles most with!
Another note: "sensitivity" is just a reflex by the worried armchair academic and is diluted in a relativism that keeps problems and conflicts away at arm (chair's) length!
James Joyce zizek’s comment about social justice is poorly conceived as government has the ability to regulate capitalist structure, to secure social justice.
The Capabilities Approach is open-ended. It was developed by Amartya Sen, who is Bengali. Bangladesh fought for its independence and for its rights to maintain its own language and national identity. They have a whole week every year now to celebrate their language. So I do not think it is a due criticism of the Capabilities Approach to say that it doesn't account for the importance of language and identity. The Capabilities Approach is open-ended.
Shame as a tool and wound is a terrible thing
hell yeah bro!
Es un lujo!
T
What is new in this jargon. If someone has enough money he can have everything. This is known to a child as well.
Sen has nothing new to offer, he is just playing with words.
She made a superficial study of Kerala's positive achievements!
what has she missed? genuine question
Madam you know nothing about India.You worshp Aristotle, the greatest racist and misgynist of all time. India has benn misogynic as has the rest of the world , but offers a better theoretical paradigm that can challenge the Aristotlian restrictive binary world.
I like your capabilities approach, but this cannot be based on quasi utilitarian thsisi, it needs an ontological base.
Starting from the human condition. The materiaL CONDITIONS must dictate .
It sounds like your pride is making you somewhat blind. I invite you to consider that Martha's well-supported discussion offers insights that you could profit from.
@@sophielux1531 tell me what
Nussbaum
Is a dogmatic thinker who thinks everything comes from the west knows nothing about Indic philosophy but pretends otherwise she has accepted wedtern paradigm as the only possible narrative hagiography lionizing the west
Aristotle through his dogmatism hsve veridicality to Doxa and she is fine with that
maybe stop supporting the soda company that you have in your hands can help human "development" .
there is no ethical consumption under capitalism
dr. Nussbaum is not a philosopher as she does not know anything about indic ontology.
ah, yes, the world renowned philosopher, that has studied and teached in some of the most prestigious schools of philosphy worldwide, that has reshaped the way that we study political and social philosophy has been denied the title of philosopher because a youtube comment says so
Trini Fernandez yes trini aristotle. Was famous and wrong on everything nussbaum is a journalist with no critical thinking ability being famous dies not make you great content does
@@arunjetli7909 right, because Aristotle's contributions to moral, social and political philosophy are definitely all useless, despite there being strong arguments and evidence against that statement, eg. his views are a precursor to many foundational concepts in economics, sociology and communitarian political philosophy and his virtue ethics philosophy being applied in areas such as psychotherapy.
Here's a possibility. Have you ever considered that even thought Indian Ontology definitely is brilliant, it isn't the only brilliant or useful area of philosophy? Have you ever considered the possibility that there are also good contributions to philosophy in Europe, East Asia, Africa, America, that have value independent of their comparison to Indian ontology?
Also, why are you using the field of ontology as a reference point for the argument that her value as a philosopher is limited, when she specializes largely in political and legal philosophy? What does in depth Ontology have to do with social liberalism or interpretations of law. As far as i can see, only a handful of basic ontological positions would have any importance in political philosophy or legal philosophy, with these fields having much more to do with the study of normative ethics, power, praxis and hermeneutical interpretation.
@@jamesclarke2789 ontology is of the essence as all Vadic premises are based on on that politicsl ideology is based on class structure plus sn understanding of human condition DrNyssvsum is oblivious to the biases that are subliminal in her premises. Thst is why she us not a philosopher but s person who assumed the narrative of Aristotle KS Mill or Durkheim as the base.the entire corpus is dogmatic assuming that the premises mediated premises are A prior capability approach us s feel good bourgeois propaganda
She writes volumes about Indua based on her JS Milnmythology she never made an attempt to study Indic thought thst is closer to Parmenides snd Plato the philosophers she does not understand philosohy nowadays is just grandstanding as it ignores the rekationdhip between ontology snd epistemology
@@jamesclarke2789 Aristotle was weak in due diligence. His politicsl and ethical stands represent the ruling class attitudes of the Hellens hagiography built around us astounding as this guy could not Matc Plato or the dialectic so he throws out monologues to satiate his needs