You’re not deadnaming her, so I’m super happy to hear someone who acknowledges her humanity simply by talking about her. It’s a stark difference from American men like Ben Shapiro who make it seem like they’re dying when woman and transgender people want to exist and at the very least be okay. Can you please, please bring up how transgender and intersex medical work, history, and education was erased deliberately in order to redefine, eliminate, and/or appropriate identities, themselves? I’m curious to know what you know about that, as you said you went to school in Germany. I’m pretty sure there was a specific doctor who’s medical and medicinal work on transgender people were destroyed not even 100 years ago during one of the world wars (I’m not sure which one and if I tried to find the reference video I watched on it I would lose this comment because I’m on mobile). Thank you for putting labor into this and for calling out social media for what it is. Americans are having a hard time understanding why for-profit/private institutions could possibly be bad. Yes, you can see your friends share posts and your favorite artist live, but, um, Facebook makes $100 off of every Facebook profile, maybe more, now. If that’s the case, 100 USD x 1 bn users = $100 bn USD .... and what’s Facebook’s fee for using their platform? your time and your privacy/metadata. It’s almost like they want you to accept their terms & conditions first before reading it and hoping you wouldn’t be able to understand it unless you’re a lawyer. I remember when most metadata companies would change their terms & conditions with little notice and nowadays they announce it through emails. The latter seems like a perforative move to me to make it seem like they care about privacy when they would harvest it for profit faster than Death harvests souls.
Commodification of philosophy isn't a critique of the manufacturer within a system, but a critique against the system that requires and facilitates commodification. Under capitalism nothing is profane, nothing is sacred, everything is for sale.
Media is pretty popular subject of philosophy, such as philosophers Marshall McLuhan and Jean Baudrillard. It may be intersting to wider audience cover it, maybe also using philosophy tube as exemple again.
PT would probably agree with your assessment, don't know why people feel the need to defend Abigail against academic accusations like this, it's a part of the discourse.
To my mind, the point about presentation over substance, although very valid as a general observation of online discourse, seemed to carry a subtext of an accusation of bad faith and *deliberate* sophistry. However, perhaps this is a misunderstanding due to cultural differences in communication style (namely the notorious clash between German directness and the Anglo need to go to great lengths to avoid personal offence and personal disputes), since he went on to talk about how the English tradition of philosophical pedagogy is insensitive to certain distinctions that are crucial to understanding Kant, which is certainly not something Abigail could be blamed for personally. Abigail seems to be a victim of British undergraduate philosophy education and of the relentless demand to upload videos regularly and frequently, rather than a calculated opportunist. What really matters though is that her errors were, and continue to be, allowed to go uncorrected because of the way that The Algorithm rewards and promotes personalities and channels rather than ideas in precisely that way. On top of that, academic discourse, in philosophy in particular, is quite direct when it comes to criticism. For all the personal feuds this might create, it does have the benefit of strongly punishing errors. With that said, perhaps the original criticism video could have delineated its points a bit more cleanly. His attempts to make clear he was specifically referring to the Kant PT video specifically would have fallen on deaf ears the moment he made the more general point about the tendency to place personality above substance.
Totally agree, I watched Abi”s videos and found them entertaining. It’s positive as an introduction. We need more of that. If people want to they can delve deeper. I don’t have a problem with inaccuracies unless there is malicious intent and / or a reluctance to address them. I grew up reading books and the main problem I found was that the level was set too high and you had to literally have the dictionary open in front of you for nearly every word and that wasn’t even a dictionary of philosophy which I only found existed later in life.
@@jimcrelm9478 I don't think the subtext is about good faith or bad faith presenters. The subtext is about the systemic issues of the platform. A bad faith presenter focuses on presentation because they are engaged in sophistry. A good faith presenter *must* focus on presentation or be undiscoverable, because they compete in a marketplace for attention that rewards good presentation. The result is that whether or not one wishes to engage in sophistry one must focus on presentation to be seen and the argument is that this is bad for philosophy.
Just some context on one point the prof made that leftists in the UK should be more radical and be pushing for education to be free. In the 2019 general election, the opposition labour party ran on a platform that included making university education free again. And Philosophy Tube started up her channel as a direct result of university fees going up. She was the last year of students for whom fees were to some degree nominal. So she decided to start up a channel where she essentially just summarised the lectures she was receiving for free on the internet for those people who could no longer afford to attend university.
@@wegood563 Yes, but it's polite to fefer to Abigail by their preferred gender. It's (most likely) not a larp. The vast majority of people with Gender Disphoria are very sincere in their beliefs that they were born the wrong gender, and all evidence points to embracing of these fantasies helping and reducing distress and anxiety. Post Transition people are less likely to commit suicide, and there is NO "cure" for the condition. In other words, it's the moral and ethical thing to treat them with respect. Yes, it's frustrating to literally ignore reality just so a minority of people can feel better about themselves, but they NEED it. It's not a choice for the vast majority of trans people. They CANNOT help it. Sudden onset Gender Disphoria represents a minority of cases. As long as adults are making these decisions, we should be supportive. It's the right thing to do.
I’m not convinced that commodification is the exact problem. This reminds me of a teacher who was truly gifted at explaining things and to us students just getting into philosophy seemed like an all-knowing source of information able to answer authoritatively every question we had. We were learning Kant and after a month or so just beginning to feel confident in our understanding when one day in the middle of a lecture he said “I have been studying Kant for 30 years and have taught this lesson countless times and just now am I really starting to truly understand it. No matter how hard you all study right now you simply do not have the life experience yet to really get his philosophy. Living your lives and experiencing things is just as important as reading and note taking.” That aspect of philosophy is wholly incompatible with a single summary RUclips video because RUclips videos are by design divorced from reality and experience. They function based on the idea that you can focus hard on a single video and then be able to understand the concept. That’s the difference between philosophy in university and a RUclips video.
To me, it’s like watching a popular science video about quantum mechanics. I’m never going to get deep into the maths, or understand it the way a person studying and working in the field will, but I can at least get a glimpse at the cool stuff that’s there. I wonder how your teacher felt about his first year teaching Kant compared to his 30th year. Can you really teach something before you fully understand it, and then run the risk of passing on bad teaching, or do you be cautious but then the philosophy is confined to the few people who can really take the time to grasp it. There must be a balance somewhere.
@@scaredyfish I think the difference is in the material. Philosophy is all about knowing, understanding. My teacher can competently tell us what Kant said, but he can't pass on understanding nor does he need it himself to relay correct information. A teacher provides scaffolding upon which understanding is built. Science, especially the more abstract fields that are divorced from everyday experience do not rely as much on understanding because science is about facts, not knowledge. Interestingly, science relies on philosophy for meaning. Hearing facts about quarks and the strange things that happen in the quantum realm constitutes a pretty complete engagement with the subject. I am personally not convinced that any human can really understand a quark because it is so divorced from our experience anyway. The goals of philosophy are fundamentally different than those of the natural sciences because of the difference between facts and understanding. Philosophy is so great because it has the potential to provide true knowledge.
One note though; Although University in many countries aside the US is affordable, this doesn't mean it is directly accessible. Online lectures/videos etc. that are freely available, serve a different need of education than the need of education AND certification at universities. Comparing the two can be productive to understanding the differences, but there are many people interested in learning philosophy (basics) that aren't well served by enrolling in a university, because they are pursuing a different career, or do not have the time. I am hugely in favor of University Professors making their lectures accessible to the public by the way. Although examples of these generally don't manage to get the same number of clicks, etc. since they are not as optimized to the "Edutainment" and the medium of the internet. (This is just one form of accessibility of course)
Good comment. If I may summarize my take: Free content (online), "Edutainment", is well targeted for general consumption and understanding - raising the average level of intelligent discourse around topics. University content is better suited for specialists, those who wish to pursue these topics more intensely and deeply. The cost being a justification (assumed to be reasonable, of course) for the benefit received for such specialization.
Tbf there is a huge plethora of resources for auto-didactics to crack at in terms of philosophy. I would say that as far as self-teaching yourself goes, philosophy tube and other outlets of pop-phil edutainment aren’t well, good.
@@weggygaygay9940 Why should only self-starters have access to these things? PT is way more accessible than freely available academic texts because it is intentionally meant to be entertaining.
@@skepticmoderate5790 everyone has access to these things (freely available academic material). The quality of being entertaining doesn't make it more accessible. People who have a vested interest in learning will seek out proper texts. Maybe you are conflating people who want to learn philosophy with people who would benefit from a superficial notion of philosophical ideas? To be clear: I'm not saying which medium is better. I'm only saying PT's intended audience is not exactly people who want to learn philosophy, although there's an intersection. PT has a broader audience, but that really doesn't make it more accessible. It could very well just mean there's more demand for its type of content.
@@Scootercorn Bad take. "Edutainment" does not raise the average level of intelligent discourse around topics, because a 5 minute video cannot give you even a basic level of understanding when it comes to science in 2021 (i include philosophy here too). It simply leads to people who were equally clueless 5 minutes ago believing they have an actual understanding (even if superficial) of a subject that they don't. Some random youtuber with a camera can never replace an academic who spent years doing research, and even people who actually know what they're talking about cannot condense Kant and calculus into 5 minute videos while making something of substance and not cheap clickbait. I'd rather people know that they're clueless than them thinking they understand something after watching popsci garbage. To provide an empirical anecdote, I myself am a neurobiologist. I remember an online argument with someone about the actual validity of "ADHD". I explained the methodological problems and shortcomings of modern psychiatry in a text that required some effort on my part, in order to give a layman a glimpse into a much deeper scientific problem. The response I got was "science doesn't care if you agree", along with a youtube link to a 3 minute video.
As a professor who tries to integrate my research into my videos on pop music, I find this essay very good. My addition is that people like Abigail are reaching people that would never think about Kant. So, she does all the things you say, but while she commodified philosophy she also democratized it. She makes people care about philosophy who never would. Her influence thus is a great boon to educators who want more curious and informed students.
To me Abigail videos aren't really philosophy, they are philosophy entertainment. Maybe they get people into the topic and make them want to research a bit more, but her videos definetly aren't extremely educational. She did make me interested in philosophy tho and her videos lead me to taking philosophy 101 in college. Without her vids I would have never done that.
@@MZ95 Nope. She says she's a woman, so that's what she is. Whether you agree with her points or not, don't stoop to childish bullying to try to discredit her.
@@Narokkurai What determines that she is indeed a woman other than her simply stating that she is? Is the idea of a "woman" entirely meaningless, or is there an actual definition of the word that is not self referential?
@@spitxfire99 I think her identity is something which belongs exclusively to her. It's part of her internal reality which I can never claim to know better than her. Obviously I can describe her body in cold, clinical terms, but I don't think identity resides strictly in the body. I believe identity is something that emerges through consciousness, so that even if you were a brain in a jar and you said, "I am a man," that statement would be true. And from a more moralist perspective, I think it's simply best practice to assume people are speaking in good faith when they tell you who they are. Rhetorical devices like, "I identify as an attack helicopter," are really just that: rhetorical devices which don't actually reflect any real world identities. Trans people aren't asking you to consider them as an entirely different species, they're asking you to consider them as a slightly different person than you knew before. The number of people who genuinely believe they are animals or helicopters is so small, I would gladly take the "loss" of validating their weird identities if it also validates many more trans people who I think really deserve more respect and understanding.
@@Narokkurai It seems you skirted past my question. Is "self identification" all that matters when it come to this? Is there any other social categorization that we can find in which "self identification" is all that is accounted for in absence of all other logical evidence? The definition of woman as most understand it to be is adult human female. I think its illogical to simply assert one's self as something while ignoring any attempt at logical reasoning. Saying "I feel, therefore I am" does not hold up in reality.
@@spitxfire99 don't attempt to have a reasonable conversation with a clearly unreasonable person. We know that in reality we don't currently have the ability to change from a biological male to a biological female. It is a fact of reality that Abigail is male, its not about being "mean" or "harmful" its just stating reality.
Another nasty consequence of social media's "the product is you" commodification is that -- since the ideas are so wrapped up in the presentation and the identity of the presenter -- it becomes difficult to differentiate between a good faith criticism of the ideas and a personal attack on the presenter.
Yup. This person is now untouchable. When I did philosophy back in the 1990s we were expected to develop really thick skins and not take criticism of arguments personally. Now everyone is primed to expect offense and some groups especially so.
@@SevenRiderAirForce i dont think so. I think it was the 1960s progressives who pretended to be for free speech but wanted the removal of academics in the sciences for their controversial views. I think those types were the ones with thin skins and they now have even thinner skins. More so than the religious have ever been
yeah but people for the most part aren’t making good faith criticisms, they’re saying some variation of “man in a dress lol” as if their demented” ironic” attachment from reality and seriousness is an argument.
You can see that the mission of Abigail's channel changed over time. While her initial goal was "to give away her degree" her later videos try to be "her own unique voice". So her later videos are definitely more subjective takes. Personally think both types of videos have value but I definitely enjoy them more as entertainment then education.
@Kevin L Well for me it's not education since I've read a lot of basic philosophy and have a liberal degree so most of the concepts aren't new to me. I don't think there would be anything wrong with using her as a resource though. I think most of her videos are more introductory so they're great building blocks for people to learn more.
@Kevin L She has more than 900K subscribers for her videos that pair essays with skits and songs on RUclips. I think the assumption that most viewers aren't watching to be entertained is baseless and likely completely wrong.
@@bun197 if you have an issue with the ideas she's presenting, criticize the ideas instead of making ad hominem attacks against her with zero evidence.
@@MissPoplarLeaf ok. the ideas are bare bones and often times even incorrect interpretations of the work of philosophers. far more effort goes into the presentation and specifically the presenter. look at her recent video parading around in slow motion all dressed up. the entire thing is an ego project that barely even references philosophy anymore and mostly politics
I agree that presentation is more emphasized by influencers, and that’s not always a good thing, but I think it encourages more people to be interested in philosophy. Also, Abigail has a background in theatre, so in weaving the two together, she is creating a more personal experience, and is able to add more visual metaphors.
I do not think philosophy requires attracting anybody not interested in it to begin with. I do not think there is any purpose in promoting philosophy outside social circles not attracted to philosophy in itself already. If someone cannot sit through a philosophy material withouth flashy, visual entertainment, then maybe it just isn't for them. After all, philosophy is a niche hobby and is not meant for everybody. Having said this, I find value in Philosophy Tube's and her alikes artistic format, not because philosophy itself is unattractive without it, but simply for the aesthetic, artistic value of it - as entertainment for the sake of entertainment alone.
@@midasiscariot Why? What reason is there not to have both? Pop Academia has never been as cutting edge and granular as "normal" Academia, but that's kind of the POINT. Why limit the means used to teach people things? Why gatekeep the concept of "Thinking about stuff?" >Philosophy is a niche hobby Ohhhhhhh, okay. It's because you're some elitist snob who doesn't actually give a shit about expanding peoples understanding of the world around them. You just think Philosophy is a fun thing that you get to do because you had the means to go to school for it. I can see why you wouldn't see any value in philosophical concepts being made palatable for non-academics, it doesn't directly benefit you.
@@biffenheimer No, absolutely not. I am not a snob for not wanting to enforce education on the society. I think people are born different, and not all of them are meant to study philosophy or philosophize. More than this, most do not even want to - most people I know simply do not even want to take the time to study it. Philosophy is not always a thrilling adventure - very often it is also a tedious, exhausting, responsible work. It is up to a selected group of passionate, talented individuals to pick up on culture and intellect, and guide the rest of the society forwards. But do you know who I think are the actual snobs? People who want to enforce their area of interests onto others, and people who are needlesly rude over it. I am not an acadamic/scholar in philosophy, by the way - many concepts I learned from channels like Philosophy Tube, and I'm glad they're out there. Many philosophers weren't academics either, so I think that's ok.
@@biffenheimer It's not about gatekeeping anything, but about not enforcing it. You do not have to gatekeep philosophy studies from anybody - most people do not even want to learn it anyway. Not everybody is made for intellectual work, and I think that is ok.
@@midasiscariot nobody is enforcing anything, for people that are interested in philosophy but don't want to start hitting the (pretty intimidating) books themselves, the presentation of philosophy tube videos can be a really nice gateway into the world of philosophy, and it can help them find what niche they may find interesting and do more research in their own time if they want to (although not everyone has the time for that which is why the pt vids are so nice)
I like non flashy educational videos but only when the presenter is a good explainer. There are plenty of non flashy educational video where the presenters cannot concisely explain their way out of wet paper bag.
Therr is tremendous value to the kind of philosophy communication Abby does, as most won't learn from people who don't have the theatrics. The Mythbusters also had a background in stagecraft and other things and, while they sometimes got the science wrong, they generally did well and people learned real good information from them overall. It should just be better understood for the value it does and does not have. I like that warning at the end.
@@Sam_on_RUclips You know there's something wrong with slight inaccuracies in Philosophy Tube's case. It's sort of okay if myth busters do it. But it's not okay if you're a philosophy teacher like Abigail does it.
@@Sam_on_RUclips I get your main point about philosophy being disseminated farther and wider with YT philosophers, which is definitely a plus, however philosophy's main point is to find truth- Imo Slight inaccuracies are not somethings that should be okayed for public dissemination. It is dangerous to misinterpret philosophy that is used to guide your actions.
On discussing the price of philosophy education in universities: I live in Germany and yes, university education is almost "free" of charge, but it doesn't account for the time lost. Most classes take place during common work hours and not everyone can just take out 3 years of their life to study a subject they're interested in, most people need to work full time and are very tired at the end of the day. Finding short, yet interesting and free YT videos or blog entries and reading up on it in small doses is really accessible and I would love more free content on any subject online.
@@anshagrawal254 you don't have to read 600 pages of dry academic text, there are books that are very accessible even if you're not a philosophy student, this is just an excuse for laziness
@@patrikjurica7727 I mean it is an excuse for laziness. Not everybody likes taking the hours it will take to read non fiction books . Also you can just like watching it more than reading it . This can of course also be compounded by disorders like dyslexia and adhd
Professor, I can perfectly see your concerns about the change of shift in PT videos. However, I believe there is a difference between class material and divulgation content: even if her videos are quite far from being what you might call "algorithm-friendly" (RUclips prefers short, fast moving videos), she does care about the form, as she understands her work is not to teach philosophy but rather raise certain topic to the spotlight. I find her job very valuable, as she is closing the gap between academia and the common public. Far-right thinkers have become quite skilled in diculgation, getting outstanding results, so I find crucial to divulgate along with teaching, to step down from the pedestal and talk to the people in their language, surrending to the concession that implies
RUclips does not always prefer short videos now. Due to the platform being based on ad revenue, having longer vids that can keep people entertained has a higher profit than some very short vids. Still, market demands constraining the way content is shown can be frustrating.
just because PT isnt optimally tuning their product towards what (they expect) the algo wants, its still a differentiated media product which is quite profitable, and also brings with it a degree of social capital. Its not the get out of jail free you make it
@@Belisaur People use the making of money and the concept of capitalism interchangeably. We do live in a capitalist society. That does not make PT a capitalist, even if she is successful.
I feel like philosophy tube is the pop science equivalent to philosophy, there is a real danger of sounding stuffy and boring when discussing complex topics to a general audience on the internet and it's my personal belief that if you give someone an engaging introduction to something they are more likely to explore it deeper. So maybe there is a benefit to commodified philosophy
Where I think that benefit stops is when you have what the presenter explained ‘ideas being so closely tied to identity’ that you can’t criticize ideas without being seen as criticizing someone’s identity. I also think sophistry for sophistries sake is unproductive and not helpful. The ‘yeah it gets peoples foot in the door’ argument only goes so far...at a certain point you gotta admit that this ‘pop science’ commodification of education on some level is dangerous if not at the very least unproductive. There is a line, and I’d argue PT has long since crossed it
It's unclear what exactly those benefits are, and I would like for someone to check exactly what differences there are, but hey that's not gonna happen, probably. For example, commodity is, well, a temporary respite. Unless you are personally invested, or gain an entirely new piece of the puzzle that sticks close to you, whatever you learn online is guaranteed to fade away pretty quickly. I remember learning about Nietzsche's eternal recurrence through 8-bit philosophy on wisecrack, and to this day I still remember it very well, after reading Nietzsche's books too But for people for whom philosophy is a bunch of interesting tidbits of thought, stuff just goes away. Just like any other commodity, which is counter to the principle behind higher education... which is the source of not only PT's videos, but also many, many in depth topics on RUclips. It's like ice cream, you know what you like. But unless you really liked that one combination of ice cream,you won't remember if you even did try it, after a while that is.
@@BygoneT "It's unclear what exactly those benefits are" It is not "unclear" at all. It's abundantly clear. It's propagating philosophy and discourse as widely as possible to people who wouldn't normally be exposed to it. People without an ethic, may develop an ethic. People who are distraught and confused about their place and purpose in the world might find new ways of looking at themselves. The benefits of philosophy reach more people. That's a pretty obvious benefit.
@@tnatstrat7495 "People who are distraught and confused about their place and purpose in the world might find new ways of looking at themselves. " or maybe they become nihilist. You're just assuming a certain outcome that suits your narrative.
Academic philosophers traditionally have not done a great job of making their work accessible and clear. Glad to see this kind of video cutting through that.
I would argue philosophy has always revolved around a concept of star players and their philosophies and that academic philosophy rewards an expertise built around those prior philosophers trading in a theory of higher truths versus personal experience anyway. The internet is just the latest iteration on that form. Philosophy isn’t divorced from it’s time of formation though and it’s influence in the larger culture that follows it shape both the current cultural reality and formation of one’s personal identity which I think is more what RUclipsrs like philosophy tube are shooting for. How the philosopher’s of western civilization have formed our perceptions of reality and identity today. Not as a replacement for philosophy but a dissection of it.
that last sentence struck a nerve in me... "It is designed to be addictive(.) and you should know that." while i already heard about this, hearing it like this really made me worry about how i use youtube. (basically the only social media i use, but most of the(/my) time...)
I appreciate this response, and agree with it wholeheartedly. I just stumbled upon this, and didn't originally watch Philosophy Tube's videos or your response. That being said, I think you're missing the point of philosophy RUclips channels in general. The point of these channels is to popularize and bring attention to philosophy, not to strictly educate. Philosophy Tube makes this clear in her video and channel descriptions. I don't think anyone's expecting something comparable to reading a _Cambridge Companion_ watching these videos, just a short little gist presented in a fun way that targets younger audiences. In fact, it's channels like this formed my decision to taking philosophy in school!
That's what i was thinking too, it's very clear that Philosophy Tube isn't meant to be the highest form of education, but it sparks an interest in people.
@@BlueNorth313 I disagree, when things are presented in a "simple" format it can actually help people take interest in certain topics, more often than not the brain likes things that are relatively easy to digest and don't require much energy (which isn't a bad thing). Abigail's videos are an introduction to a topic, they can spark an interest or they may not. If someone wants to read more about it they can now enter it with a ~ general idea ~ (even if simple) of what they're getting into, or even read the sources she leaves in the description. It can help people get _started_ which is often the most difficult part about a task, especially if they're neurodivergent. It's like swimming in a pool vs swimming in the ocean, they're both different obviously but at least you know _something_ and the task isn't that daunting anymore. Accessibility is important, though i do agree if she were to water it down _too much_ it could reduce interest rather than spark it, because then there would be no "problem" to solve, and it wouldn't do justice to the topic either. I do think her videos could be improved in some areas, so yeah.
Simplfying ideas is fine if you actually put the time and effort into doing so and dont just broadcast your own personal interpretations as a summary of someone elses work.
@@BlueNorth313 What line do you draw there? Should numberphile stop making videos because it dumbs down math and stops people from really engaging with high level math? Should we stop discussing history because its impossible to present every scrap of evidence we have regarding ever historical fact? Nearly all information is dumbed down for expediency but that doesn't mean we stop engaging with it.
Throwing this out there: keeping philosophy tied closely to academic study does help present it "in full context". However, I do feel the take in this video focuses on the potential negative impact of people (read social media) on philosophy and doesn't postulate enough on the impact of philosophy on people (read presenting philosophy in way that more people engage with it). All of that is to say I think this video certainly presents _a_ valid take on commodification of philosophy (and has points that I do agree with), but I also think it's only _one_ way to look at what channels like Philosophy Tube do.
I largely agree with this, but I think the video's plea to critique philosophy bears more intellectual weight than favoring the degree to which people engage with philosophy. This makes me think of the misrepresentation of Nietzsche that inspired the Nazi party. By making his philosophy more engaging it was used to support an ideology the creator of said philosophy would have decried vehemently, and whose original work openly opposes. To lay on the internet vitriol; One of the ways to use a screwdriver is to bash the screw in with the handle, that doesn't mean it's an effective or correct way.
@@XyphileousLF Every time someone mentions this misrepresentation of Nietzche, I ask them what they're referring to specifically, and I never get a satisfactory answer. Reading his writing myself, I encountered some passages in which Nietzche denounces Christianity. As far as I'm concerned, that's generally a good thing. However, the _reason_ given is almost enough to make me a believer. He says that Christians, by coddling the weak masses, have diminished the strength of the people, seeming almost to refer to breeding strength into the population (and breeding out weakness). There may be _some_ distance still to cover between this argument and Nazi ideology, but frankly the parallel seems entirely clear, and his argument strikes me as extraordinarily reactionary.
@@Disentropic1 I only offered Nietzsche as an example of misrepresented philosophy, and the edits done to his work by his openly anti-semitic sister after he went crazy are -to my knowledge- a very solid example; forged and recontextualized quotes. I was a dissociative, depressive, proudly nihilistic teen and Nietzsche was a good crutch for me to form an actual ego with, though I only put in a sophomoric attempt at grasping it. Nietzsche's clear desire to be the protagonist and blatant misunderstanding of the morals of Buddhism and how they are *really fuckin' in line* with his beliefs make me regard him as a good philosophy 101 target, but a dangerous ideology to fixate upon I agree (and Nietzsche likely would as well). Also; hell yeah he was extraordinarily reactionary! At least he (in my understanding) looked back at the intricate weavings of traditions and said "Fuck all of that, we're humans we should just be humans.". I do, however, think there is more to his argument against moralizing in general that refutes groupthink on a whole (let alone ethno-fascistic group"think") than there are passages that can be (mis)construed as bigotry/social darwinism.
I think the problem is that philosophy can not have its impact proper on people exposed to it if its presented and packaged the way it is by people whose primary authority over the knowledge presented comes directly from them being a youtuber. Thus, the problem arises, that the commodified product that is consumed no longer represents philosophy as such, it just becomes mere words and sentences that can be thrown about with its authority driven from an undergraduate that primarily does youtube content. At this point we then only have a language play proper to medial/youtube life-world discourse and nothing that could represent philosophy whatsoever. "I fear the greeks even when they give gifts."
@@XyphileousLF That is simply wrong, according to Aristotle, if something is wrong, then it cannot be correct. In short, bashing a screw with the handle is not "one of the ways" of screwing a screw. You can have the wrong head, thus making the handle invalid when considering the head You can have no handle, but that still leaves the potential for a vaild head/tip You can have the wrong form of the screwdriver, thus being invalid Or the wrong size head/tip, thus invalid But you cannot bash a screw with a screwdriver, that is philosophically impossible, if you do so then you are using it to "hammer" the object. Thus the screwdriver becomes a hammer. Concepts are based on awareness, bias and expectations Philosophy is not some dogmatic and inorganic realm where all thoughts about the various issues play out in a sterile vaccum sealed evironment. Experiences and experimental perceptions and conclusions on the world and humanity (or human life) through the world, can lead to evolution, reproduction, hybridization, etc etc of an idea or observation. Religion and Philosophical insight are uniquely tied for this reason. To ritualize an idea is no better than to turn wisdom gained from it (and thus Philosophy) into a commodity. The individual much search for themselves, the collective affirm for themselves, for you can now teach philosophy...only show others how to create it... You will never reproduce what was never tangible, esp a conclusion created by one whose heart you know not. if philosophical truth was as a thick liquid, it will always take the form of the container it is in. It's "matter" and "atomic" properties determining it's boiling and freezing point. How solid or malleable your mind is will determine more about what philosophy is to you and how you weld different ideas Influencers are just the laypeople, doesn't mean their mastery of certain philosophical truths and conceptualized doctrines is somehow inferior to some "Scholar" There is a reason Socrates was put on trial, and it wasn't for offering such a great Scholarship program with his academic expertise... The religious determinism displayed in Academa and the priesthood established to teach and secure the status and dogma of thousands of hand picked and conditioned "scholars" is due for being questioned. And the regality we allow them to express over the rest of society is similar to Roman Catholic dominance over other "radical" sects of Christianity. The layperson reading a bible to his friends, family and townsfolk a was a better civil and social threat in the eyes of the "scholars" and "professionals" than the compromises and inaccuracies their zealous inclusionary culture creates.
When I read the actual source material, the youtube video became an interpretation of the idea rather than the idea themselves. The source material will give you a multidimensional understandings of the concepts while the video essay will give you a particular dimension or interpretation that can be derived from the source material.
@@thotslayer9914 How long, exactly, do you think it takes to check a source? And if you're trying to study something, what is the virtue of cutting corners? When it comes to something like learning, you might as well do nothing than a half-assed attempt, because you're massively increasing the chances of coming away with faulty knowledge or outright misunderstandings.
@@thotslayer9914 Rather than writing comments, do you just throw your keyboard down the stairs and hope for the best? But enjoy listening to lectures that deal with 'a real shit' - you do you.
@@iamjurell Might not be the right place to ask, but you are the right person. What is philosophy? From my (very laic) knowledge, it’s a descriptor for various approaches that deal with usually hard questions currently unexplainable by science. Studying philosophy is studying philosophical ideas of historical figures remembered for their contribution to solving one or multiple of these questions, or providing a valid new way of looking at life/existence. To me (and mind you, I’m asking to be corrected here if I misunderstand), goal of philosophy is to A) get you through your life with as little mental suffering as possible; B) explain away things religion generally fails to; and C) provide humanity, leaders and general public, with a rationality toolbox and library of ideas to build a society that minimizes suffering. Yea, entertainers and ideologists to whom masses flock will often misrepresent or “freeform interpret” an idea put down by some dead dude, either because of lack of understanding or active attempt to adapt the idea to fit theirs, But at the end of the day, if it gets me going through life in a way that minimizes suffering or empowers me, grants me a bit different or broader view on a topic, does it matter? Is it bad if I just want to be entertained and consume on a platform built for entertainment and consumption? That I want the eyecandy, theatrics and pretty colours, just with a bit of exposure to ideas that I usually don’t ponder on? That a 40 minute video (which may or may not misinterpret the subject topic) satisfies my immediate or sometimes even long-term needs for answers? EDIT: BIG SORIES FOR THE ESSAY, HOPE YOU READ THIS PART BECAUSE there’s actual question I’d like to have answered, by anyone who thinks they have the answer.
@@ratglyph I would never claim to be anything remotely resembling an expert on the topic of philosophy, but here goes... 'What is philosophy?' The etymological roots of a lot of words tend to reveal how much definitions change or branch out over the centuries. For instance, the word 'passion' initially meant something like 'suffering' (which makes the phrase 'the passion of the christ' make a lot more sense); 'obsession' originally meant, essentially, to be possessed. 'Philosophy' (something like 'love of wisdom') however has remained virtually unmolested - it is, in the loosest possible terms, *formalised thinking.* 'From my (very laic) knowledge, it’s a descriptor for various approaches that deal with usually hard questions currently unexplainable by science.' Funnily enough, an earlier term for what eventually became 'scientist' was 'natural philosopher.' 'To me (and mind you, I’m asking to be corrected here if I misunderstand), goal of philosophy is to A) get you through your life with as little mental suffering as possible; B) explain away things religion generally fails to; and C) provide humanity, leaders and general public, with a rationality toolbox and library of ideas to build a society that minimizes suffering.' I believe that all of these things are noble goals, but I would find it difficult to suppose that there are any inherent 'goals' to philosophy rather than that philosophy can be a useful tool in order to achieve one's own goals. Philosophy in and of itself doesn't have a message any more than mathematics has a political opinion or chemistry has ideals. However, if you want to further understand how numbers work, it helps to study mathematics; if your goal is to catalogue all existing elements, learning about chemistry is the way to go. But if you want to figure out *how to figure something out* or understand *what it is* to understand something, philosophy is your guy.
What if I have a passing interest in philosophy? I have learnt 'something' about Kant's philosophy by watching a short RUclips video. Not in depth or rigorous understanding, but something. Is that a net gain that many people are able to easily access information that is of a poorer grade, but that basic concepts are available? The alternative is to devote a considerable amount of time to study only one thing in an institution. More rigorous, less practical. As a result of many different 'pseudo intellectual' RUclips channels I have gained broader understanding of the world, and in some cases persued this further by reading source books or watching more detailed RUclips lectures from online courses such as Stanford University.
It is not a net gain. The other alternative is a refusal to cater for any 'passing interest' in philosophy at all - neither on the internet nor in the academy. Inaccessibility manifested within fields like this is - to a great extent - a virtue. The gate must be kept. Intellectualism is *necessarily* elitist. Your 'broad understanding of the world' is shallow and inevitably of no use whatsoever to society and the culture. To say the least, what we are shining the spotlight on here is a misallocation of resources. A more extreme case would be the objections Salazaar had towards teaching literacy to the Portuguese underclass. The community does not profit from expending capital on equipping masses for elite ventures. Lofty subjects like philosophy, religion, politics etc are aristocratic at their core; they should always be positioned in the collective membrane such that they are the exclusive preserve of 'the few', lest we all succumb to an avalanche of half-baked musings on the divine or shower thoughts about the constitutional laws. On the contrary, that which *everyone* may reap the benefit of is a class of educated, trained men of special ability and paternal spirit.
I'm a philosophy student and PT has been quite an influence on my decision (early, pre-aesthetic PT :p). "Influencer philosophy", while providing an incomplete picture at times (or often), serves a great function in spreading philosophical ideas to a broader public audience; which I see as something worth having, especially in a time where (at least in my opinion), philosophy's status is challenged quite heavily in the public eye.
To me the relevant question is: Is the world a better place with or without PT's videos? Sure free education is better, but we have no power to solve that now, and even if we live in countries where university programs ARE socialist-like, we cannot attend 5 tracks in one lifetime (it would be ridiculous). Sure reading books is better, but it's a fact of the times that people will much rather reach for youtube videos. So with all that given, it seems to me a net positive of having PT presenting philosophy topic even if heavily presenter oriented, because thousands of people will be exposed to some notable ideas in philosophy and some of them will be prompted to read deeper into the matter. It's probably even a positive thing that she prompted you to critique, because it forces a conversation, and gives the topic more visibility.
You already said that people don't have time to read books anymore. Most people who watch Abigail's videos will have her videos as the extent of their knowledge on philosophy, which is why it's important to criticize the misinformation when it's there.
Yeah, I mostly agree with the points on the video, but the idea that free college educations somehow occupy the same space as someone watching an youtube video on a topic now and then is pretty off. Maybe if those universities engaged in a LOT more extra-class action, but even them it seems to me like there would remain important differences
The main Problem with Abigail Thorn is that considering her last 20 videos or so, that she is lacking in teaching Philosophy but rather prefers to make hip pop-leftist content with a very minor philosophical perspective on the topics. The vulgar Form of saying this would be that she is obsessed with gender, race and class...and don't get me wrong I attended a professional academical Seminar on These 3 topics. So she occupies a very prominent and eye-catching Name to promote herself and her political views, which while i am myself leftist, bemoan out of philosophical integrity. Though I guess Who screams "philosophy" the loudest is necessarily not the Person with the most philosophical vigor. And this outright misleading way of promoting Philosophy is the reason why we would be better off without PhilosophyTube
As an American who has watched PT for several years: any forum has its own pressures to present yourself in some way. A university has to seem prestigious, accredited, gatekept. Social media has pressures to be clickbait, flashy, digestible. I don't think Abigail is as swayed by the pressures of social media as you make her out to be. She just greatly enjoys theatrics. If her goal was to be as successful as possible her content would look far different. If you want the content of her work to be more accurate then reach out to her and offer consultation.
This is exactly the type of comment someone who has never visited a legit philosophy lecture would say. Check out MIT's OCW Philosophy Course. Please stop spewing this diarreha of mouth on innocent ears. Just because you're too lazy to think doesn't mean more cultured people should feel empathetoc towards your ignorance (or of clickbaot, for-profit youtubers for that matter) which would easily get you mocked in any serious scholarly circle. You call it "elitism", i call it "knowing what the fuck you're talking about".
@@imgelfand2327 Discrediting yourself by being rude. Also claiming following: "This is exactly the type of comment someone who has never visited a legit philosophy lecture would say." without being able to prove it. Get of your high horse :)
Thanks for the mention Professor. I’m pleased to see another videos of yours up online. Education in Australia where I live and have been educated is not dissimilar to what you’ve mentioned outside the US. I completed a bachelors, masters and doctorate in a system that has basically cost me almost nothing given it’s utility and where I have had to pay it’s been through a stepped delayed tax liability. A system both of my adult children have also benefited from as well. Your distinction of the commodification was something I had read as a given. Rather I saw you were making an informed contribution on the nature of presentation and insight regarding the nature of PhilosophyTube’s material not on personality. I think what some individuals here might be struggling to understand is it’s not intended to deride anyone (Abigail or anyone else). Rather to bring into stark contrast the tradition of academy at its basis, to explore the soundness of ideas, not who is putting it forward under examination. Laughs, if all RUclips channels came with a health warning… well it would be a different world. I happily accept the conditions of entry. Thank you again for an entertaining and though provoking video. Looking forward to more. For the record, I enjoy Abigail’s videos. Yes sometimes she gets it wrong and corrects herself. I though see it as entertainment, by no means a replacement for the tertiary system nor for that matter just picking up the source materials and reading them.
Every now and then, I hear of semi-affordable higher education schemes elsewhere in the world (I'm a UK resident and Welsh/British citizen) and I think 'Hmmm, maybe I could emigrate and study philosophy and/or linguistics?'
@@markyoung01maccom Yes - and thanks for replying! Possibly my brother could 'drop me off' there some time (he's a computer whizz, so he's always border-hopping, lol). I'll give it some serious thought when lock-down's over...
Okay, so I have a few issues with this framing. I agree that Philosophy Tube is commodifying philosophy. However, I'd argue that's not necessarily a bad thing. Commodification in and of itself just has the consequence that the product is more appealing and accessible to the public. It is a mass distribution of something. How commidification is negative is when the product gets diluted or changed in such a way that it does not resemble itself anymore. So, the problem with Philosophy Tube's videos is not that she's commodifying, but that she's wrong. This is the good part about what you're doing - showing where she's wrong and explaining how. However, what Philosophy Tube does is not negative in and of itself. It's not necessarily bad to have easily accessible philosophy on the internet. If there was a creator that presented philosophy well and had little to no errors in their explanation, albeit some simplifications, that would be good, wouldnt it? That would mean that philosophy reaches a greater audience than it otherwise could have, and if we believe philosophy to have any value, then that should be inherently good. The main issue that I have is that your implied argument is that it is better to learn philosophy in a university than on the internet. I can somewhat agree, as it is much easier to understand the works of a writer if you can work collaboratively. The content of a lecture is also much less commodified than on the internet. But you fail to address the actually substantive arguments against going to university to learn philosophy. The first is that university takes a LOT of time. Assuming that a person does not want a degree in philosophy, they could take single subjects or night courses. That works, but it also means pracically all their free time is used up. The second is that university is very expensive. You mention that schools in most of Europe is tuition-free. This is true. Personally, I go to a university in Norway, studying for a biophysics degree. I pay about 70 USD per semester in tuition. It's trivial. However, what you fail to mention is the price of everything else. Even if you don't buy any textbooks, you still need a roof over your head, something to eat, and a normal way of life. That costs a lot of money. After I am done with my master's degree, I will owe appx 40 000 USD in debt. That is after scholarships. So in order to avoid the huge debt, you study full-time and work part-time, hoping to make enough money, or you work full-time and study part-time, hoping to have enough energy to wake up in the morning. And keep in mind, this is in one of the most progressive countries in the world. So, university IS expensive, either in terms of money or in terms of energy, or both. Now why would someone choose to spend all that money and energy on philosophy, versus for example STEM? Most people wouldn't, I don't think, because there's you gain much less materially doing the former than the latter. You study philosophy to learn, not to make something out of it. Unfortunately, we don't live in a society where learning is considered valuable in and of itself. Juxtapose that with youtube videos about philosphy. In stead of spending hours every day studying philosophy, you can spend half an hour learning most of the concepts. Yes, it's inferior in some ways, but it more than makes up for that by being insanely more accessible to people. It allows people to pursue material gains, and at the same time pursue the knowledge of philosophy. Hence, I would argue that this commodification of philosophy is better for both the general public and the field of philosophy.
Any cause that basically boils down to "more chances and more options to spread more knowledge to more people " always gains a supporter in me, unless the bad consequences hurt or subvert the good too much. I agree with you!
@@TheBelovedRose. you're rejecting the real world. You cannot give a pure service. Everything, including university and the professors therein, is a commodity. You must realise that you can commodify something without selling it for money. In many ways, commodifying is synonymous with universalising. I view the ideal youtube philosopher like a philosophy introduction class - it gives you a general idea, its simplified to the point where most people could follow, and it leaves you with a want for learning more. You can commodify correct philosophy. And when you do, that commodified correct philosophy is better than uncommodified correct philosophy. Commodification necessarily means accessibility, and so more people will listen to it. Its not inherently bad, its only bad when its wrong.
I was hot headed in my argument but you framed it beautifully. I still sense a feeling of that old academic tut-tutting and dismissiveness at the very idea someone can learn about philosophy outside the university setting though.
Thank you for making an effort to protect philosophy against commercialism. This needs to be done, regardless the fact you are being paid. This is not circular so not hypocritical at all.
One thing I noted is also how so many of the big youtube personalities, including Philosophy Tube, have theater or comedy backgrounds, fields in which presentation and honing persona and charisma are essential for success. It would makes sense then that people who are able to leverage these skills would be successful/selected in the RUclips space. The element of entertainment and presentation are necessary to become popular/reach a certain level of popularity on this platform. And somewhere along the line, popularity is associated with authority/legitimacy.
One critique I'd like to make is that the statement "people on the left should focus on public education rather than student debt forgiveness" seems to ignore the common held view by most people on the left (and of the younger generations in general, at least here in America) that student loan debt forgiveness is the first step towards publicly funded college. It's why so many people were backing Bernie Sanders, as that was the platform he was aiming for (and he's sorta entry level leftist at that). There's definitely a push for free/public college, it's just that we would also need student loan forgiveness in the interim for those who have already gone through it, since it would be such a stimulus to the economy, having an entire work force enter with that debt lifted, able to afford much more, including the cost of living that would be required to move where the jobs are in their fields. Public college is something that's not going to happen over night, and student loan debt forgiveness would hold us over until we can reach that point.
Expense should not be merely judged by the actual material cost, there is also the opportunity cost to consider. Not everyone can afford or even want to pursue philosophy as their main interest. However I consider the subject to be essential for a modern citizen to a certain degree. Plato believed that philosophy, math etc. should not be studied by anybody who didn’t check ALL the boxes.
I must say, I do enjoy the contributions youtube philosophers are making. At the very least, these people are introducing me to subject matter and I feel its my responsibility to view their content with discretion.
I'm an an occasional viewer of Philosophy Tube and I've watched this and your previous video on PT. I agree with most of what you say in this video about the commodifiction of philosophy. It's perfectly true that the YT algorithm favours personality driven content for commercial reasons and that this can have an unfortunate effect on the quality of philosophy on YT. I also agree with criticising PT for misrepresenting Kant. I think it is unfair however to ascribe to her personally cynical motives as you seemed to in your first video. In fact her initial motive for starting the channel was to make philosophy available to those who couldn't afford university education in the UK. It wasn't started as a commercial enterprise. I know you say in this video that publicly funding university would be a better option than YT philosophy education but here are some things to consider: a) philosophy education on YT isn't mutually exclusive with publicly funded uni, b) Abigail herself is a lefty and presumably supports public funding for education, so her channel isn't meant as an alternative to that, c) even if the UK had free 3rd level education, there would still be barriers to philosophy in uni such as mental health so philosophy outside the academy would still be important. I understand that you want to make general points about the state of YT philosophy, points I'm inclined to agree with. I think it's unfortunate that you chose Abigail Thorn as your example in this project as her channel is not the cynical commercial enterprise you present it as. I think it's important to differentiate between a) the motives/behaviour of YT and it's parent company Google which are purely commercial and act much as you describe in the video, and b) the motives of individual content creators on the site (which now includes you) some of whom are aware of the commercial and cynical nature of the site and find it problematic. You fail to make this differentiation for Abigail and conflate her motives with the motives of the site. I think it might be interesting for you to address the tension that exists between the motives of particular content creators and the motives of the site their content is hosted on. Of course it's possible that a creator unwittingly produces content which is more commercial than they hope, especially when YT both incentives certain kinds of content and presents it to the viewer in a certain way. However I'm not sure that YT content can be understood wholly in commercial terms either, without regard for the motives and values of its creators.
@@arreca09 ive mixed feelings on this, amd hope the video OP considers this. Philo tube definitely has become wealthy, but i wonder how much this has truly corrupted her artistic vision. It's very easy to view youtubers cynically, yet i struggle to think she is not sincere in her beliefs or presentation; streamer Destiny has started what I think is a very cynical and destructive pattern of dismissing and attacking large leftist youtubers as "grifters" who don't sufficiently engage politically, an attitude he coincidentally took on after doing his first on-ground work in _10 or more years_ of constant streaming...
@@chillin5703 I think ContraPoints and her, at that time his, style was major influence on Abigail, at that time Ollie. I think this has been about 2 years ago. And to find out she has been transitioning for the last year is interesting, seems that in many ways she has followed footsteps of Contrapoints. Contrapoints rose to fame thru her narrative style filled with humor and acting, while Abigail was still doing 10 minute informative shortbites as himself. They made cooking video where then-Ollie now-Abigail still was going to commit to his style, but shortly after he started to shift his style more into what it is today closer to Contrapoint's. So i think it's not as much wealth or corruption, than she has taken artistic influences from Contrapoints. That is how i remember it, i'm not that much into Philosophy Tube's path thru RUclips. Rarely i even watched his videos back then as i listened to actual philosophers, ollie was too young and made too short videos. Only thru Contrapoints i've come somewhat aware of her. When it comes to Abigail's latest videos (past year) I must admit that i'm very conflicted with her content, there is always the feel of manipulation. Unlike Contrapoints.
While I am against the commodification of education, it isn't correct to say that education being costly is not the standard throughout the world. The portion of the world's population that has access to a decent education at a low cost is abysmally small.
How so? The worlds most populous countries, China and India, have one of the most expansive and high quality government funded higher education programs
@@devesh7135 Look at the the number of students. It's not so low because people dont want to go. Even in some countries with "Free" higher education, the option isn't actually available to most people. Then on top of that 'higher' education isn't always that great everywhere. Sure, countries cant afford for certain fields to not to be top notch, but outside Europe and the US and a few other countries, higher education for things that aren't directly beneficial to the state are virtually non-existent.
@@devesh7135 _Beautiful Tree_ by James Tooley? discusses the low-cost, high quality private schools in extremely poor places in India, China, Africa, etc that are alternatives to corrupt expensive socialist schools. Tooley? very recently discussed this book and a sequel on a TV channel or network for serious issues. Socialism is a nihilist attack on mans independent mind.
Something I think is important to note is that this commodified presentation of philosophy through social media also helps instigate genuine interest in learning things for yourself. I may have never known I want to learn philosophy without being presented with philosophy in the first place. And my STEM focus in education removed me from possibility of discovering it as a minor subject in my studies. And besides that skills in presentation and attracting attention, it seems to me from my experiences as a neurodivergent person, are very important to the profession of a teacher. A bad teacher usually ends up being not the one with bad knowledge, but the one that can't impart their knowledge on a student and can't excite a passion for learning.
Nobody would mistake Philosophy Tube for a straight-up academic lecture. It's philosophically informed and inspired art and there is nothing wrong about that. I don't compare Philosophy Tube to the work of philosophy departments in universities but to the work of other youtubers. I would rather have a RUclips that includes Philosophy Tube and other political and intellectual content than one which doesn't have this and only offers shallow entertainment. This is the main argument for me.
Perhaps you miss Moeller’s point. I don’t think he is saying what Philosophy Tube and other “influencers” are doing is wrong or the world would be better off without the kind of content they make. Instead, he is questioning what value such content has in relation to philosophy and educating people about it. PT is not offering the ideal way of learning philosophy according to Moeller, even if she is excelling at something else e.g. art, entertainment, activism, etc. The problem is that “philosophically informed and inspired art” is the only way some people engage with philosophy. _The Critique of Pure Reason_ is a very long, dense, and difficult text. I’d imagine most people who watch PT’s video on Kant have not read it and never will. This is not necessarily a bad thing. But knowing the internet and human psychology, people who get such a sampling of the ideas will parrot what people like PT say with a high degree of confidence (Dunning-Kruger). That’s where people like Moeller come in. Some of the people who see PT’s video will also see Moeller’s responses (the algorithm ain’t all bad) and come to learn that PT hardly has the final word on Kant. They may also come to agree with Moeller on the limitations of engaging with philosophy in this way. So if people like PT are gateways to philosophy, than people like Moeller represent the next step in encourage people to reach even higher if they are interested. Looking at it in this way positively affirms the value that both content creators are adding to the world. All too often people treat criticism as evaluation only i.e. this thing is good or bad. But that is only one component of it.
A professor you get a payment of 5 figures, when sick for a long time, your payment still arrives monthly, has assistent and student assistents, support of a university librairian and access to very expensive journals and books! You make this RUclips content so your critic's on philosophy tube is autoimplicative self criticism!!!??? Why not talking about yourself!!?? If your payment drops to 900€ after tax!?? Whoud you trying to commodity your work also!!!??? Instead giving criticism, based on eny! You could contribute to the Government Big industry/banksters complex criticism! And fight for basic human rights!!! Don't be a weekend keyboard worrior!!!
What I am wondering though is if you are being critical enough of the educazional system you yourself are a part of. Arguing that with cheap or cost free university has evened the field is a bit simplified. Being from Germany myself I would say that excess especially to philosophy is also very exclusive. Most schools I know didn't teach it so pursuing a philosophy degree was quite divided by class lines. Students with parents from academia were way more likely to have access to information about philosophy. As someone who also had to worry about securing a future for myself, I would have never concidered studying philosophy since it holds few chances for a secure job. So I studied science which unfortunately does not even have basic logic classes even though we would really need them. Philosophy Tube actually introduced me to a lot of these concepts so I could deepen my knowledge of them and understand the science I was doing better than before. The sources she cites frequently make it on my reading list. That being said since I also am interested in science communication I am not sure if you can broaden the appeal of your field without oversimplifying or even distorting the original point. I have yet to come by a popular article on a study that I would concider to be completely right. I imagine in philosophy it's even harder since it ist so tightly bound to the words used. Your videos are clearly more on the academic side which make them less accessible. I propably wouldn't have understood them before a soft intro to philosophy by PT. So I am wondering whether you think that only academics have the ability to get a grasp of works like Kants. Because that, too might be a condition of the system you're in that you should be critical of.
@@Wonzling0815 as someone with a very similar position to OP. Yes, I would. I had philosophy in Highschool and it was quite fun but as some people say „Brotlose Kunst“. Everyone I know that study’s philosophy, sociology etc. comes from a very privileged household. While people with working class parents mostly choose more practical fields like finance, cs etc.
@@steppenfuchs5608 I wonder if this is a development caused by the BA/MA reforms. I was one of the last to study under the old Magister system and minored in philosophy. In our lectures and seminars there were quite a few students from harder sciences who chose -either on their own or as a choice mandated by their curriculum- to take certain courses in philosophy. However the MA/BA students I taught a few years after that seemed to have such tight schedules that they had no room for anything beyond what was needed for their next test.
What a GREAT video. What a breath of FRESH AIR amongst these pseudo intellectual youngsters who try to simplify 800 pages of content in 5 minutes of videos.
Btw here in the US we are also asking for free public college. But it’s not just tuition fees that commodify a university education. Grading puts the whole education system in a transactional structure which affects our learning in a way that’s rarely discussed, and which is much more widespread in the world than the exorbitant tuition prices we pay here. I’d argue that grading is also a pretty direct form of commodification, since earning a degree is thought to lead to better paying jobs and since getting bad grades forces one to stay at the school longer, paying whatever costs are associated with enrollment. I’d be interested to see you explore that topic too
@@zombieking556 I meant data collection is not much different from TV advertisements such as selling kids toys and candy during cartoons, soap during soap operas, the way advertisements alter the news narrative. You are a product there too.
@@hoordeyah easily the most annoying part about trying to engage politically with most people on the internet. They all are spewing out the garbage talking points that their favorite political hobbyist says.
@@hoordeyah - "lefties get LIVID when it comes to parasocial relationships and talk all the time about how they're capitalist brainwashing or something" Do... they? I mean, I'm a "lefty" and don't talk about nor have heard literally anyone talk about how parasocial relationships are "capitalist brainwashing." They _can_ definitely be harmful if you're unaware of them or when they're used in a deliberately predatory manner (I'd count, say, televangelists as being in this category). Like many things, they're just another tool that can be used for good or ill. I'm curious where you got your own premise here from - it's a blatantly obvious strawman, so did you conjure it up yourself, or are you repeating what you've heard from, perhaps, an online influencer you have a parasocial relationship with?
Your video reminds me of a quote from one of these pop philosophy channels (it might even have been philosophy tube). "The currency in the marketplace of ideas is spectacle, not good ideas.:
I am so glad you showed the analytics because I was saying to my partner after reading the comments in the other video “americans can’t even imagine education without mercantilisation of it” but I didn’t know if the comments were from people in the united states or not obviously
The comment about presentation stood out, since a thing I tend to find consistently disappointing about Abigail's videos isn't the content being presented, but how the viewers tend to respond so much more strongly to the presentation, often at the expense of what's being taught. I want to believe the lavish presentation helps engage viewers better with the philosophy itself, but I suspect that for many it distracts from the point at times.
Sad part its that these people look for answers not more questions. Thays why they consume that content, to know the answer, and parrot it like they know were it came from.
I'm just happy that people are still getting some kind of information about philosophy, most young people today does not have the attention span to read books
I don't see much value in philosophy if it doesn't also have presenters to reach larger audiences. There's little point if it only exists as a circlejerk in some ivory tower, never to be seen outside, which is sadly the state of most academic philosophy. The act of communicating it to laypeople also forces philosophers to take a new angle on their material. Phrasing it in clear language that connects with peoples' experiences often helps to uncover strenuous logic that sometimes survives in overly theoretical spheres, and bolsters that which is actually solid or applicable. Social media created a great niche for that, where communicators can practice and compete in this process. And this very video is part of that. Due to PhilosophyTube's video reaching a larger audience, you have a point to connect to and thus gain a great opportunity to advance peoples' understanding of philosophy. And you have especially fertile ground for that since the particular channel attracts and encourages people who are indeed willing to listen to corrections and extending concepts.
The warning at the end of your video earned my subscription to your channel. The avoidance of self-criticism and management of one's self-image on these platforms creates a lot of problems. It's no wonder why, despite all this technology, people are having such a hard time sorting out what is real or true.
@@Dimitris_Half I think that it's funny for three reasons: 1) They couldn't be bothered/are too bad at making videos to illustrate their point better 2) They are making a statement about how RUclipsrs using googled/stock images to illustrate their points is silly or sloppy in its own right, and 3) I have no idea which of the above statements is the case, or even if they are or are not mutually exclusive reasons.
They also did the same thing when talking about student debt.... does that invalidate what they had to say in any way? Perhaps and this is just a guess, it was just a quick visual that was meant to fill screen space while you are mainly LISTENING to what is being said.
@@tooManyMidgets I have found that a vast majority of young people who emerge from the American education system have very little to no actual understanding of economic principles, and "capitalism" is basically on the level of a meme as something to be pointed at as essentially the devil as a scapegoat for anything remotely negative the West is involved in. I would argue they have to use the most basic interpretations and imagery because anything else would not be understood or recognized in the slightest.
Very interesting and thought provoking video. I think it’s worth noting that Abigail has told the story of how she started making videos, and it was directly in response to the university fees in the UK making philosophy education inaccessible, so her initial motivation was to ‘give away’ her philosophy education. Personally, I studied science at university, and almost my entire knowledge of philosophy has been through writing and videos made for a popular audience. I think it would be a shame if philosophy returned to the confines of academia. But I do think you’re right about the emphasis on the individual creator becoming greater and greater. Ironically, the PT video you critiqued was much more straightforward and plain presentation than the more modern PT videos which are elaborately costumed and produced. Personally I prefer the older style, but Abigail has to do what’s right for her, I guess.
This is a problem that has been driving me up the wall. You presented your analysis more clearly than I ever could. I thought this was an excellent video.
By the way you are gesturing your hands on the thumbnail I can tell you are a true intellectual. Thank you Proffesor, we need smart serious men such as yourself to educate ignorant and easily influenced people and preserve the integrity and purity of philosophical knowledge. I wish more people were as wise and serious such as yourself, and had such honor, admiration, respect and altruism towards philosophy. Social media and these RUclipsrs influencers young fools are nothing but a real disgrace and taint on the honor and purity of fine intellectual elevated knowledge as the one you acquired through real academic effort. Thank you for taking the responsability and stepping in! I truly admire you University Proffesor Sir Moeller.
If you want to be educated on philosophy for free pick up a fucking book. I'm so tired of people defending shitty, watered down misinformation being spread about on RUclips because they can't be bothered to actually read philosophy. Not only have philosophers explained their ideas in writing but thanks to the internet pretty much all of it can be found online for free. Libgen and other such sites are your friend. Good video btw
I think you really hit the nail on the head with PT being too focused on the presenter. I've been trying to articulate why I didn't really vibe with her channel for years now and that sums it up perfectly.
i really envy them, their life seems to consist purely off of dressing up in stupid outfits and talking about philosophical subjects in the most redditor friendly manner possible and they make mad bank out of that
@@richardvlasek2445 she uses she/her pronouns, you don't have to use they/them just because she's a trans woman, she uses the same pronouns as a cis woman
@@bandamani they/them is also a wholly legitimate way to refer to a third person in the third person. I think some transfolk get too uptight about that one. As somebody who's been misgendered, I think there's more important use cases to worry about than using a non gendered pronoun. I would go so far as to say that non gendered pronouns should be the preferred choice in any situation except where "they/them" is too easily interpreted as its plural form rather than its singular. Wish we had less ambiguity about the plural versus singular there.
@@weatheranddarkness im not mad about it, i'm just being cautious as to what their use may imply. since Abigail has stated she is a trans woman and goes by she/her, that's what she would like people to use. i also default to they/them for people most of the time and agree it'd probably make life much easier if that's what we used most commonly. cishet people (usually) seem to have a very different outlook and understand of the use of those pronouns, so i was just trying to make them aware whilst not straight up assuming they intended anything bad by it, although more often than not that ends up being the case.
@@weatheranddarkness i was also trying to clear up the weird way people seem to other binary trans people from cis people by referring to them differently, when they just want to be treated the same. idky people who would generally agree with me irl have to have some kind of issue with what i've said on here when i'm just trying to help any cishet people who might stumble upon their pronoun usage and get confused, then they'll see us two conversing and be even more confused lol
Yeah. Similar to Adam Curtis's stuff, it's better to take it as art-tainment with a strong ideological bias (which you don't necessarily have to agree with in order to enjoy the statement and aesthetics of the work).
Breadtube are not very info to there audience because a lot of breadtube focus on the views instead of the subject they are talking about. Sometime they criticize each other in the breadtube community and end up distancing there subject there talking about and more on the individual they are talking about.
As someone who is interested in philosophy, I get nothing out of these videos. I used to watch for the entertainment value, but it's basically McDoanldized philosophy. A lot of empty calories makes it very difficult to return to. Forget "breadtube": it's's BigMacTube.
@@spiralofinspiration3653 The focus becomes more on individual egos and personas and their interpersonal relationships, as well as their presentation, rather than about ideas themselves.
@@spiralofinspiration3653 as someone who is interested in philosophy on a very basic level and who never intends to study it academically I think their videos are fantastic because they encourage a kind of critical thinking that is hugely uncommon in other online political spaces and are extremely engaging to people who care very little about academic philosophy but who are still invested enough in other subjects that can really benefit from having at least a basic understanding of what philosophy is and how it fits into the world, of course they aren't going to be engaging to people who are actually highly invested in philosophy because that is not their target audience, their aim is simply to encourage people to think critically and consider philosophical thinking rather than encouraging them to do in depth research on specific philosophers and philosophical ideas and ideologies because that isn't really applicable to the general public's every day lives in the way the other stuff is
Yeah Abigail’s videos are just entertainment and will get more people into philosophy, hopefully leading to more free thinkers. Basic understanding of philosophy is lacking somewhat in today’s society so I appreciate her effort
Critical thinking is almost always the most effective tool confront issues - personal as well as world wide. Philosophy is one way of developing the tools and skills to learn and apply such critical thinking. Generally I'd say the more opportunities to access and adopt it the better. Yes, some sites attempt to tell people what to think/believe rather than how they can find out for themselves. In this video I like the clarity of your thinking and communication, also your even-handed and mature response to ctiticism. I respect what you and Abigail (Philosophy Tube) are doing. It's true Abigail attracts by personality and presentation; she's aware of the importance of these and uses them exceptionally well. Also, she may not have your depth of knowledge and, given her career in acting etc. may never equal it. She nevertheless causes the audience to answer questions rather than offering answers and replacement doctrines. You are both firmly on track in this. Thanks for what you are doing.
Well this person is a professor of philosophy whereas Abigail has an undergraduate degree in philosophy. Obviously his takes would be more in-depth than hers. Unless Abigail was lying about her qualifications (which I don't think she was) I don't see where the problem is. You wouldn't expect an undergraduate physicist to do post graduate level research. If you're listening to the undergraduate, it's because that's the level you currently want or are comfortable with.
If you're trying to get into a philosopher like Kant, it's probably best that you find content or info from an expert in the subject who's capable of communicating the subject matter in layman's terms. Otherwise, sure, you may be getting a take on the philosopher that's more digestible, but it's also a take that could be misleading or flat-out wrong.
@@comradebroosk9396 Maybe. But I'm not really trying to get into anything in particular. I watched the PhilosophyTube video because it was on my feed and fun to watch. The same reason I watched this video. It's pop philosophy, like pop science. I'm sure people who are serious about the subject or want to do research on it would go much more in-depth. But since I don't think you could do any serious harm by having a slightly skewed (but more easily digestible) view of Kant, I don't see the issue with videos like PhilosophyTube. That's just my take, though. You can of course have a different one.
the problem is people undervaluing the entire concept of having expertise in something like philosophy because "anybody can do it". That's what gets subjects like philosophy defunded from higher education in the first place
@@zetaforever4953 I don't know much about pop science, but if I'm watching a video about nuclear energy or civil engineering, I would much rather get a more accurate introduction than a less accurate one. In the case of Abigail's video on Kant, as pointed out in the previous video essay, it's more than slightly skewed. And what's more, it's one of the first search results when you type in "Kant" into the RUclips search bar. So I think it's reasonable to say Abby's video didn't meet the bar it should have.
I love the warning label at the end. It sounds goofy but it would make perfect sense (from pretty much any perspective other than a capitalist one) if we were required to attach the warning label at the start of every RUclips video we create. That we are commodities to be bought and sold on the internet is a truth that everyone both understands but simultaneously forgets.
Subscribed. But it is worth mentioning that this video (as well as the videos critizised) are reaching thousands of times more viewers, than traditional academic philosophy lectures. So.. It is very good to point out inaccuracies in these commodified philosophy videos. But it is also worth noting that they're doing something, that is A LOT more effective than most philosophy teachers are doing. Making money is a means, but the ends must be assumed to be teaching philosophy. And reaching many people should be a priority.
You acknowledge the necessity to participate in the commodification in order to have a voice. I think most philosophy/political influencers are aware of this, and use the algorithm to their advantage to attract views, which I don’t have a problem with. These philosophy channels present philosophy in an easy to digest way, on a platform that most young people are active on. The content might not be as complete as a professer would teach to a class, but it’s also a lot shorter compared to the semesters of schooling. The length and form of the content is more accessible for people, and I’ve seen it inspire young people to seek out books and lectures. Commodification is inevitable, and I do agree that being aware of it is important. But I also think it’s important to remember that philosophy influencer content is most often times vastly preferable to the mindless drivel prank channels and the Logan Paul’s of the world provide. Young people like shiny stuff, attract them with shiny, exciting philosophy videos, then guide them towards the more academic side of the study
For me personally (an electrical engineer, so no relationship with philosophy), what you're discussing is totally irrelevant. If not for RUclips and PhilosophyTube I would never ever have been introduced to the concepts of philosophy that are being analysed. I have zero interest in starting a second degree just to study philosophy, even if the tuition fees in my country are very small. So RUclips and good video presentations make philosophy much more accessible to a wider audience. Accessibility of content matters as much as the content itself.
I agree, I don’t think Abigail ever claims to be the most nuanced and full picture philosopher, but her videos are captivating and inspiring and I don’t see why that is an issue. It’s ok to have a highly academic philosophical analyses exist next to a more mainstream presentation. I really don’t see how Abigail is doing any harm
Why would an electrical engineer have no relationship to philosophy, except where it has been rendered anodyne and oversimplified? Just because you have "zero interest" in something does not mean that it is "irrelevant" to you.
Sure, but Abigail is supposed to be a Marxist, and is agreed by us that Comodification leads to the Fetishization of products, which itself is described as damaging to the costumers.
This is really interesting, I do think online can be accessible, easy, and connect people internationally but as an academic-y type I do agree public education should be a focus and that creates places of connection and collaboration as well
Philosophers really can’t discuss something without having to have three more discussions about how they discussed the original things and it’s consequences, AND how they talk about how they talk about the thing.
Wilfrid Sellers famously said that the goal of philosophy is to understand “how things hang together.” Naturally, recognizing how various concepts, topics and problems are interlinked is part of the job. There are certainly a lot of rabbit holes to fall down, but for the most part philosophers can bracket those concerns when discussing something specific unless they feel like it’s especially relevant.
RUclips is a platform of the 'new' media that has massively expanded accessibility to all kinds of quality content that wasn't as accessible/available to me before. I can feast my intellect on a smorgasbord of content way more easily than through going to university (free or not) buying books, listening to the radio, watching tv or borrowing books from the library. I see this particularly also for my kids. I'm not saying that a more structured/traditional education mode is also required, but the democratising effect of education through RUclips is obvious to me. For example, the long-form interviews, in-depth documentaries available on line across regions, perspectives, expert input is astoniushing.
On the scale of bads, i do not think commodification of philosophy is the worst thing as it loosely implies a market for philosophy which implies people are growingly interested in it. But i actually did notice this commodification a little while ago and im really happy i got suggested your video to hear these ideas explored further.
This is a refreshing take, really. I believe most young leftists/wokes/et al have their first introduction to theory from RUclips. It was the same for me and since I have graduated to learning from different, perhaps, denser material, I can personally not appreciate Philosophy Tube the same way I did when I first subscribed. What's your opinion on Cuck Philosophy? I've found it to be more comprehensive and less theatrical (in the most appreciative tone).
I come from a fully-free public education system. I agree that's what's needed in every other country as well, and the prices in UK and US are a scandal. Here's the thing, though: I will not go to university to learn philosophy. I went there to study something else, and I don't have five years of my life to spend on another degree. Free university cannot replace educational performances on social media, and I find it narrow-minded or disingenuous of you to say that it should. PT videos are intellectual entertainment. The shift that you pointed out isn't just a natural progress towards more flashy presentation on social media. It's also a sign of Abigail abandoning the somewhat naive idea that she can give a philosophy degree in a youtube video. You may notice, she doesn't make videos on Kant anymore; she makes videos on gender, work relations, or antisemitism. You can't draw Kant's critique from those, but you _can_ draw a new understanding of the world around you and - perhaps - develop sensitivity to its problems that I observe many people lack. I'm not sure if five years in a philosophy department would give me that, frankly. I would find it more interesting if you did some analysis of the biases in academic philosophy - plentiful as they seem to be - rather than picking on outsiders, performing some of those biases yourself.
Sorry for writing an essay in the comments. Your points on commodification were interesting, just didn't warrant the "ivory tower only" approach you decided on. I hope you take the time to respond; I'm an insider to academia as well, and I'd be happy to converse with you. I'm hopeful for your channel, it has huge potential.
@@BlackMantisRed Thanks. It's middle of the night now and my head is pounding (covid? who knows), but I'll be happy to look through those in the near future. I appreciate the comment-analysis, too :)
'I will not go to university to learn philosophy. I went there to study something else, and I don't have five years of my life to spend on another degree.' Ah, do keep spouting off about the thing you literally refuse to have any experience in though. Tell me more about the extraordinary value of 'educational performances on social media' - how did anyone learn anything without such things? Surely it can't be possible.
We enjoyed your video. We agree with your points. Just to comment: PT is very accessible to people who would be on RUclips and it's it's a great jumping off point or revision tool, especially in these days of having 3 jobs and being a paycheck away from homeless. PT is fast snappy and theatrical which by nature will create glitches in the information but it's enough. ☡PS we loved your cheeky nod to Categorical Imperative at the end there!😂 *That's just our general take on PT and channels like that (including ours in a way) which take a pop culture approach to very complicated academic subjects. However the difference with us is that it's not a commodification because it's modeled as an NPO.
Having been the victim and beneficiary of University educational systems, and later a minor and "casual" [short term contracts] academic did a lot of tutoring, marking and some lecturing. I think for the most part, presentation is everything. So long as the lecturer makes it clear to the students not to take everything a lecturer says as "gospel". The point after all, is learning how to learn, how to research, how to think, and how to present. I have sat in lectures on interesting topics where the lecturers were deadpan, sometimes arrogant, and sometimes merely read in a monotone from notes, or a textbook [often their own]. One lecturer in ecology only cited sources that were twenty-five or thirty years old. So he wasn't just boring, he wasn't even up to date. I was determined not to be that sort of lecturer. So I tried to keep up to date in my field, and would often add an interesting new paper a week or a day before my next lecture or tutorial. [or lab]. That takes more preparation time. But here's the thing. It is incredibly difficult to keep it up. Not so many of us are Richard Feynmans, who can be equally brilliant at teaching AND cutting edge research, equally. So at least with the Universities worked at, people tended to get "streamed" as researchers or teachers. This was part survival, and part a "gentle push" by the institution. [It was hinted that I get my PhD or get out]. Working all night to grade hundreds of exams, papers and lab reports can get really old quickly, especially when the next day is as full as the last. So why would I want tenure? I saw talented friends and colleagues who had work for a decade or more just to get a junior tenured position. By then they might be burned out, at least as far as teaching is concerned, and become "professor Snooze" at the podium. Real Professors are supposed to attract substantial research grants [public and/or private], or they don't get the job. I agree that commercialisation and privatisation has not been good for education or research. One thing that shocked me was a general lack of fair treatment of the atheist and agnostic positions in many universities. Part big business [they want unaware technically savvy wage-slaves] and big religion [The : "You can't be good without God, or Buddha or someone" fallacy]. Of course the arts faculties and many science departments that don't make big money quick, tend to be starved of resources. But that said, I was really surprised the Philosophy department didn't mention atheism and agnosticism as valid world views. Yes, they were mentioned, but not exactly sympathetically. To my delight, the theology department WAS interested, even after I had presented my position and some details. But alas, they were probably the most financially starved of all, and could barely fund their core units, never mind electives. Perhaps Notre Dame? But no, I had also seen their orientation courses, which in part was apologetics about Bishop Anselm's "Ontological Argument For God" , a position so riddled with logical fallacies, I could not in good conscience teach it. And I am not a qualified philosopher. I counselled a friend who wanted to do law there. I said to him: "Yeah, Anselm's argument has more holes in it than Swiss cheese, but if you want to do law there, write what the lecturer wants. Normally I encourage intellectual honesty, but if your Prof is not into it, or at least doesn't see the holes, the pragmatic move is regurgitation. My two cents, Abigail's "Philosophy Tube" has a lot of merit, despite a few flaws. For one thing, a lot of interested people are subjected to intellectual or financial "gate-keeping", barring them from participating in intellectual life. And the lack of the skills in critical thinking, especially doing it with no sacred cows [literal or metaphorical] seems to be common in the general public.
Is it ironic that those closing statements on Kantian reflection, and that final warning, are some of the best ""RUclips content"" I've seen? Well presented, Professor.
This was a great video, keep up the great work. Something that I really enjoy about "old heads," (so sorry) let's say, is that you tend to view critique and engagement differently than the profit-fueled on RUclips do. You didn't mention this in the video, but critique on social media is also driven by the same contextual realities that the platforms present. As such, a great deal of critique on RUclips specifically spends far more time poking at arguments or the presenter rather than dealing with the full breadth of someone's words. There are certain parts of RUclips that are ripe for real critique and analysis (economics, philosophy, politics), that rarely get the treatment they deserve. I was impressed with how succinctly and impersonally you discussed the comments you brought up. With that said, I was a bit bummed to read some of the comments here. A good portion seem to be laser-focusing on specific words you said or how you said, rather than the full depth of your critique. For one, that you're holding Abigail personally responsible for some of the negative aspects of the platform she chooses to engage on. I did not see it this way at all. Indeed the final minute or two of this video focuses on context and pulls the discussion away from engaging with Abigail or her personal choices. For two, many seemed to say "Well I don't care because she's who got me into philosophy." Which is...fine, but it sort've seems like they must be missing the entirety of what you're arguing. Finally, there were quite a few comments I liked, mostly discussing some of the negatives of the education system, and some of the positives of social media that you didn't discuss. Personally, I do think there is a good balance to be found. We can have social media infotainment in which the presenter is a smaller part of the product, and the final product has fewer cuts to the substance of their topic. Such presenters and videos already exist, and I'm hopeful that they come to take over the algorithm, so to speak. So as a longtime follower of Philosophy Tube, subscribed!
as an old philosophy student, a senior now, i've found you can do and study at will via some pretty good philosophy videos out here, true to the course and for free. i took some of robert paul wolff's lectures analyzing kant, they are great. hubert dreyfus' heidegger lectures are available and outstanding. and i happen to like arthur holmes history series then at wheaton college. there's so much good stuff, in series and in discussion sites, quite satisfying. the project you review is as you've noted a most interesting commodification, like creating your own mirror and the source is, i'm finding, quite artistic.
. hubert dreyfus' heidegger lectures take a very"anglo" look at heidegger .As someone educated educated outside the anglo world, i would not recommend them
I support Abigail on Patreon, yet I enjoyed this video. I've just started studying philosophy at university after several years of podcasts / RUclips / reading sporadically. The motivation, overview and guidance you get at university beats everything else for me. For others this might not be the case. However, what cannot be denied, is that the internet-based resources truly are resources. By hearing several different presentations of a concept or thinker, it becomes much easier to avoid certain traps of interpretation. Furthermore, philosophers famously hold many differing opinions on all topics, and being confronted with clashes of information early on helps reveal this I think. I particularly notice many of my fresh from high school fellow students often speak of our lecturers' presentations of thinkers as gospel truth. I do however agree that Abigail sometimes dedicate most of a video's focus onto her own persona. That's why I don't really think of Philosophy Tube as how she presents it, "giving away a degree in philosophy for free". It's more like "Philsophical Concepts, Dramatized". Which she has increasingly embraced, and does so very skillfully. To me, this highlights a definitive advantage of internet based philosophical content: It is free to experiment in both form and focus. If you're looking for more academic approaches, the podcasts/RUclips channels of "Theory & Philosophy" and "Post-Colonial Space" are excellent. If you want easy introductions to most of the greatest western thinkers, "Philosophize This!" that you briefly showed the thumbnail of is amazing. It was my introduction to all of this, and of course it probably has some small mistakes here and there, but it is presented in such a bare-boned way that it is unlikely to cause any major misinterpretation. This is just a small number of the "traditional philosophy" resources available. Online, philosophy can also be presented through new perspectives, such as those of gay and trans people. The problem with projects such as those of Judith Butler, is that they are restricted to flow through academia, where a couple of nods from this person or a criticism from this person can severely affect the reach of they're ideas. When they do leak into the public sphere, it's usually through media, where they are prone to severe misinterpretation. Is it not better then, to accept the role of a youtuber, who can be free to actually do some research, and actually has an interest for the field of philosophy? Yes, there are several issues with attention seeking and transparency. And there is a lot of bad stuff out there, with views being no sure indicator of quality. In the end, I think internet philosophy does serve its function, but I am glad that traditional academia persists.
I am a science major undergraduate who knew nothing about philosophy. I took philosophy course in uni but I wasn’t ‘interested in’ so I studied just enough for the grades. However, I watched philosophy tube and took a bite of philosophy of Foucault. I got immersed into it than preceded to watch a ‘free lecture’ from a professor about him. Then I managed to read his book. It’s just my story about how RUclipss could be more helpful than uni education. But most importantly, I think your criticism should be about how philosophy tube doesn’t asks for expert’s help when making the video. Just like every commodity today, division of labor should be applied when producing the philosophy. Professor should produce a content, while actor should produce presentation.
I am willing to forgive many things because Philosophy Tube, Crash Course, Contrapoints, and channels like Wisecrack are making philosophy a public thing. For the last century, philosophy has been a walled garden either in expensive universities or long-winded, very extremely jargon-laden essays that a few hundred people can even understand. I would call this democratization rather than commodification. It's bringing philosophy back to the masses. Even if it's not as deep as, say, a 20 year long dissertation, more people have access to it, which means more people will become interested in it. I think they're extremely important in our day and age where everything moves too fast and we need more people to have access to these ideas. Philosophers have been paid for millennia, as tutors. Someone like Abigail is now a tutor for millions, and I find that beautiful.
I am pleasantly surprised that you addressed this so publicly. And your absolutely right, "better" was perhaps not the right word choice, "less sh*tty" might be more apt... While publicly owned schools are better than privately owned schools, I'd still prefer a truly socialist mode of production. You're also absolutely right that leftists in America, at least, where I'm from, are not as radical as we need to be, but the truly left movement here is still young, and we're slowly pushing forward. One of the biggest hurdles right now is decoupling the idea of socialism with that if social democracy. Bernie really muddied the waters on that front by labeling himself a democratic socialist (and he may just be, but the policies he pushed for publicly were not in line work social democracy). I think getting people to understand that distinction and also raising class consciousness and helping workers to see that they should be engaging in politics that push back against the capitalist narrative are critical to socialist Revolution here in west. I also see that you added the warning at the end of the video, and that really reflects a level of self reflection that in my expert is so rare today.
Good one to point out, the effect to Focus* at the presenter and not the content ( space teem screenshot ). Probably this all happening cause of the Right to information, Freedom, Technology for all, etc etc. Its a never ending series of Defence & Critisizm. I feel happy & satisfied that professors like you are serving too. Thank you ❤.
thank you. i still intend to continue watching youtube philosophy videos because i still feel that they have a valid place in educating people who don't have access to public secondary education, but i'll do so more questioningly.
Interesting video. PT has made a video about this very topic too. "RUclips: Art or Reality" where she goes over the whole Presentation thing. Id love to hear what you think about that and if it suffices as kantian critique in your eyes Link: ruclips.net/video/kVav1ri65Ws/видео.html
I think your video has some good points, just wanted to add that in a lot of places money is not the only thing gatekeeping education. the educational background of your parents, disability and many other factors can cause you to lose access to proper education.
I didn't know of Philosophy Tube until this video, and I just found this video now (thanks RUclips algorithm), so I have no horse in this race. There was just a statement here that gave me the impression that philosophy, and as a whole, education is better off being taught in an institute rather than by "influencers". Perhaps I am misunderstanding this, but to me, even if University was wholly free - free classes, free books, free materials, etc - it still is something I likely would not be interested in. I've always struggled with learning, despite enjoying learning a lot. I dropped out of high school, and was later kicked out of college for failing grades. It was only up until a few years ago that I found self-motivated learning through a huge variety of sources has proven far more effective to me. I read books, watch formal videos created by Universities, and watch youtube videos on those topic, among many other things. I'm certain I am not alone in this either. I'm certain there are many other people who find self-motivated learning more effective than formal institutes. If formal institutes had the right kind of course and right kind of professor that knew how to nail down exactly my motivation in learning, I am sure an institute would work well for me, but that is likely 1-in-a-million, and there is not a million of universities around me (and the reality is, they aren't free either). But, to be fair, I do agree with the point about presentation. I feel like under most circumstances, when I am seeking to learn, I look for content-over-presentation videos. Videos with snappy editing and strong personality isn't entirely something I want while I am learning. That said, when I am looking for entertainment, good presentation is something I am looking for on RUclips.
If things are as planned, we will be doing another video on "Identity". Stay tuned if you are interested.
Would love to see this!
You’re not deadnaming her, so I’m super happy to hear someone who acknowledges her humanity simply by talking about her. It’s a stark difference from American men like Ben Shapiro who make it seem like they’re dying when woman and transgender people want to exist and at the very least be okay. Can you please, please bring up how transgender and intersex medical work, history, and education was erased deliberately in order to redefine, eliminate, and/or appropriate identities, themselves? I’m curious to know what you know about that, as you said you went to school in Germany. I’m pretty sure there was a specific doctor who’s medical and medicinal work on transgender people were destroyed not even 100 years ago during one of the world wars (I’m not sure which one and if I tried to find the reference video I watched on it I would lose this comment because I’m on mobile).
Thank you for putting labor into this and for calling out social media for what it is. Americans are having a hard time understanding why for-profit/private institutions could possibly be bad. Yes, you can see your friends share posts and your favorite artist live, but, um, Facebook makes $100 off of every Facebook profile, maybe more, now. If that’s the case, 100 USD x 1 bn users = $100 bn USD .... and what’s Facebook’s fee for using their platform? your time and your privacy/metadata. It’s almost like they want you to accept their terms & conditions first before reading it and hoping you wouldn’t be able to understand it unless you’re a lawyer. I remember when most metadata companies would change their terms & conditions with little notice and nowadays they announce it through emails. The latter seems like a perforative move to me to make it seem like they care about privacy when they would harvest it for profit faster than Death harvests souls.
Commodification of philosophy isn't a critique of the manufacturer within a system, but a critique against the system that requires and facilitates commodification.
Under capitalism nothing is profane, nothing is sacred, everything is for sale.
Do all creators have permission to use your warning notice?
Media is pretty popular subject of philosophy, such as philosophers Marshall McLuhan and Jean Baudrillard. It may be intersting to wider audience cover it, maybe also using philosophy tube as exemple again.
PT would probably agree with your assessment, don't know why people feel the need to defend Abigail against academic accusations like this, it's a part of the discourse.
To my mind, the point about presentation over substance, although very valid as a general observation of online discourse, seemed to carry a subtext of an accusation of bad faith and *deliberate* sophistry. However, perhaps this is a misunderstanding due to cultural differences in communication style (namely the notorious clash between German directness and the Anglo need to go to great lengths to avoid personal offence and personal disputes), since he went on to talk about how the English tradition of philosophical pedagogy is insensitive to certain distinctions that are crucial to understanding Kant, which is certainly not something Abigail could be blamed for personally.
Abigail seems to be a victim of British undergraduate philosophy education and of the relentless demand to upload videos regularly and frequently, rather than a calculated opportunist. What really matters though is that her errors were, and continue to be, allowed to go uncorrected because of the way that The Algorithm rewards and promotes personalities and channels rather than ideas in precisely that way.
On top of that, academic discourse, in philosophy in particular, is quite direct when it comes to criticism. For all the personal feuds this might create, it does have the benefit of strongly punishing errors. With that said, perhaps the original criticism video could have delineated its points a bit more cleanly. His attempts to make clear he was specifically referring to the Kant PT video specifically would have fallen on deaf ears the moment he made the more general point about the tendency to place personality above substance.
Well, of course he can make the arguments. But others should be able to rebut those arguments.
That's how criticism works.
Totally agree, I watched Abi”s videos and found them entertaining. It’s positive as an introduction. We need more of that. If people want to they can delve deeper. I don’t have a problem with inaccuracies unless there is malicious intent and / or a reluctance to address them. I grew up reading books and the main problem I found was that the level was set too high and you had to literally have the dictionary open in front of you for nearly every word and that wasn’t even a dictionary of philosophy which I only found existed later in life.
It's due to the tacit conditions imposed by the platforms in which we operate ;)
@@jimcrelm9478 I don't think the subtext is about good faith or bad faith presenters. The subtext is about the systemic issues of the platform.
A bad faith presenter focuses on presentation because they are engaged in sophistry. A good faith presenter *must* focus on presentation or be undiscoverable, because they compete in a marketplace for attention that rewards good presentation. The result is that whether or not one wishes to engage in sophistry one must focus on presentation to be seen and the argument is that this is bad for philosophy.
this is the most calm and productive answer to an online comment outrage i have seen in a long time :-D
Which online comment(s), and what outrage?
@@gelatinocyte6270 welcome to internet hyper-sensationalism. it is more subtle and permeating than almost all of us realize.
My thoughts exactly lol 😆
europe vs the us
Not like a reaction video of post modern gen z. Hehehe
Just some context on one point the prof made that leftists in the UK should be more radical and be pushing for education to be free. In the 2019 general election, the opposition labour party ran on a platform that included making university education free again. And Philosophy Tube started up her channel as a direct result of university fees going up. She was the last year of students for whom fees were to some degree nominal. So she decided to start up a channel where she essentially just summarised the lectures she was receiving for free on the internet for those people who could no longer afford to attend university.
Nigga, that’s a man
@@wegood563 Aww, being offensive is hard. Keep trying honey, Im sure you'll get there eventually ^-^
@@wegood563 wow nice one, congratulations
@@wegood563 and?
@@wegood563 Yes, but it's polite to fefer to Abigail by their preferred gender. It's (most likely) not a larp. The vast majority of people with Gender Disphoria are very sincere in their beliefs that they were born the wrong gender, and all evidence points to embracing of these fantasies helping and reducing distress and anxiety. Post Transition people are less likely to commit suicide, and there is NO "cure" for the condition. In other words, it's the moral and ethical thing to treat them with respect.
Yes, it's frustrating to literally ignore reality just so a minority of people can feel better about themselves, but they NEED it. It's not a choice for the vast majority of trans people. They CANNOT help it. Sudden onset Gender Disphoria represents a minority of cases. As long as adults are making these decisions, we should be supportive. It's the right thing to do.
I’m not convinced that commodification is the exact problem. This reminds me of a teacher who was truly gifted at explaining things and to us students just getting into philosophy seemed like an all-knowing source of information able to answer authoritatively every question we had. We were learning Kant and after a month or so just beginning to feel confident in our understanding when one day in the middle of a lecture he said “I have been studying Kant for 30 years and have taught this lesson countless times and just now am I really starting to truly understand it. No matter how hard you all study right now you simply do not have the life experience yet to really get his philosophy. Living your lives and experiencing things is just as important as reading and note taking.” That aspect of philosophy is wholly incompatible with a single summary RUclips video because RUclips videos are by design divorced from reality and experience. They function based on the idea that you can focus hard on a single video and then be able to understand the concept. That’s the difference between philosophy in university and a RUclips video.
To me, it’s like watching a popular science video about quantum mechanics. I’m never going to get deep into the maths, or understand it the way a person studying and working in the field will, but I can at least get a glimpse at the cool stuff that’s there.
I wonder how your teacher felt about his first year teaching Kant compared to his 30th year. Can you really teach something before you fully understand it, and then run the risk of passing on bad teaching, or do you be cautious but then the philosophy is confined to the few people who can really take the time to grasp it. There must be a balance somewhere.
@@scaredyfish I think the difference is in the material. Philosophy is all about knowing, understanding. My teacher can competently tell us what Kant said, but he can't pass on understanding nor does he need it himself to relay correct information. A teacher provides scaffolding upon which understanding is built.
Science, especially the more abstract fields that are divorced from everyday experience do not rely as much on understanding because science is about facts, not knowledge. Interestingly, science relies on philosophy for meaning. Hearing facts about quarks and the strange things that happen in the quantum realm constitutes a pretty complete engagement with the subject. I am personally not convinced that any human can really understand a quark because it is so divorced from our experience anyway.
The goals of philosophy are fundamentally different than those of the natural sciences because of the difference between facts and understanding. Philosophy is so great because it has the potential to provide true knowledge.
I don't think he said the commodification was a problem at all .. he said he himself had commodified philosophy.
@@scaredyfish The problem is that he spreads misinformation to propagate a political agenda.
you may not be convinced. but that's irrelevant. it is THE problem - and Plato called this out 2500 years ago.
One note though; Although University in many countries aside the US is affordable, this doesn't mean it is directly accessible. Online lectures/videos etc. that are freely available, serve a different need of education than the need of education AND certification at universities. Comparing the two can be productive to understanding the differences, but there are many people interested in learning philosophy (basics) that aren't well served by enrolling in a university, because they are pursuing a different career, or do not have the time.
I am hugely in favor of University Professors making their lectures accessible to the public by the way. Although examples of these generally don't manage to get the same number of clicks, etc. since they are not as optimized to the "Edutainment" and the medium of the internet. (This is just one form of accessibility of course)
Good comment. If I may summarize my take:
Free content (online), "Edutainment", is well targeted for general consumption and understanding - raising the average level of intelligent discourse around topics.
University content is better suited for specialists, those who wish to pursue these topics more intensely and deeply. The cost being a justification (assumed to be reasonable, of course) for the benefit received for such specialization.
Tbf there is a huge plethora of resources for auto-didactics to crack at in terms of philosophy. I would say that as far as self-teaching yourself goes, philosophy tube and other outlets of pop-phil edutainment aren’t well, good.
@@weggygaygay9940 Why should only self-starters have access to these things? PT is way more accessible than freely available academic texts because it is intentionally meant to be entertaining.
@@skepticmoderate5790 everyone has access to these things (freely available academic material). The quality of being entertaining doesn't make it more accessible. People who have a vested interest in learning will seek out proper texts. Maybe you are conflating people who want to learn philosophy with people who would benefit from a superficial notion of philosophical ideas? To be clear: I'm not saying which medium is better. I'm only saying PT's intended audience is not exactly people who want to learn philosophy, although there's an intersection. PT has a broader audience, but that really doesn't make it more accessible. It could very well just mean there's more demand for its type of content.
@@Scootercorn Bad take. "Edutainment" does not raise the average level of intelligent discourse around topics, because a 5 minute video cannot give you even a basic level of understanding when it comes to science in 2021 (i include philosophy here too). It simply leads to people who were equally clueless 5 minutes ago believing they have an actual understanding (even if superficial) of a subject that they don't. Some random youtuber with a camera can never replace an academic who spent years doing research, and even people who actually know what they're talking about cannot condense Kant and calculus into 5 minute videos while making something of substance and not cheap clickbait. I'd rather people know that they're clueless than them thinking they understand something after watching popsci garbage. To provide an empirical anecdote, I myself am a neurobiologist. I remember an online argument with someone about the actual validity of "ADHD". I explained the methodological problems and shortcomings of modern psychiatry in a text that required some effort on my part, in order to give a layman a glimpse into a much deeper scientific problem. The response I got was "science doesn't care if you agree", along with a youtube link to a 3 minute video.
As a professor who tries to integrate my research into my videos on pop music, I find this essay very good.
My addition is that people like Abigail are reaching people that would never think about Kant. So, she does all the things you say, but while she commodified philosophy she also democratized it. She makes people care about philosophy who never would.
Her influence thus is a great boon to educators who want more curious and informed students.
Didn't expect to see you here. Love your reviews :)
A good point as long as it is accurate as well as pop, so maybe serious pop! Though that may result in adult contemporary and no one likes that!
You mean he, not she
Well put! And a great way to apply a Benjaminian principle on mass production of art: "while she commodified philosophy she also democratized it."
@@despicableone4495 she*
To me Abigail videos aren't really philosophy, they are philosophy entertainment.
Maybe they get people into the topic and make them want to research a bit more, but her videos definetly aren't extremely educational.
She did make me interested in philosophy tho and her videos lead me to taking philosophy 101 in college. Without her vids I would have never done that.
@@MZ95 Nope. She says she's a woman, so that's what she is. Whether you agree with her points or not, don't stoop to childish bullying to try to discredit her.
@@Narokkurai What determines that she is indeed a woman other than her simply stating that she is?
Is the idea of a "woman" entirely meaningless, or is there an actual definition of the word that is not self referential?
@@spitxfire99 I think her identity is something which belongs exclusively to her. It's part of her internal reality which I can never claim to know better than her. Obviously I can describe her body in cold, clinical terms, but I don't think identity resides strictly in the body. I believe identity is something that emerges through consciousness, so that even if you were a brain in a jar and you said, "I am a man," that statement would be true.
And from a more moralist perspective, I think it's simply best practice to assume people are speaking in good faith when they tell you who they are. Rhetorical devices like, "I identify as an attack helicopter," are really just that: rhetorical devices which don't actually reflect any real world identities. Trans people aren't asking you to consider them as an entirely different species, they're asking you to consider them as a slightly different person than you knew before. The number of people who genuinely believe they are animals or helicopters is so small, I would gladly take the "loss" of validating their weird identities if it also validates many more trans people who I think really deserve more respect and understanding.
@@Narokkurai It seems you skirted past my question.
Is "self identification" all that matters when it come to this? Is there any other social categorization that we can find in which "self identification" is all that is accounted for in absence of all other logical evidence?
The definition of woman as most understand it to be is adult human female. I think its illogical to simply assert one's self as something while ignoring any attempt at logical reasoning. Saying "I feel, therefore I am" does not hold up in reality.
@@spitxfire99 don't attempt to have a reasonable conversation with a clearly unreasonable person. We know that in reality we don't currently have the ability to change from a biological male to a biological female. It is a fact of reality that Abigail is male, its not about being "mean" or "harmful" its just stating reality.
Another nasty consequence of social media's "the product is you" commodification is that -- since the ideas are so wrapped up in the presentation and the identity of the presenter -- it becomes difficult to differentiate between a good faith criticism of the ideas and a personal attack on the presenter.
I would say some people deliberately use this to avoid criticism.
Yup. This person is now untouchable. When I did philosophy back in the 1990s we were expected to develop really thick skins and not take criticism of arguments personally. Now everyone is primed to expect offense and some groups especially so.
@@antonioc3743 Absolutely. Religious people are masters of this, but the wokers have surged into first place over the past decade.
@@SevenRiderAirForce i dont think so. I think it was the 1960s progressives who pretended to be for free speech but wanted the removal of academics in the sciences for their controversial views. I think those types were the ones with thin skins and they now have even thinner skins. More so than the religious have ever been
yeah but people for the most part aren’t making good faith criticisms, they’re saying some variation of “man in a dress lol” as if their demented” ironic” attachment from reality and seriousness is an argument.
You can see that the mission of Abigail's channel changed over time. While her initial goal was "to give away her degree" her later videos try to be "her own unique voice". So her later videos are definitely more subjective takes. Personally think both types of videos have value but I definitely enjoy them more as entertainment then education.
@Kevin L Well for me it's not education since I've read a lot of basic philosophy and have a liberal degree so most of the concepts aren't new to me. I don't think there would be anything wrong with using her as a resource though. I think most of her videos are more introductory so they're great building blocks for people to learn more.
@Kevin L She has more than 900K subscribers for her videos that pair essays with skits and songs on RUclips. I think the assumption that most viewers aren't watching to be entertained is baseless and likely completely wrong.
she has always been a total narcissist. you are blind if you dont see it
@@bun197 if you have an issue with the ideas she's presenting, criticize the ideas instead of making ad hominem attacks against her with zero evidence.
@@MissPoplarLeaf ok. the ideas are bare bones and often times even incorrect interpretations of the work of philosophers. far more effort goes into the presentation and specifically the presenter. look at her recent video parading around in slow motion all dressed up. the entire thing is an ego project that barely even references philosophy anymore and mostly politics
I agree that presentation is more emphasized by influencers, and that’s not always a good thing, but I think it encourages more people to be interested in philosophy. Also, Abigail has a background in theatre, so in weaving the two together, she is creating a more personal experience, and is able to add more visual metaphors.
I do not think philosophy requires attracting anybody not interested in it to begin with. I do not think there is any purpose in promoting philosophy outside social circles not attracted to philosophy in itself already. If someone cannot sit through a philosophy material withouth flashy, visual entertainment, then maybe it just isn't for them. After all, philosophy is a niche hobby and is not meant for everybody. Having said this, I find value in Philosophy Tube's and her alikes artistic format, not because philosophy itself is unattractive without it, but simply for the aesthetic, artistic value of it - as entertainment for the sake of entertainment alone.
@@midasiscariot Why? What reason is there not to have both? Pop Academia has never been as cutting edge and granular as "normal" Academia, but that's kind of the POINT. Why limit the means used to teach people things? Why gatekeep the concept of "Thinking about stuff?"
>Philosophy is a niche hobby
Ohhhhhhh, okay. It's because you're some elitist snob who doesn't actually give a shit about expanding peoples understanding of the world around them. You just think Philosophy is a fun thing that you get to do because you had the means to go to school for it. I can see why you wouldn't see any value in philosophical concepts being made palatable for non-academics, it doesn't directly benefit you.
@@biffenheimer No, absolutely not. I am not a snob for not wanting to enforce education on the society. I think people are born different, and not all of them are meant to study philosophy or philosophize. More than this, most do not even want to - most people I know simply do not even want to take the time to study it. Philosophy is not always a thrilling adventure - very often it is also a tedious, exhausting, responsible work. It is up to a selected group of passionate, talented individuals to pick up on culture and intellect, and guide the rest of the society forwards. But do you know who I think are the actual snobs? People who want to enforce their area of interests onto others, and people who are needlesly rude over it. I am not an acadamic/scholar in philosophy, by the way - many concepts I learned from channels like Philosophy Tube, and I'm glad they're out there. Many philosophers weren't academics either, so I think that's ok.
@@biffenheimer It's not about gatekeeping anything, but about not enforcing it. You do not have to gatekeep philosophy studies from anybody - most people do not even want to learn it anyway. Not everybody is made for intellectual work, and I think that is ok.
@@midasiscariot nobody is enforcing anything, for people that are interested in philosophy but don't want to start hitting the (pretty intimidating) books themselves, the presentation of philosophy tube videos can be a really nice gateway into the world of philosophy, and it can help them find what niche they may find interesting and do more research in their own time if they want to (although not everyone has the time for that which is why the pt vids are so nice)
I like non flashy educational videos but only when the presenter is a good explainer. There are plenty of non flashy educational video where the presenters cannot concisely explain their way out of wet paper bag.
Or worse, make you turn off the lecture and watch something else. Or fall asleep.
@Weapons Of Mass Distraction the addictiveness doesn't lie in the style of the video.
Therr is tremendous value to the kind of philosophy communication Abby does, as most won't learn from people who don't have the theatrics. The Mythbusters also had a background in stagecraft and other things and, while they sometimes got the science wrong, they generally did well and people learned real good information from them overall. It should just be better understood for the value it does and does not have. I like that warning at the end.
@@Sam_on_RUclips You know there's something wrong with slight inaccuracies in Philosophy Tube's case.
It's sort of okay if myth busters do it.
But it's not okay if you're a philosophy teacher like Abigail does it.
@@Sam_on_RUclips I get your main point about philosophy being disseminated farther and wider with YT philosophers, which is definitely a plus, however philosophy's main point is to find truth-
Imo Slight inaccuracies are not somethings that should be okayed for public dissemination.
It is dangerous to misinterpret philosophy that is used to guide your actions.
On discussing the price of philosophy education in universities: I live in Germany and yes, university education is almost "free" of charge, but it doesn't account for the time lost. Most classes take place during common work hours and not everyone can just take out 3 years of their life to study a subject they're interested in, most people need to work full time and are very tired at the end of the day. Finding short, yet interesting and free YT videos or blog entries and reading up on it in small doses is really accessible and I would love more free content on any subject online.
Credentialisation of philosophy?
read books then...
@@patrikjurica7727 Not everyone wants to read 600 pages of dry academic text
@@anshagrawal254 you don't have to read 600 pages of dry academic text, there are books that are very accessible even if you're not a philosophy student, this is just an excuse for laziness
@@patrikjurica7727 I mean it is an excuse for laziness. Not everybody likes taking the hours it will take to read non fiction books . Also you can just like watching it more than reading it . This can of course also be compounded by disorders like dyslexia and adhd
Professor, I can perfectly see your concerns about the change of shift in PT videos. However, I believe there is a difference between class material and divulgation content: even if her videos are quite far from being what you might call "algorithm-friendly" (RUclips prefers short, fast moving videos), she does care about the form, as she understands her work is not to teach philosophy but rather raise certain topic to the spotlight. I find her job very valuable, as she is closing the gap between academia and the common public. Far-right thinkers have become quite skilled in diculgation, getting outstanding results, so I find crucial to divulgate along with teaching, to step down from the pedestal and talk to the people in their language, surrending to the concession that implies
RUclips does not always prefer short videos now. Due to the platform being based on ad revenue, having longer vids that can keep people entertained has a higher profit than some very short vids. Still, market demands constraining the way content is shown can be frustrating.
@@kamrynm9780 Her videos are not short? The point still stands. She is introducing the subjects, divulging them. This guy is capitalizing on her work
just because PT isnt optimally tuning their product towards what (they expect) the algo wants, its still a differentiated media product which is quite profitable, and also brings with it a degree of social capital. Its not the get out of jail free you make it
@@thotslayer9914 Oh so his views are a product of his own thoughts and not banking on PT's youtube persona?
@@Belisaur People use the making of money and the concept of capitalism interchangeably. We do live in a capitalist society. That does not make PT a capitalist, even if she is successful.
I feel like philosophy tube is the pop science equivalent to philosophy, there is a real danger of sounding stuffy and boring when discussing complex topics to a general audience on the internet and it's my personal belief that if you give someone an engaging introduction to something they are more likely to explore it deeper. So maybe there is a benefit to commodified philosophy
Where I think that benefit stops is when you have what the presenter explained ‘ideas being so closely tied to identity’ that you can’t criticize ideas without being seen as criticizing someone’s identity. I also think sophistry for sophistries sake is unproductive and not helpful. The ‘yeah it gets peoples foot in the door’ argument only goes so far...at a certain point you gotta admit that this ‘pop science’ commodification of education on some level is dangerous if not at the very least unproductive. There is a line, and I’d argue PT has long since crossed it
It's unclear what exactly those benefits are, and I would like for someone to check exactly what differences there are, but hey that's not gonna happen, probably.
For example, commodity is, well, a temporary respite. Unless you are personally invested, or gain an entirely new piece of the puzzle that sticks close to you, whatever you learn online is guaranteed to fade away pretty quickly.
I remember learning about Nietzsche's eternal recurrence through 8-bit philosophy on wisecrack, and to this day I still remember it very well, after reading Nietzsche's books too
But for people for whom philosophy is a bunch of interesting tidbits of thought, stuff just goes away. Just like any other commodity, which is counter to the principle behind higher education... which is the source of not only PT's videos, but also many, many in depth topics on RUclips. It's like ice cream, you know what you like. But unless you really liked that one combination of ice cream,you won't remember if you even did try it, after a while that is.
@@BygoneT "It's unclear what exactly those benefits are"
It is not "unclear" at all. It's abundantly clear. It's propagating philosophy and discourse as widely as possible to people who wouldn't normally be exposed to it. People without an ethic, may develop an ethic. People who are distraught and confused about their place and purpose in the world might find new ways of looking at themselves. The benefits of philosophy reach more people.
That's a pretty obvious benefit.
Except that her description of philosophical ideas is often unambiguously wrong.
@@tnatstrat7495 "People who are distraught and confused about their place and purpose in the world might find new ways of looking at themselves. "
or maybe they become nihilist. You're just assuming a certain outcome that suits your narrative.
Academic philosophers traditionally have not done a great job of making their work accessible and clear. Glad to see this kind of video cutting through that.
Agree.
So many people defending PT as a person without adressing the points. Guys this is philosophy not influencer worship.
A lot of people here are just PT fans because they see her as "being on their side". Is just a matter of tribalism to a lot of commenters.
I would argue philosophy has always revolved around a concept of star players and their philosophies and that academic philosophy rewards an expertise built around those prior philosophers trading in a theory of higher truths versus personal experience anyway. The internet is just the latest iteration on that form. Philosophy isn’t divorced from it’s time of formation though and it’s influence in the larger culture that follows it shape both the current cultural reality and formation of one’s personal identity which I think is more what RUclipsrs like philosophy tube are shooting for. How the philosopher’s of western civilization have formed our perceptions of reality and identity today. Not as a replacement for philosophy but a dissection of it.
that last sentence struck a nerve in me... "It is designed to be addictive(.) and you should know that." while i already heard about this, hearing it like this really made me worry about how i use youtube. (basically the only social media i use, but most of the(/my) time...)
this is matt christman's grillpill thesis basically
This is one of the most refreshingly sober and calm critiques of the social media platform that I've seen in a long time.
I appreciate this response, and agree with it wholeheartedly. I just stumbled upon this, and didn't originally watch Philosophy Tube's videos or your response. That being said, I think you're missing the point of philosophy RUclips channels in general. The point of these channels is to popularize and bring attention to philosophy, not to strictly educate. Philosophy Tube makes this clear in her video and channel descriptions. I don't think anyone's expecting something comparable to reading a _Cambridge Companion_ watching these videos, just a short little gist presented in a fun way that targets younger audiences. In fact, it's channels like this formed my decision to taking philosophy in school!
That's what i was thinking too, it's very clear that Philosophy Tube isn't meant to be the highest form of education, but it sparks an interest in people.
@@BlueNorth313 I disagree, when things are presented in a "simple" format it can actually help people take interest in certain topics, more often than not the brain likes things that are relatively easy to digest and don't require much energy (which isn't a bad thing). Abigail's videos are an introduction to a topic, they can spark an interest or they may not. If someone wants to read more about it they can now enter it with a ~ general idea ~ (even if simple) of what they're getting into, or even read the sources she leaves in the description. It can help people get _started_ which is often the most difficult part about a task, especially if they're neurodivergent.
It's like swimming in a pool vs swimming in the ocean, they're both different obviously but at least you know _something_ and the task isn't that daunting anymore.
Accessibility is important, though i do agree if she were to water it down _too much_ it could reduce interest rather than spark it, because then there would be no "problem" to solve, and it wouldn't do justice to the topic either. I do think her videos could be improved in some areas, so yeah.
Simplfying ideas is fine if you actually put the time and effort into doing so and dont just broadcast your own personal interpretations as a summary of someone elses work.
@@BlueNorth313 What line do you draw there? Should numberphile stop making videos because it dumbs down math and stops people from really engaging with high level math? Should we stop discussing history because its impossible to present every scrap of evidence we have regarding ever historical fact? Nearly all information is dumbed down for expediency but that doesn't mean we stop engaging with it.
@@BlueNorth313 by that reasoning should we should just throw introductory textbooks as well?
Throwing this out there: keeping philosophy tied closely to academic study does help present it "in full context". However, I do feel the take in this video focuses on the potential negative impact of people (read social media) on philosophy and doesn't postulate enough on the impact of philosophy on people (read presenting philosophy in way that more people engage with it). All of that is to say I think this video certainly presents _a_ valid take on commodification of philosophy (and has points that I do agree with), but I also think it's only _one_ way to look at what channels like Philosophy Tube do.
I largely agree with this, but I think the video's plea to critique philosophy bears more intellectual weight than favoring the degree to which people engage with philosophy.
This makes me think of the misrepresentation of Nietzsche that inspired the Nazi party. By making his philosophy more engaging it was used to support an ideology the creator of said philosophy would have decried vehemently, and whose original work openly opposes.
To lay on the internet vitriol; One of the ways to use a screwdriver is to bash the screw in with the handle, that doesn't mean it's an effective or correct way.
@@XyphileousLF Every time someone mentions this misrepresentation of Nietzche, I ask them what they're referring to specifically, and I never get a satisfactory answer. Reading his writing myself, I encountered some passages in which Nietzche denounces Christianity. As far as I'm concerned, that's generally a good thing. However, the _reason_ given is almost enough to make me a believer. He says that Christians, by coddling the weak masses, have diminished the strength of the people, seeming almost to refer to breeding strength into the population (and breeding out weakness). There may be _some_ distance still to cover between this argument and Nazi ideology, but frankly the parallel seems entirely clear, and his argument strikes me as extraordinarily reactionary.
@@Disentropic1 I only offered Nietzsche as an example of misrepresented philosophy, and the edits done to his work by his openly anti-semitic sister after he went crazy are -to my knowledge- a very solid example; forged and recontextualized quotes.
I was a dissociative, depressive, proudly nihilistic teen and Nietzsche was a good crutch for me to form an actual ego with, though I only put in a sophomoric attempt at grasping it.
Nietzsche's clear desire to be the protagonist and blatant misunderstanding of the morals of Buddhism and how they are *really fuckin' in line* with his beliefs make me regard him as a good philosophy 101 target, but a dangerous ideology to fixate upon I agree (and Nietzsche likely would as well).
Also; hell yeah he was extraordinarily reactionary! At least he (in my understanding) looked back at the intricate weavings of traditions and said "Fuck all of that, we're humans we should just be humans.". I do, however, think there is more to his argument against moralizing in general that refutes groupthink on a whole (let alone ethno-fascistic group"think") than there are passages that can be (mis)construed as bigotry/social darwinism.
I think the problem is that philosophy can not have its impact proper on people exposed to it if its presented and packaged the way it is by people whose primary authority over the knowledge presented comes directly from them being a youtuber. Thus, the problem arises, that the commodified product that is consumed no longer represents philosophy as such, it just becomes mere words and sentences that can be thrown about with its authority driven from an undergraduate that primarily does youtube content. At this point we then only have a language play proper to medial/youtube life-world discourse and nothing that could represent philosophy whatsoever. "I fear the greeks even when they give gifts."
@@XyphileousLF That is simply wrong, according to Aristotle, if something is wrong, then it cannot be correct. In short, bashing a screw with the handle is not "one of the ways" of screwing a screw.
You can have the wrong head, thus making the handle invalid when considering the head
You can have no handle, but that still leaves the potential for a vaild head/tip
You can have the wrong form of the screwdriver, thus being invalid
Or the wrong size head/tip, thus invalid
But you cannot bash a screw with a screwdriver, that is philosophically impossible, if you do so then you are using it to "hammer" the object. Thus the screwdriver becomes a hammer.
Concepts are based on awareness, bias and expectations
Philosophy is not some dogmatic and inorganic realm where all thoughts about the various issues play out in a sterile vaccum sealed evironment. Experiences and experimental perceptions and conclusions on the world and humanity (or human life) through the world, can lead to evolution, reproduction, hybridization, etc etc of an idea or observation.
Religion and Philosophical insight are uniquely tied for this reason. To ritualize an idea is no better than to turn wisdom gained from it (and thus Philosophy) into a commodity. The individual much search for themselves, the collective affirm for themselves, for you can now teach philosophy...only show others how to create it...
You will never reproduce what was never tangible, esp a conclusion created by one whose heart you know not. if philosophical truth was as a thick liquid, it will always take the form of the container it is in. It's "matter" and "atomic" properties determining it's boiling and freezing point. How solid or malleable your mind is will determine more about what philosophy is to you and how you weld different ideas
Influencers are just the laypeople, doesn't mean their mastery of certain philosophical truths and conceptualized doctrines is somehow inferior to some "Scholar"
There is a reason Socrates was put on trial, and it wasn't for offering such a great Scholarship program with his academic expertise...
The religious determinism displayed in Academa and the priesthood established to teach and secure the status and dogma of thousands of hand picked and conditioned "scholars" is due for being questioned. And the regality we allow them to express over the rest of society is similar to Roman Catholic dominance over other "radical" sects of Christianity. The layperson reading a bible to his friends, family and townsfolk a was a better civil and social threat in the eyes of the "scholars" and "professionals" than the compromises and inaccuracies their zealous inclusionary culture creates.
When I read the actual source material, the youtube video became an interpretation of the idea rather than the idea themselves. The source material will give you a multidimensional understandings of the concepts while the video essay will give you a particular dimension or interpretation that can be derived from the source material.
@@thotslayer9914 How long, exactly, do you think it takes to check a source? And if you're trying to study something, what is the virtue of cutting corners? When it comes to something like learning, you might as well do nothing than a half-assed attempt, because you're massively increasing the chances of coming away with faulty knowledge or outright misunderstandings.
@@thotslayer9914 Rather than writing comments, do you just throw your keyboard down the stairs and hope for the best?
But enjoy listening to lectures that deal with 'a real shit' - you do you.
Good point
@@iamjurell Might not be the right place to ask, but you are the right person. What is philosophy? From my (very laic) knowledge, it’s a descriptor for various approaches that deal with usually hard questions currently unexplainable by science. Studying philosophy is studying philosophical ideas of historical figures remembered for their contribution to solving one or multiple of these questions, or providing a valid new way of looking at life/existence.
To me (and mind you, I’m asking to be corrected here if I misunderstand), goal of philosophy is to A) get you through your life with as little mental suffering as possible; B) explain away things religion generally fails to; and C) provide humanity, leaders and general public, with a rationality toolbox and library of ideas to build a society that minimizes suffering.
Yea, entertainers and ideologists to whom masses flock will often misrepresent or “freeform interpret” an idea put down by some dead dude, either because of lack of understanding or active attempt to adapt the idea to fit theirs,
But at the end of the day, if it gets me going through life in a way that minimizes suffering or empowers me, grants me a bit different or broader view on a topic, does it matter?
Is it bad if I just want to be entertained and consume on a platform built for entertainment and consumption? That I want the eyecandy, theatrics and pretty colours, just with a bit of exposure to ideas that I usually don’t ponder on? That a 40 minute video (which may or may not misinterpret the subject topic) satisfies my immediate or sometimes even long-term needs for answers?
EDIT: BIG SORIES FOR THE ESSAY, HOPE YOU READ THIS PART BECAUSE there’s actual question I’d like to have answered, by anyone who thinks they have the answer.
@@ratglyph I would never claim to be anything remotely resembling an expert on the topic of philosophy, but here goes...
'What is philosophy?'
The etymological roots of a lot of words tend to reveal how much definitions change or branch out over the centuries. For instance, the word 'passion' initially meant something like 'suffering' (which makes the phrase 'the passion of the christ' make a lot more sense); 'obsession' originally meant, essentially, to be possessed. 'Philosophy' (something like 'love of wisdom') however has remained virtually unmolested - it is, in the loosest possible terms, *formalised thinking.*
'From my (very laic) knowledge, it’s a descriptor for various approaches that deal with usually hard questions currently unexplainable by science.'
Funnily enough, an earlier term for what eventually became 'scientist' was 'natural philosopher.'
'To me (and mind you, I’m asking to be corrected here if I misunderstand), goal of philosophy is to A) get you through your life with as little mental suffering as possible; B) explain away things religion generally fails to; and C) provide humanity, leaders and general public, with a rationality toolbox and library of ideas to build a society that minimizes suffering.'
I believe that all of these things are noble goals, but I would find it difficult to suppose that there are any inherent 'goals' to philosophy rather than that philosophy can be a useful tool in order to achieve one's own goals. Philosophy in and of itself doesn't have a message any more than mathematics has a political opinion or chemistry has ideals.
However, if you want to further understand how numbers work, it helps to study mathematics; if your goal is to catalogue all existing elements, learning about chemistry is the way to go. But if you want to figure out *how to figure something out* or understand *what it is* to understand something, philosophy is your guy.
Total respect professor. Education should be free, or as cheap and as accessible as possible.
What if I have a passing interest in philosophy? I have learnt 'something' about Kant's philosophy by watching a short RUclips video. Not in depth or rigorous understanding, but something. Is that a net gain that many people are able to easily access information that is of a poorer grade, but that basic concepts are available? The alternative is to devote a considerable amount of time to study only one thing in an institution. More rigorous, less practical. As a result of many different 'pseudo intellectual' RUclips channels I have gained broader understanding of the world, and in some cases persued this further by reading source books or watching more detailed RUclips lectures from online courses such as Stanford University.
Exactly. Accessibility is the name of the game, as is Rigor.
It is not a net gain. The other alternative is a refusal to cater for any 'passing interest' in philosophy at all - neither on the internet nor in the academy. Inaccessibility manifested within fields like this is - to a great extent - a virtue. The gate must be kept. Intellectualism is *necessarily* elitist. Your 'broad understanding of the world' is shallow and inevitably of no use whatsoever to society and the culture. To say the least, what we are shining the spotlight on here is a misallocation of resources. A more extreme case would be the objections Salazaar had towards teaching literacy to the Portuguese underclass. The community does not profit from expending capital on equipping masses for elite ventures. Lofty subjects like philosophy, religion, politics etc are aristocratic at their core; they should always be positioned in the collective membrane such that they are the exclusive preserve of 'the few', lest we all succumb to an avalanche of half-baked musings on the divine or shower thoughts about the constitutional laws. On the contrary, that which *everyone* may reap the benefit of is a class of educated, trained men of special ability and paternal spirit.
@@TheCulturedThug that's a whole bunch of presuppositions you have there in your argument that renders it flawed
@@vlad007001 What an anodyne response.
@@TheCulturedThug A pedestrian response for a pedestrian initial statement.
I'm a philosophy student and PT has been quite an influence on my decision (early, pre-aesthetic PT :p). "Influencer philosophy", while providing an incomplete picture at times (or often), serves a great function in spreading philosophical ideas to a broader public audience; which I see as something worth having, especially in a time where (at least in my opinion), philosophy's status is challenged quite heavily in the public eye.
To me the relevant question is: Is the world a better place with or without PT's videos? Sure free education is better, but we have no power to solve that now, and even if we live in countries where university programs ARE socialist-like, we cannot attend 5 tracks in one lifetime (it would be ridiculous). Sure reading books is better, but it's a fact of the times that people will much rather reach for youtube videos. So with all that given, it seems to me a net positive of having PT presenting philosophy topic even if heavily presenter oriented, because thousands of people will be exposed to some notable ideas in philosophy and some of them will be prompted to read deeper into the matter. It's probably even a positive thing that she prompted you to critique, because it forces a conversation, and gives the topic more visibility.
To me, that question is irrelevant.
@dezessete Maybe I misunderstood, but the sentiment I got was "channels like this should not exist because they are not tr00 philosophy"
You already said that people don't have time to read books anymore. Most people who watch Abigail's videos will have her videos as the extent of their knowledge on philosophy, which is why it's important to criticize the misinformation when it's there.
Yeah, I mostly agree with the points on the video, but the idea that free college educations somehow occupy the same space as someone watching an youtube video on a topic now and then is pretty off. Maybe if those universities engaged in a LOT more extra-class action, but even them it seems to me like there would remain important differences
The main Problem with Abigail Thorn is that considering her last 20 videos or so, that she is lacking in teaching Philosophy but rather prefers to make hip pop-leftist content with a very minor philosophical perspective on the topics. The vulgar Form of saying this would be that she is obsessed with gender, race and class...and don't get me wrong I attended a professional academical Seminar on These 3 topics.
So she occupies a very prominent and eye-catching Name to promote herself and her political views, which while i am myself leftist, bemoan out of philosophical integrity. Though I guess Who screams "philosophy" the loudest is necessarily not the Person with the most philosophical vigor. And this outright misleading way of promoting Philosophy is the reason why we would be better off without PhilosophyTube
I hope you and Abigail could have a conversation on this topic! It would be really interesting!
yeah that was what I thought too.
I imagine that a PT vid on education commodification would be great!
That would be IMMENSELY interesting!
I would watch it definitely
i second this. I'd love to watch that
I can't watch a video that Commodifies the Commodification of Philosophy. Its needs to be at least 3 layers deep for me to enjoy it.
As an American who has watched PT for several years: any forum has its own pressures to present yourself in some way. A university has to seem prestigious, accredited, gatekept. Social media has pressures to be clickbait, flashy, digestible. I don't think Abigail is as swayed by the pressures of social media as you make her out to be. She just greatly enjoys theatrics. If her goal was to be as successful as possible her content would look far different. If you want the content of her work to be more accurate then reach out to her and offer consultation.
This is exactly the type of comment someone who has never visited a legit philosophy lecture would say. Check out MIT's OCW Philosophy Course. Please stop spewing this diarreha of mouth on innocent ears. Just because you're too lazy to think doesn't mean more cultured people should feel empathetoc towards your ignorance (or of clickbaot, for-profit youtubers for that matter) which would easily get you mocked in any serious scholarly circle.
You call it "elitism", i call it "knowing what the fuck you're talking about".
@@imgelfand2327 Discrediting yourself by being rude. Also claiming following: "This is exactly the type of comment someone who has never visited a legit philosophy lecture would say." without being able to prove it. Get of your high horse :)
She has said in several of her videos that she is an ACTRESS as well as a philosophy youtuber, so yeah theatrics are going to be in her wheelhouse.
Thanks for the mention Professor. I’m pleased to see another videos of yours up online.
Education in Australia where I live and have been educated is not dissimilar to what you’ve mentioned outside the US. I completed a bachelors, masters and doctorate in a system that has basically cost me almost nothing given it’s utility and where I have had to pay it’s been through a stepped delayed tax liability.
A system both of my adult children have also benefited from as well.
Your distinction of the commodification was something I had read as a given. Rather I saw you were making an informed contribution on the nature of presentation and insight regarding the nature of PhilosophyTube’s material not on personality.
I think what some individuals here might be struggling to understand is it’s not intended to deride anyone (Abigail or anyone else). Rather to bring into stark contrast the tradition of academy at its basis, to explore the soundness of ideas, not who is putting it forward under examination.
Laughs, if all RUclips channels came with a health warning… well it would be a different world. I happily accept the conditions of entry.
Thank you again for an entertaining and though provoking video. Looking forward to more.
For the record, I enjoy Abigail’s videos. Yes sometimes she gets it wrong and corrects herself. I though see it as entertainment, by no means a replacement for the tertiary system nor for that matter just picking up the source materials and reading them.
I just prefer Abigail's way. It's more engaging and yes more enjoyable. Is that a crime? It's more accessible for me to understand.
@@chloemcdermott2978 absolutely, though as long as she conveys the concepts correctly.
Every now and then, I hear of semi-affordable higher education schemes elsewhere in the world (I'm a UK resident and Welsh/British citizen) and I think 'Hmmm, maybe I could emigrate and study philosophy and/or linguistics?'
@@Microtherion as the professor mentions the German education system is very affordable.
@@markyoung01maccom Yes - and thanks for replying! Possibly my brother could 'drop me off' there some time (he's a computer whizz, so he's always border-hopping, lol). I'll give it some serious thought when lock-down's over...
Okay, so I have a few issues with this framing. I agree that Philosophy Tube is commodifying philosophy. However, I'd argue that's not necessarily a bad thing. Commodification in and of itself just has the consequence that the product is more appealing and accessible to the public. It is a mass distribution of something. How commidification is negative is when the product gets diluted or changed in such a way that it does not resemble itself anymore. So, the problem with Philosophy Tube's videos is not that she's commodifying, but that she's wrong. This is the good part about what you're doing - showing where she's wrong and explaining how.
However, what Philosophy Tube does is not negative in and of itself. It's not necessarily bad to have easily accessible philosophy on the internet. If there was a creator that presented philosophy well and had little to no errors in their explanation, albeit some simplifications, that would be good, wouldnt it? That would mean that philosophy reaches a greater audience than it otherwise could have, and if we believe philosophy to have any value, then that should be inherently good.
The main issue that I have is that your implied argument is that it is better to learn philosophy in a university than on the internet. I can somewhat agree, as it is much easier to understand the works of a writer if you can work collaboratively. The content of a lecture is also much less commodified than on the internet. But you fail to address the actually substantive arguments against going to university to learn philosophy.
The first is that university takes a LOT of time. Assuming that a person does not want a degree in philosophy, they could take single subjects or night courses. That works, but it also means pracically all their free time is used up.
The second is that university is very expensive. You mention that schools in most of Europe is tuition-free. This is true. Personally, I go to a university in Norway, studying for a biophysics degree. I pay about 70 USD per semester in tuition. It's trivial. However, what you fail to mention is the price of everything else. Even if you don't buy any textbooks, you still need a roof over your head, something to eat, and a normal way of life. That costs a lot of money. After I am done with my master's degree, I will owe appx 40 000 USD in debt. That is after scholarships.
So in order to avoid the huge debt, you study full-time and work part-time, hoping to make enough money, or you work full-time and study part-time, hoping to have enough energy to wake up in the morning. And keep in mind, this is in one of the most progressive countries in the world. So, university IS expensive, either in terms of money or in terms of energy, or both. Now why would someone choose to spend all that money and energy on philosophy, versus for example STEM? Most people wouldn't, I don't think, because there's you gain much less materially doing the former than the latter. You study philosophy to learn, not to make something out of it. Unfortunately, we don't live in a society where learning is considered valuable in and of itself.
Juxtapose that with youtube videos about philosphy. In stead of spending hours every day studying philosophy, you can spend half an hour learning most of the concepts. Yes, it's inferior in some ways, but it more than makes up for that by being insanely more accessible to people. It allows people to pursue material gains, and at the same time pursue the knowledge of philosophy. Hence, I would argue that this commodification of philosophy is better for both the general public and the field of philosophy.
This 👏
nice reply, completely agree.
Any cause that basically boils down to "more chances and more options to spread more knowledge to more people " always gains a supporter in me, unless the bad consequences hurt or subvert the good too much. I agree with you!
@@TheBelovedRose. you're rejecting the real world. You cannot give a pure service. Everything, including university and the professors therein, is a commodity. You must realise that you can commodify something without selling it for money. In many ways, commodifying is synonymous with universalising. I view the ideal youtube philosopher like a philosophy introduction class - it gives you a general idea, its simplified to the point where most people could follow, and it leaves you with a want for learning more.
You can commodify correct philosophy. And when you do, that commodified correct philosophy is better than uncommodified correct philosophy. Commodification necessarily means accessibility, and so more people will listen to it. Its not inherently bad, its only bad when its wrong.
I was hot headed in my argument but you framed it beautifully. I still sense a feeling of that old academic tut-tutting and dismissiveness at the very idea someone can learn about philosophy outside the university setting though.
Thank you for making an effort to protect philosophy against commercialism. This needs to be done, regardless the fact you are being paid. This is not circular so not hypocritical at all.
One thing I noted is also how so many of the big youtube personalities, including Philosophy Tube, have theater or comedy backgrounds, fields in which presentation and honing persona and charisma are essential for success. It would makes sense then that people who are able to leverage these skills would be successful/selected in the RUclips space. The element of entertainment and presentation are necessary to become popular/reach a certain level of popularity on this platform. And somewhere along the line, popularity is associated with authority/legitimacy.
One critique I'd like to make is that the statement "people on the left should focus on public education rather than student debt forgiveness" seems to ignore the common held view by most people on the left (and of the younger generations in general, at least here in America) that student loan debt forgiveness is the first step towards publicly funded college. It's why so many people were backing Bernie Sanders, as that was the platform he was aiming for (and he's sorta entry level leftist at that). There's definitely a push for free/public college, it's just that we would also need student loan forgiveness in the interim for those who have already gone through it, since it would be such a stimulus to the economy, having an entire work force enter with that debt lifted, able to afford much more, including the cost of living that would be required to move where the jobs are in their fields. Public college is something that's not going to happen over night, and student loan debt forgiveness would hold us over until we can reach that point.
Expense should not be merely judged by the actual material cost, there is also the opportunity cost to consider. Not everyone can afford or even want to pursue philosophy as their main interest. However I consider the subject to be essential for a modern citizen to a certain degree. Plato believed that philosophy, math etc. should not be studied by anybody who didn’t check ALL the boxes.
I must say, I do enjoy the contributions youtube philosophers are making. At the very least, these people are introducing me to subject matter and I feel its my responsibility to view their content with discretion.
I'm an an occasional viewer of Philosophy Tube and I've watched this and your previous video on PT. I agree with most of what you say in this video about the commodifiction of philosophy. It's perfectly true that the YT algorithm favours personality driven content for commercial reasons and that this can have an unfortunate effect on the quality of philosophy on YT. I also agree with criticising PT for misrepresenting Kant. I think it is unfair however to ascribe to her personally cynical motives as you seemed to in your first video. In fact her initial motive for starting the channel was to make philosophy available to those who couldn't afford university education in the UK. It wasn't started as a commercial enterprise.
I know you say in this video that publicly funding university would be a better option than YT philosophy education but here are some things to consider: a) philosophy education on YT isn't mutually exclusive with publicly funded uni, b) Abigail herself is a lefty and presumably supports public funding for education, so her channel isn't meant as an alternative to that, c) even if the UK had free 3rd level education, there would still be barriers to philosophy in uni such as mental health so philosophy outside the academy would still be important.
I understand that you want to make general points about the state of YT philosophy, points I'm inclined to agree with. I think it's unfortunate that you chose Abigail Thorn as your example in this project as her channel is not the cynical commercial enterprise you present it as. I think it's important to differentiate between a) the motives/behaviour of YT and it's parent company Google which are purely commercial and act much as you describe in the video, and b) the motives of individual content creators on the site (which now includes you) some of whom are aware of the commercial and cynical nature of the site and find it problematic. You fail to make this differentiation for Abigail and conflate her motives with the motives of the site.
I think it might be interesting for you to address the tension that exists between the motives of particular content creators and the motives of the site their content is hosted on. Of course it's possible that a creator unwittingly produces content which is more commercial than they hope, especially when YT both incentives certain kinds of content and presents it to the viewer in a certain way. However I'm not sure that YT content can be understood wholly in commercial terms either, without regard for the motives and values of its creators.
It doesn't take a college professor to uncover a champagne socialist
@@arreca09 ive mixed feelings on this, amd hope the video OP considers this. Philo tube definitely has become wealthy, but i wonder how much this has truly corrupted her artistic vision. It's very easy to view youtubers cynically, yet i struggle to think she is not sincere in her beliefs or presentation; streamer Destiny has started what I think is a very cynical and destructive pattern of dismissing and attacking large leftist youtubers as "grifters" who don't sufficiently engage politically, an attitude he coincidentally took on after doing his first on-ground work in _10 or more years_ of constant streaming...
Well said
@@chillin5703 I think ContraPoints and her, at that time his, style was major influence on Abigail, at that time Ollie. I think this has been about 2 years ago. And to find out she has been transitioning for the last year is interesting, seems that in many ways she has followed footsteps of Contrapoints.
Contrapoints rose to fame thru her narrative style filled with humor and acting, while Abigail was still doing 10 minute informative shortbites as himself. They made cooking video where then-Ollie now-Abigail still was going to commit to his style, but shortly after he started to shift his style more into what it is today closer to Contrapoint's. So i think it's not as much wealth or corruption, than she has taken artistic influences from Contrapoints.
That is how i remember it, i'm not that much into Philosophy Tube's path thru RUclips. Rarely i even watched his videos back then as i listened to actual philosophers, ollie was too young and made too short videos. Only thru Contrapoints i've come somewhat aware of her.
When it comes to Abigail's latest videos (past year) I must admit that i'm very conflicted with her content, there is always the feel of manipulation. Unlike Contrapoints.
@@ycp4194 thank you
While I am against the commodification of education, it isn't correct to say that education being costly is not the standard throughout the world. The portion of the world's population that has access to a decent education at a low cost is abysmally small.
How so? The worlds most populous countries, China and India, have one of the most expansive and high quality government funded higher education programs
@@devesh7135 Look at the the number of students. It's not so low because people dont want to go. Even in some countries with "Free" higher education, the option isn't actually available to most people. Then on top of that 'higher' education isn't always that great everywhere. Sure, countries cant afford for certain fields to not to be top notch, but outside Europe and the US and a few other countries, higher education for things that aren't directly beneficial to the state are virtually non-existent.
Get a begging bowl and wait for the Garden Of Eden.
@@TeaParty1776 What do I need a bowl for? That kid over there is doing just as well by cupping his hands.
@@devesh7135 _Beautiful Tree_ by James Tooley? discusses the low-cost, high quality private schools in extremely poor places in India, China, Africa, etc that are alternatives to corrupt expensive socialist schools. Tooley? very recently discussed this book and a sequel on a TV channel or network for serious issues. Socialism is a nihilist attack on mans independent mind.
I'm a huge fan of PT and I'm glad this video showed up on my recommended! I'm excited to find another youtube channel discussing philosophy :)
Something I think is important to note is that this commodified presentation of philosophy through social media also helps instigate genuine interest in learning things for yourself. I may have never known I want to learn philosophy without being presented with philosophy in the first place. And my STEM focus in education removed me from possibility of discovering it as a minor subject in my studies.
And besides that skills in presentation and attracting attention, it seems to me from my experiences as a neurodivergent person, are very important to the profession of a teacher. A bad teacher usually ends up being not the one with bad knowledge, but the one that can't impart their knowledge on a student and can't excite a passion for learning.
Nobody would mistake Philosophy Tube for a straight-up academic lecture. It's philosophically informed and inspired art and there is nothing wrong about that. I don't compare Philosophy Tube to the work of philosophy departments in universities but to the work of other youtubers. I would rather have a RUclips that includes Philosophy Tube and other political and intellectual content than one which doesn't have this and only offers shallow entertainment. This is the main argument for me.
Perhaps you miss Moeller’s point. I don’t think he is saying what Philosophy Tube and other “influencers” are doing is wrong or the world would be better off without the kind of content they make. Instead, he is questioning what value such content has in relation to philosophy and educating people about it. PT is not offering the ideal way of learning philosophy according to Moeller, even if she is excelling at something else e.g. art, entertainment, activism, etc.
The problem is that “philosophically informed and inspired art” is the only way some people engage with philosophy. _The Critique of Pure Reason_ is a very long, dense, and difficult text. I’d imagine most people who watch PT’s video on Kant have not read it and never will. This is not necessarily a bad thing. But knowing the internet and human psychology, people who get such a sampling of the ideas will parrot what people like PT say with a high degree of confidence (Dunning-Kruger). That’s where people like Moeller come in. Some of the people who see PT’s video will also see Moeller’s responses (the algorithm ain’t all bad) and come to learn that PT hardly has the final word on Kant. They may also come to agree with Moeller on the limitations of engaging with philosophy in this way. So if people like PT are gateways to philosophy, than people like Moeller represent the next step in encourage people to reach even higher if they are interested.
Looking at it in this way positively affirms the value that both content creators are adding to the world. All too often people treat criticism as evaluation only i.e. this thing is good or bad. But that is only one component of it.
A professor you get a payment of 5 figures, when sick for a long time, your payment still arrives monthly, has assistent and student assistents, support of a university librairian and access to very expensive journals and books!
You make this RUclips content so your critic's on philosophy tube is autoimplicative self criticism!!!??? Why not talking about yourself!!??
If your payment drops to 900€ after tax!?? Whoud you trying to commodity your work also!!!???
Instead giving criticism, based on eny! You could contribute to the Government Big industry/banksters complex criticism! And fight for basic human rights!!!
Don't be a weekend keyboard worrior!!!
What I am wondering though is if you are being critical enough of the educazional system you yourself are a part of. Arguing that with cheap or cost free university has evened the field is a bit simplified. Being from Germany myself I would say that excess especially to philosophy is also very exclusive. Most schools I know didn't teach it so pursuing a philosophy degree was quite divided by class lines. Students with parents from academia were way more likely to have access to information about philosophy. As someone who also had to worry about securing a future for myself, I would have never concidered studying philosophy since it holds few chances for a secure job. So I studied science which unfortunately does not even have basic logic classes even though we would really need them. Philosophy Tube actually introduced me to a lot of these concepts so I could deepen my knowledge of them and understand the science I was doing better than before. The sources she cites frequently make it on my reading list.
That being said since I also am interested in science communication I am not sure if you can broaden the appeal of your field without oversimplifying or even distorting the original point. I have yet to come by a popular article on a study that I would concider to be completely right. I imagine in philosophy it's even harder since it ist so tightly bound to the words used. Your videos are clearly more on the academic side which make them less accessible. I propably wouldn't have understood them before a soft intro to philosophy by PT. So I am wondering whether you think that only academics have the ability to get a grasp of works like Kants. Because that, too might be a condition of the system you're in that you should be critical of.
Would you have been interested in taking philosophical courses without getting credit for them, assuming your schedule allowed?
@@Wonzling0815 as someone with a very similar position to OP. Yes, I would. I had philosophy in Highschool and it was quite fun but as some people say „Brotlose Kunst“. Everyone I know that study’s philosophy, sociology etc. comes from a very privileged household. While people with working class parents mostly choose more practical fields like finance, cs etc.
@@steppenfuchs5608 I wonder if this is a development caused by the BA/MA reforms. I was one of the last to study under the old Magister system and minored in philosophy. In our lectures and seminars there were quite a few students from harder sciences who chose -either on their own or as a choice mandated by their curriculum- to take certain courses in philosophy.
However the MA/BA students I taught a few years after that seemed to have such tight schedules that they had no room for anything beyond what was needed for their next test.
If you need to learn logic, it's often done through mathematics, which is pretty much a prerequisite for a science degree.
@@pattoman5568 I actually took a course on modal logic. It was like mathematical equations crossed with stargate hieroglyphs :)
What a GREAT video. What a breath of FRESH AIR amongst these pseudo intellectual youngsters who try to simplify 800 pages of content in 5 minutes of videos.
Btw here in the US we are also asking for free public college. But it’s not just tuition fees that commodify a university education. Grading puts the whole education system in a transactional structure which affects our learning in a way that’s rarely discussed, and which is much more widespread in the world than the exorbitant tuition prices we pay here. I’d argue that grading is also a pretty direct form of commodification, since earning a degree is thought to lead to better paying jobs and since getting bad grades forces one to stay at the school longer, paying whatever costs are associated with enrollment. I’d be interested to see you explore that topic too
People build parasocial relationships with influencers. This is not much different from how advertisements on TV work.
It actually is. Parasocial relationships are much more influential than TV advertising.
@@zombieking556 I meant data collection is not much different from TV advertisements such as selling kids toys and candy during cartoons, soap during soap operas, the way advertisements alter the news narrative. You are a product there too.
My mistake was writing the two sentences as that they are a thread.
@@hoordeyah easily the most annoying part about trying to engage politically with most people on the internet. They all are spewing out the garbage talking points that their favorite political hobbyist says.
@@hoordeyah - "lefties get LIVID when it comes to parasocial relationships and talk all the time about how they're capitalist brainwashing or something"
Do... they? I mean, I'm a "lefty" and don't talk about nor have heard literally anyone talk about how parasocial relationships are "capitalist brainwashing." They _can_ definitely be harmful if you're unaware of them or when they're used in a deliberately predatory manner (I'd count, say, televangelists as being in this category). Like many things, they're just another tool that can be used for good or ill.
I'm curious where you got your own premise here from - it's a blatantly obvious strawman, so did you conjure it up yourself, or are you repeating what you've heard from, perhaps, an online influencer you have a parasocial relationship with?
BLAME! Vol.1 on the shelf, clearly a man of taste.
Good eye! Now I'd like to see a "Philosophy of Blame!" like video.
A WEEBBBBBB!!!!
Your video reminds me of a quote from one of these pop philosophy channels (it might even have been philosophy tube). "The currency in the marketplace of ideas is spectacle, not good ideas.:
I am so glad you showed the analytics because I was saying to my partner after reading the comments in the other video “americans can’t even imagine education without mercantilisation of it” but I didn’t know if the comments were from people in the united states or not obviously
The comment about presentation stood out, since a thing I tend to find consistently disappointing about Abigail's videos isn't the content being presented, but how the viewers tend to respond so much more strongly to the presentation, often at the expense of what's being taught. I want to believe the lavish presentation helps engage viewers better with the philosophy itself, but I suspect that for many it distracts from the point at times.
Not even one mention of the best way to commodify philosophy: be a stand-up philosopher! Mel brooks was on to something!
Ohhhhhh....A Bullshit Artist!
@@drmodestoesq ahhhhh... A bullshit RUclips comment!
@@lewishitchcock7248 ruclips.net/video/oBIxGjSHzF8/видео.html
@drmodestoesq I miss Bea Arthor
The Presocratics had better one-liners than Henny Youngman. Take my philosophy, please!
Your single reflection on “critique” is more down-to-earth and stimulating than every video by every popular philosophy outlet, ever.
Agreed.
the people who need the extra presentation are probably the people who would benefit most from the content js js 😌🤷🏻♀️
Sad part its that these people look for answers not more questions.
Thays why they consume that content, to know the answer, and parrot it like they know were it came from.
I'm just happy that people are still getting some kind of information about philosophy, most young people today does not have the attention span to read books
I don't see much value in philosophy if it doesn't also have presenters to reach larger audiences. There's little point if it only exists as a circlejerk in some ivory tower, never to be seen outside, which is sadly the state of most academic philosophy.
The act of communicating it to laypeople also forces philosophers to take a new angle on their material. Phrasing it in clear language that connects with peoples' experiences often helps to uncover strenuous logic that sometimes survives in overly theoretical spheres, and bolsters that which is actually solid or applicable. Social media created a great niche for that, where communicators can practice and compete in this process.
And this very video is part of that. Due to PhilosophyTube's video reaching a larger audience, you have a point to connect to and thus gain a great opportunity to advance peoples' understanding of philosophy. And you have especially fertile ground for that since the particular channel attracts and encourages people who are indeed willing to listen to corrections and extending concepts.
The warning at the end of your video earned my subscription to your channel. The avoidance of self-criticism and management of one's self-image on these platforms creates a lot of problems. It's no wonder why, despite all this technology, people are having such a hard time sorting out what is real or true.
I love how to evoke capitalism they just googled capitalist and showed all the immages from google. I'm not being ironic, I actually think it's funny.
It is pretty revealing, about what, is not exactly clear.
@@Dimitris_Half I think that it's funny for three reasons:
1) They couldn't be bothered/are too bad at making videos to illustrate their point better
2) They are making a statement about how RUclipsrs using googled/stock images to illustrate their points is silly or sloppy in its own right, and
3) I have no idea which of the above statements is the case, or even if they are or are not mutually exclusive reasons.
They also did the same thing when talking about student debt.... does that invalidate what they had to say in any way? Perhaps and this is just a guess, it was just a quick visual that was meant to fill screen space while you are mainly LISTENING to what is being said.
@@tooManyMidgets I have found that a vast majority of young people who emerge from the American education system have very little to no actual understanding of economic principles, and "capitalism" is basically on the level of a meme as something to be pointed at as essentially the devil as a scapegoat for anything remotely negative the West is involved in. I would argue they have to use the most basic interpretations and imagery because anything else would not be understood or recognized in the slightest.
@@jewlovergibson2944 That seems like a big guess.
Very interesting and thought provoking video. I think it’s worth noting that Abigail has told the story of how she started making videos, and it was directly in response to the university fees in the UK making philosophy education inaccessible, so her initial motivation was to ‘give away’ her philosophy education.
Personally, I studied science at university, and almost my entire knowledge of philosophy has been through writing and videos made for a popular audience. I think it would be a shame if philosophy returned to the confines of academia.
But I do think you’re right about the emphasis on the individual creator becoming greater and greater. Ironically, the PT video you critiqued was much more straightforward and plain presentation than the more modern PT videos which are elaborately costumed and produced. Personally I prefer the older style, but Abigail has to do what’s right for her, I guess.
This is a problem that has been driving me up the wall. You presented your analysis more clearly than I ever could. I thought this was an excellent video.
By the way you are gesturing your hands on the thumbnail I can tell you are a true intellectual. Thank you Proffesor, we need smart serious men such as yourself to educate ignorant and easily influenced people and preserve the integrity and purity of philosophical knowledge. I wish more people were as wise and serious such as yourself, and had such honor, admiration, respect and altruism towards philosophy. Social media and these RUclipsrs influencers young fools are nothing but a real disgrace and taint on the honor and purity of fine intellectual elevated knowledge as the one you acquired through real academic effort. Thank you for taking the responsability and stepping in! I truly admire you University Proffesor Sir Moeller.
If you want to be educated on philosophy for free pick up a fucking book. I'm so tired of people defending shitty, watered down misinformation being spread about on RUclips because they can't be bothered to actually read philosophy. Not only have philosophers explained their ideas in writing but thanks to the internet pretty much all of it can be found online for free. Libgen and other such sites are your friend.
Good video btw
I think you really hit the nail on the head with PT being too focused on the presenter. I've been trying to articulate why I didn't really vibe with her channel for years now and that sums it up perfectly.
i really envy them, their life seems to consist purely off of dressing up in stupid outfits and talking about philosophical subjects in the most redditor friendly manner possible and they make mad bank out of that
@@richardvlasek2445 she uses she/her pronouns, you don't have to use they/them just because she's a trans woman, she uses the same pronouns as a cis woman
@@bandamani they/them is also a wholly legitimate way to refer to a third person in the third person. I think some transfolk get too uptight about that one. As somebody who's been misgendered, I think there's more important use cases to worry about than using a non gendered pronoun. I would go so far as to say that non gendered pronouns should be the preferred choice in any situation except where "they/them" is too easily interpreted as its plural form rather than its singular. Wish we had less ambiguity about the plural versus singular there.
@@weatheranddarkness im not mad about it, i'm just being cautious as to what their use may imply. since Abigail has stated she is a trans woman and goes by she/her, that's what she would like people to use. i also default to they/them for people most of the time and agree it'd probably make life much easier if that's what we used most commonly. cishet people (usually) seem to have a very different outlook and understand of the use of those pronouns, so i was just trying to make them aware whilst not straight up assuming they intended anything bad by it, although more often than not that ends up being the case.
@@weatheranddarkness i was also trying to clear up the weird way people seem to other binary trans people from cis people by referring to them differently, when they just want to be treated the same. idky people who would generally agree with me irl have to have some kind of issue with what i've said on here when i'm just trying to help any cishet people who might stumble upon their pronoun usage and get confused, then they'll see us two conversing and be even more confused lol
now i kinda just watch philosophytube videos and other "breadtube" channels like i enjoy art with ideology
Yeah. Similar to Adam Curtis's stuff, it's better to take it as art-tainment with a strong ideological bias (which you don't necessarily have to agree with in order to enjoy the statement and aesthetics of the work).
Breadtube are not very info to there audience because a lot of breadtube focus on the views instead of the subject they are talking about. Sometime they criticize each other in the breadtube community and end up distancing there subject there talking about and more on the individual they are talking about.
As someone who is interested in philosophy, I get nothing out of these videos. I used to watch for the entertainment value, but it's basically McDoanldized philosophy. A lot of empty calories makes it very difficult to return to. Forget "breadtube": it's's BigMacTube.
@@spiralofinspiration3653 The focus becomes more on individual egos and personas and their interpersonal relationships, as well as their presentation, rather than about ideas themselves.
@@spiralofinspiration3653 as someone who is interested in philosophy on a very basic level and who never intends to study it academically I think their videos are fantastic because they encourage a kind of critical thinking that is hugely uncommon in other online political spaces and are extremely engaging to people who care very little about academic philosophy but who are still invested enough in other subjects that can really benefit from having at least a basic understanding of what philosophy is and how it fits into the world, of course they aren't going to be engaging to people who are actually highly invested in philosophy because that is not their target audience, their aim is simply to encourage people to think critically and consider philosophical thinking rather than encouraging them to do in depth research on specific philosophers and philosophical ideas and ideologies because that isn't really applicable to the general public's every day lives in the way the other stuff is
Yeah Abigail’s videos are just entertainment and will get more people into philosophy, hopefully leading to more free thinkers. Basic understanding of philosophy is lacking somewhat in today’s society so I appreciate her effort
Critical thinking is almost always the most effective tool confront issues - personal as well as world wide. Philosophy is one way of developing the tools and skills to learn and apply such critical thinking. Generally I'd say the more opportunities to access and adopt it the better.
Yes, some sites attempt to tell people what to think/believe rather than how they can find out for themselves.
In this video I like the clarity of your thinking and communication, also your even-handed and mature response to ctiticism. I respect what you and Abigail (Philosophy Tube) are doing.
It's true Abigail attracts by personality and presentation; she's aware of the importance of these and uses them exceptionally well. Also, she may not have your depth of knowledge and, given her career in acting etc. may never equal it. She nevertheless causes the audience to answer questions rather than offering answers and replacement doctrines.
You are both firmly on track in this.
Thanks for what you are doing.
Well this person is a professor of philosophy whereas Abigail has an undergraduate degree in philosophy. Obviously his takes would be more in-depth than hers.
Unless Abigail was lying about her qualifications (which I don't think she was) I don't see where the problem is. You wouldn't expect an undergraduate physicist to do post graduate level research. If you're listening to the undergraduate, it's because that's the level you currently want or are comfortable with.
If you're trying to get into a philosopher like Kant, it's probably best that you find content or info from an expert in the subject who's capable of communicating the subject matter in layman's terms. Otherwise, sure, you may be getting a take on the philosopher that's more digestible, but it's also a take that could be misleading or flat-out wrong.
@@comradebroosk9396 Maybe. But I'm not really trying to get into anything in particular. I watched the PhilosophyTube video because it was on my feed and fun to watch. The same reason I watched this video.
It's pop philosophy, like pop science. I'm sure people who are serious about the subject or want to do research on it would go much more in-depth. But since I don't think you could do any serious harm by having a slightly skewed (but more easily digestible) view of Kant, I don't see the issue with videos like PhilosophyTube.
That's just my take, though. You can of course have a different one.
the problem is people undervaluing the entire concept of having expertise in something like philosophy because "anybody can do it". That's what gets subjects like philosophy defunded from higher education in the first place
@@zetaforever4953 I don't know much about pop science, but if I'm watching a video about nuclear energy or civil engineering, I would much rather get a more accurate introduction than a less accurate one.
In the case of Abigail's video on Kant, as pointed out in the previous video essay, it's more than slightly skewed. And what's more, it's one of the first search results when you type in "Kant" into the RUclips search bar. So I think it's reasonable to say Abby's video didn't meet the bar it should have.
Absolutely! And it's good to have multiple channels on these subjects so we're not JUST getting our information from one professor or one undergrad.
I'm not sure I've ever seen a Philosophy Tube video, but I'm happy that this showed up in my feed. Subscribed.
I love the warning label at the end. It sounds goofy but it would make perfect sense (from pretty much any perspective other than a capitalist one) if we were required to attach the warning label at the start of every RUclips video we create. That we are commodities to be bought and sold on the internet is a truth that everyone both understands but simultaneously forgets.
Subscribed. But it is worth mentioning that this video (as well as the videos critizised) are reaching thousands of times more viewers, than traditional academic philosophy lectures.
So.. It is very good to point out inaccuracies in these commodified philosophy videos. But it is also worth noting that they're doing something, that is A LOT more effective than most philosophy teachers are doing.
Making money is a means, but the ends must be assumed to be teaching philosophy. And reaching many people should be a priority.
You acknowledge the necessity to participate in the commodification in order to have a voice. I think most philosophy/political influencers are aware of this, and use the algorithm to their advantage to attract views, which I don’t have a problem with.
These philosophy channels present philosophy in an easy to digest way, on a platform that most young people are active on. The content might not be as complete as a professer would teach to a class, but it’s also a lot shorter compared to the semesters of schooling. The length and form of the content is more accessible for people, and I’ve seen it inspire young people to seek out books and lectures.
Commodification is inevitable, and I do agree that being aware of it is important. But I also think it’s important to remember that philosophy influencer content is most often times vastly preferable to the mindless drivel prank channels and the Logan Paul’s of the world provide.
Young people like shiny stuff, attract them with shiny, exciting philosophy videos, then guide them towards the more academic side of the study
For me personally (an electrical engineer, so no relationship with philosophy), what you're discussing is totally irrelevant. If not for RUclips and PhilosophyTube I would never ever have been introduced to the concepts of philosophy that are being analysed. I have zero interest in starting a second degree just to study philosophy, even if the tuition fees in my country are very small. So RUclips and good video presentations make philosophy much more accessible to a wider audience. Accessibility of content matters as much as the content itself.
I agree, I don’t think Abigail ever claims to be the most nuanced and full picture philosopher, but her videos are captivating and inspiring and I don’t see why that is an issue. It’s ok to have a highly academic philosophical analyses exist next to a more mainstream presentation. I really don’t see how Abigail is doing any harm
Why would an electrical engineer have no relationship to philosophy, except where it has been rendered anodyne and oversimplified? Just because you have "zero interest" in something does not mean that it is "irrelevant" to you.
@@DysprosiumJudas pedantic much?
Sure, but Abigail is supposed to be a Marxist, and is agreed by us that Comodification leads to the Fetishization of products, which itself is described as damaging to the costumers.
@@BlueNorth313 "not entitled to access and understand that knowledge" 🤡
This is really interesting, I do think online can be accessible, easy, and connect people internationally but as an academic-y type I do agree public education should be a focus and that creates places of connection and collaboration as well
Philosophers really can’t discuss something without having to have three more discussions about how they discussed the original things and it’s consequences, AND how they talk about how they talk about the thing.
ruclips.net/video/KufiqCh3Qd4/видео.html
From my experience that isn't true. Those extra discussions are avoided with appeals to common sense.
Wilfrid Sellers famously said that the goal of philosophy is to understand “how things hang together.” Naturally, recognizing how various concepts, topics and problems are interlinked is part of the job. There are certainly a lot of rabbit holes to fall down, but for the most part philosophers can bracket those concerns when discussing something specific unless they feel like it’s especially relevant.
RUclips is a platform of the 'new' media that has massively expanded accessibility to all kinds of quality content that wasn't as accessible/available to me before. I can feast my intellect on a smorgasbord of content way more easily than through going to university (free or not) buying books, listening to the radio, watching tv or borrowing books from the library. I see this particularly also for my kids. I'm not saying that a more structured/traditional education mode is also required, but the democratising effect of education through RUclips is obvious to me. For example, the long-form interviews, in-depth documentaries available on line across regions, perspectives, expert input is astoniushing.
On the scale of bads, i do not think commodification of philosophy is the worst thing as it loosely implies a market for philosophy which implies people are growingly interested in it. But i actually did notice this commodification a little while ago and im really happy i got suggested your video to hear these ideas explored further.
This is a refreshing take, really. I believe most young leftists/wokes/et al have their first introduction to theory from RUclips. It was the same for me and since I have graduated to learning from different, perhaps, denser material, I can personally not appreciate Philosophy Tube the same way I did when I first subscribed.
What's your opinion on Cuck Philosophy? I've found it to be more comprehensive and less theatrical (in the most appreciative tone).
he has the manga Blame! in the background. good taste
I came looking through the comments just to see if anybody else noticed.
I come from a fully-free public education system. I agree that's what's needed in every other country as well, and the prices in UK and US are a scandal.
Here's the thing, though: I will not go to university to learn philosophy. I went there to study something else, and I don't have five years of my life to spend on another degree. Free university cannot replace educational performances on social media, and I find it narrow-minded or disingenuous of you to say that it should.
PT videos are intellectual entertainment. The shift that you pointed out isn't just a natural progress towards more flashy presentation on social media. It's also a sign of Abigail abandoning the somewhat naive idea that she can give a philosophy degree in a youtube video. You may notice, she doesn't make videos on Kant anymore; she makes videos on gender, work relations, or antisemitism. You can't draw Kant's critique from those, but you _can_ draw a new understanding of the world around you and - perhaps - develop sensitivity to its problems that I observe many people lack. I'm not sure if five years in a philosophy department would give me that, frankly.
I would find it more interesting if you did some analysis of the biases in academic philosophy - plentiful as they seem to be - rather than picking on outsiders, performing some of those biases yourself.
Sorry for writing an essay in the comments. Your points on commodification were interesting, just didn't warrant the "ivory tower only" approach you decided on. I hope you take the time to respond; I'm an insider to academia as well, and I'd be happy to converse with you.
I'm hopeful for your channel, it has huge potential.
@@BlackMantisRed I'd like to see those statistics.
@@BlackMantisRed Thanks. It's middle of the night now and my head is pounding (covid? who knows), but I'll be happy to look through those in the near future. I appreciate the comment-analysis, too :)
'I will not go to university to learn philosophy. I went there to study something else, and I don't have five years of my life to spend on another degree.'
Ah, do keep spouting off about the thing you literally refuse to have any experience in though.
Tell me more about the extraordinary value of 'educational performances on social media' - how did anyone learn anything without such things? Surely it can't be possible.
We enjoyed your video. We agree with your points. Just to comment: PT is very accessible to people who would be on RUclips and it's it's a great jumping off point or revision tool, especially in these days of having 3 jobs and being a paycheck away from homeless. PT is fast snappy and theatrical which by nature will create glitches in the information but it's enough.
☡PS we loved your cheeky nod to Categorical Imperative at the end there!😂
*That's just our general take on PT and channels like that (including ours in a way) which take a pop culture approach to very complicated academic subjects. However the difference with us is that it's not a commodification because it's modeled as an NPO.
Having been the victim and beneficiary of University educational systems, and later a minor and "casual" [short term contracts] academic did a lot of tutoring, marking and some lecturing.
I think for the most part, presentation is everything. So long as the lecturer makes it clear to the students not to take everything a lecturer says as "gospel". The point after all, is learning how to learn, how to research, how to think, and how to present.
I have sat in lectures on interesting topics where the lecturers were deadpan, sometimes arrogant, and sometimes merely read in a monotone from notes, or a textbook [often their own].
One lecturer in ecology only cited sources that were twenty-five or thirty years old. So he wasn't just boring, he wasn't even up to date.
I was determined not to be that sort of lecturer. So I tried to keep up to date in my field, and would often add an interesting new paper a week or a day before my next lecture or tutorial. [or lab]. That takes more preparation time.
But here's the thing. It is incredibly difficult to keep it up. Not so many of us are Richard Feynmans, who can be equally brilliant at teaching AND cutting edge research, equally. So at least with the Universities worked at, people tended to get "streamed" as researchers or teachers. This was part survival, and part a "gentle push" by the institution. [It was hinted that I get my PhD or get out]. Working all night to grade hundreds of exams, papers and lab reports can get really old quickly, especially when the next day is as full as the last.
So why would I want tenure? I saw talented friends and colleagues who had work for a decade or more just to get a junior tenured position. By then they might be burned out, at least as far as teaching is concerned, and become "professor Snooze" at the podium. Real Professors are supposed to attract substantial research grants [public and/or private], or they don't get the job.
I agree that commercialisation and privatisation has not been good for education or research.
One thing that shocked me was a general lack of fair treatment of the atheist and agnostic positions in many universities. Part big business [they want unaware technically savvy wage-slaves] and big religion [The : "You can't be good without God, or Buddha or someone" fallacy]. Of course the arts faculties and many science departments that don't make big money quick, tend to be starved of resources. But that said, I was really surprised the Philosophy department didn't mention atheism and agnosticism as valid world views. Yes, they were mentioned, but not exactly sympathetically.
To my delight, the theology department WAS interested, even after I had presented my position and some details. But alas, they were probably the most financially starved of all, and could barely fund their core units, never mind electives. Perhaps Notre Dame? But no, I had also seen their orientation courses, which in part was apologetics about Bishop Anselm's "Ontological Argument For God" , a position so riddled with logical fallacies, I could not in good conscience teach it. And I am not a qualified philosopher. I counselled a friend who wanted to do law there. I said to him: "Yeah, Anselm's argument has more holes in it than Swiss cheese, but if you want to do law there, write what the lecturer wants. Normally I encourage intellectual honesty, but if your Prof is not into it, or at least doesn't see the holes, the pragmatic move is regurgitation.
My two cents, Abigail's "Philosophy Tube" has a lot of merit, despite a few flaws. For one thing, a lot of interested people are subjected to intellectual or financial "gate-keeping", barring them from participating in intellectual life.
And the lack of the skills in critical thinking, especially doing it with no sacred cows [literal or metaphorical] seems to be common in the general public.
Is it ironic that those closing statements on Kantian reflection, and that final warning, are some of the best ""RUclips content"" I've seen?
Well presented, Professor.
I have denied knowledge, in order to make room for faith
-Kant
This was a great video, keep up the great work. Something that I really enjoy about "old heads," (so sorry) let's say, is that you tend to view critique and engagement differently than the profit-fueled on RUclips do. You didn't mention this in the video, but critique on social media is also driven by the same contextual realities that the platforms present. As such, a great deal of critique on RUclips specifically spends far more time poking at arguments or the presenter rather than dealing with the full breadth of someone's words. There are certain parts of RUclips that are ripe for real critique and analysis (economics, philosophy, politics), that rarely get the treatment they deserve. I was impressed with how succinctly and impersonally you discussed the comments you brought up.
With that said, I was a bit bummed to read some of the comments here. A good portion seem to be laser-focusing on specific words you said or how you said, rather than the full depth of your critique. For one, that you're holding Abigail personally responsible for some of the negative aspects of the platform she chooses to engage on. I did not see it this way at all. Indeed the final minute or two of this video focuses on context and pulls the discussion away from engaging with Abigail or her personal choices. For two, many seemed to say "Well I don't care because she's who got me into philosophy." Which is...fine, but it sort've seems like they must be missing the entirety of what you're arguing.
Finally, there were quite a few comments I liked, mostly discussing some of the negatives of the education system, and some of the positives of social media that you didn't discuss. Personally, I do think there is a good balance to be found. We can have social media infotainment in which the presenter is a smaller part of the product, and the final product has fewer cuts to the substance of their topic. Such presenters and videos already exist, and I'm hopeful that they come to take over the algorithm, so to speak.
So as a longtime follower of Philosophy Tube, subscribed!
Huge 'missing the point and proving themselves bad at critical thinking' vibes in the comments
@@kat8559 lmao
as an old philosophy student, a senior now, i've found you can do and study at will via some pretty good philosophy videos out here, true to the course and for free. i took some of robert paul wolff's lectures analyzing kant, they are great. hubert dreyfus' heidegger lectures are available and outstanding. and i happen to like arthur holmes history series then at wheaton college. there's so much good stuff, in series and in discussion sites, quite satisfying. the project you review is as you've noted a most interesting commodification, like creating your own mirror and the source is, i'm finding, quite artistic.
I recommend Bonevac's RUclips channel as well, he is a fantastic lecturer and professor with hundreds of lectures free of charge on his channel.
. hubert dreyfus' heidegger lectures take a very"anglo" look at heidegger .As someone educated educated outside the anglo world, i would not recommend them
that warning should be played after informational videos! it's actually so important.
I support Abigail on Patreon, yet I enjoyed this video. I've just started studying philosophy at university after several years of podcasts / RUclips / reading sporadically. The motivation, overview and guidance you get at university beats everything else for me. For others this might not be the case. However, what cannot be denied, is that the internet-based resources truly are resources.
By hearing several different presentations of a concept or thinker, it becomes much easier to avoid certain traps of interpretation. Furthermore, philosophers famously hold many differing opinions on all topics, and being confronted with clashes of information early on helps reveal this I think. I particularly notice many of my fresh from high school fellow students often speak of our lecturers' presentations of thinkers as gospel truth.
I do however agree that Abigail sometimes dedicate most of a video's focus onto her own persona. That's why I don't really think of Philosophy Tube as how she presents it, "giving away a degree in philosophy for free". It's more like "Philsophical Concepts, Dramatized". Which she has increasingly embraced, and does so very skillfully.
To me, this highlights a definitive advantage of internet based philosophical content: It is free to experiment in both form and focus. If you're looking for more academic approaches, the podcasts/RUclips channels of "Theory & Philosophy" and "Post-Colonial Space" are excellent. If you want easy introductions to most of the greatest western thinkers, "Philosophize This!" that you briefly showed the thumbnail of is amazing. It was my introduction to all of this, and of course it probably has some small mistakes here and there, but it is presented in such a bare-boned way that it is unlikely to cause any major misinterpretation. This is just a small number of the "traditional philosophy" resources available.
Online, philosophy can also be presented through new perspectives, such as those of gay and trans people. The problem with projects such as those of Judith Butler, is that they are restricted to flow through academia, where a couple of nods from this person or a criticism from this person can severely affect the reach of they're ideas. When they do leak into the public sphere, it's usually through media, where they are prone to severe misinterpretation. Is it not better then, to accept the role of a youtuber, who can be free to actually do some research, and actually has an interest for the field of philosophy? Yes, there are several issues with attention seeking and transparency. And there is a lot of bad stuff out there, with views being no sure indicator of quality. In the end, I think internet philosophy does serve its function, but I am glad that traditional academia persists.
Thank you for so openly engaging with the criticisms! Already excited for the next video :D
That warning should play before and after every RUclips video.
I am a science major undergraduate who knew nothing about philosophy. I took philosophy course in uni but I wasn’t ‘interested in’ so I studied just enough for the grades. However, I watched philosophy tube and took a bite of philosophy of Foucault. I got immersed into it than preceded to watch a ‘free lecture’ from a professor about him. Then I managed to read his book. It’s just my story about how RUclipss could be more helpful than uni education.
But most importantly, I think your criticism should be about how philosophy tube doesn’t asks for expert’s help when making the video. Just like every commodity today, division of labor should be applied when producing the philosophy. Professor should produce a content, while actor should produce presentation.
I am willing to forgive many things because Philosophy Tube, Crash Course, Contrapoints, and channels like Wisecrack are making philosophy a public thing. For the last century, philosophy has been a walled garden either in expensive universities or long-winded, very extremely jargon-laden essays that a few hundred people can even understand.
I would call this democratization rather than commodification. It's bringing philosophy back to the masses. Even if it's not as deep as, say, a 20 year long dissertation, more people have access to it, which means more people will become interested in it.
I think they're extremely important in our day and age where everything moves too fast and we need more people to have access to these ideas.
Philosophers have been paid for millennia, as tutors. Someone like Abigail is now a tutor for millions, and I find that beautiful.
Thanks, now on to the next video...
Wow is that the manga Blame! I see in the bottom left shelf?!
I am pleasantly surprised that you addressed this so publicly. And your absolutely right, "better" was perhaps not the right word choice, "less sh*tty" might be more apt... While publicly owned schools are better than privately owned schools, I'd still prefer a truly socialist mode of production.
You're also absolutely right that leftists in America, at least, where I'm from, are not as radical as we need to be, but the truly left movement here is still young, and we're slowly pushing forward. One of the biggest hurdles right now is decoupling the idea of socialism with that if social democracy. Bernie really muddied the waters on that front by labeling himself a democratic socialist (and he may just be, but the policies he pushed for publicly were not in line work social democracy). I think getting people to understand that distinction and also raising class consciousness and helping workers to see that they should be engaging in politics that push back against the capitalist narrative are critical to socialist Revolution here in west.
I also see that you added the warning at the end of the video, and that really reflects a level of self reflection that in my expert is so rare today.
i like pt and so was ready to argue but honestly this is quite a fair critique so i subscribed
Good one to point out, the effect to Focus* at the presenter and not the content ( space teem screenshot ). Probably this all happening cause of the Right to information, Freedom, Technology for all, etc etc. Its a never ending series of Defence & Critisizm. I feel happy & satisfied that professors like you are serving too. Thank you ❤.
thank you. i still intend to continue watching youtube philosophy videos because i still feel that they have a valid place in educating people who don't have access to public secondary education, but i'll do so more questioningly.
Would love it if you and Abigail could arrange a video chat with each other to discuss this
why? FT is not at his level of knowledge or intelligence at all, what would he or we win by that happening?
@@el_equidistante >he
Yeah. Nothing of value to be won from this one.
@@Nai-qk4vp I think jassLmhn was referring to Carefree Wandering as he.
"FT is not at his level of knowledge" besides the obviously spelling mistake
Abigail sucks, that monotype academic feminist genre of philosophy isn't good. This is something a fan would say.
@@oraz. subbed to shoeonhead lol
Interesting video. PT has made a video about this very topic too. "RUclips: Art or Reality" where she goes over the whole Presentation thing. Id love to hear what you think about that and if it suffices as kantian critique in your eyes
Link: ruclips.net/video/kVav1ri65Ws/видео.html
I think your video has some good points, just wanted to add that in a lot of places money is not the only thing gatekeeping education. the educational background of your parents, disability and many other factors can cause you to lose access to proper education.
For me, it is the possibility of educative spaces like this one that makes it worth it.
I didn't know of Philosophy Tube until this video, and I just found this video now (thanks RUclips algorithm), so I have no horse in this race.
There was just a statement here that gave me the impression that philosophy, and as a whole, education is better off being taught in an institute rather than by "influencers". Perhaps I am misunderstanding this, but to me, even if University was wholly free - free classes, free books, free materials, etc - it still is something I likely would not be interested in. I've always struggled with learning, despite enjoying learning a lot. I dropped out of high school, and was later kicked out of college for failing grades. It was only up until a few years ago that I found self-motivated learning through a huge variety of sources has proven far more effective to me. I read books, watch formal videos created by Universities, and watch youtube videos on those topic, among many other things. I'm certain I am not alone in this either. I'm certain there are many other people who find self-motivated learning more effective than formal institutes. If formal institutes had the right kind of course and right kind of professor that knew how to nail down exactly my motivation in learning, I am sure an institute would work well for me, but that is likely 1-in-a-million, and there is not a million of universities around me (and the reality is, they aren't free either).
But, to be fair, I do agree with the point about presentation. I feel like under most circumstances, when I am seeking to learn, I look for content-over-presentation videos. Videos with snappy editing and strong personality isn't entirely something I want while I am learning. That said, when I am looking for entertainment, good presentation is something I am looking for on RUclips.