@@timadamson3378 True lol. I think she misunderstands ontology and structuralism. She created a palatable dish for people to easily raven from at the expense of a nuanced explanation.
I love how passionate she is while talking about it, it makes me really enjoy to learn, her love is contagious!! I finally found a video where structuralism is explained very well, thank you so much!
This is amazing! I'm currently in my masters for English and we are going over structuralism this week. It was hard to grasp until I saw this video, so thank you!
Brilliant. I wrote my French masters thesis in 1983 on the subject of Mallarmé's translations of Poe, and how translation theory did not accommodate the "two axis" problem of meaning in translation viewed from the perspective of structuralist theory. It was very hard work, but very rewarding. The idea was that literal meaning lay on one axis, and poetical 'essence' or the impulse of the sounds of language in poetry lay on the other axis. The ideal translation was one that managed to accommodate literal meaning while conveying the essence of the language of the original in the translation. For what it's worth, this vid completely refreshed my memory of what was behind this damned thesis 40 years ago. The underlying structuralist concept was the foundation stone, but I had forgotten exactly how or why until now. Thank you. I now realize, in retrospect, I wrote a pretty goddamn good thesis, under these conditions.
Thank you for the lecture. I'd just like to add a couple of things: Lévi-Strauss wasn't the creator of a paradigmatic (vertical) structural approach, he took this idea from Saussure and employed it in literature to explain mythology. Also, I don't think that your criticism to structuralism is founded. The fact that structuralists (and people in general) use words/linguistic resources to construct their arguments is not a counterargument to the idea of arbitrariness. It does not matter if a tree is called 'tree' or 'arbre', the importance lies in a sound-concept relation, that we connect a specific signifier with what is signified. Structuralists could base their position on a different choice of words, their selection does not show that these meanings are intrinsic.
Thank you so much for this. Saussure’s writing (or perhaps just his English translations) can be incredibly intimidating and daunting. Even after spending days with them, this video has helped immensely in my understanding and immersion into structuralism.
I really appreciate the insight that Structuralism is an inversion of Platonic Idealism. Also that she considers Marx and Freud as forerunners of Structuralism. Thank you.
One of the few videos about this kind of theory that acknowledges the ironies and hypocrisies. A breath of fresh air, makes your video much more trustworthy!
I'm watching this bc I have an essay due in three days about all the schools of psychology used for advertising and my teacher did not explain the topic NEARLY as well as you did. what the hell! thank you so much this is very clear and one can tell you're super passionate about this, i love that.
omg this helped me so much for my critical theory class, like i completely understood you!!! Lots of writings on structuralism tend to be ranting almost, very all over the place so this was great
I’m still watching the video and will rewatch it a bunch of times. But just wanted to say you beautiful BEAUTIFUL human thank you so much. I’m kinda getting the hang of this now. You explain it so well. Thank you!!!
I cannot emphasize enough on the fact that how helpful to students and to overall humanity are these lectures that breaks difficult studies into simplest of its elements. Thank you so much ma'am.
15:32 - But if words are arbitrary that doesn't necessarily follows they don't have any meaning, right? It just follows that the meaning we attribute to them is a human projection and not something of things in themselves, right?
Awesome - its great to watch this video. As Sorala mentioned: I love how passionate you is while talking about it, it makes me really enjoy to learn, Its great to see your love and engagement.
Nailed it in the last part; they are complimentary approaches. This subject has been touched on for millenia, but not always in language that is understood well in modernity. There is a need for periodic revitalization of this idea in scientific consciousness of a given age. The dichotomy that is described in the video is to me very similar to more ancient ideas of governance (of the mind and by extension the state, which is merely mind collectivized) whereby the "true" perception is more of a synthesis between two poles... namely, there is a logical (sometimes depicted as masculine) understanding and an intuitive,creative or mystical (female) understanding. In the marriage (indeed it has in the past been referred to as a holy matrimony within the individual) of these two ways of conceiving arises the child of action that mediates between them. This is basically what people like Jung are getting at when they talk about ideas like "the Transcendant Function" (which is a fascinating line of inquiry for those who are intrigued).
Magnificent to find an awestruck calibre of explanation... Nailed it in a solid fashion... God bless sister... Being a lover of literature and a Research Scholar in it, I thank you for the experience...
Found it to be wonderful and useful for literature people like me, and I really love the way you presented it and oh my God, your voice is amazing ❤️. But I was surprised that you didn't mention Roland Barthes who's such an influential theorist of structuralism who went into post-structuralism later.
Honestly, this was an abstruse idea for me to comprehend through the articles I have read, which were overly verbose. The hardest part for me to traverse were the differences that arose from the juxtapositions that I made with different articles, but this video, your enthusiasm, and scintillating attitude, made it highly unequivocal. What I was missing is that in fact structuralism is a methodology, :) thank you!
Really helpful and clarifying a lot of not previously connected ideas and notions I had in my head. I also envy you for such a rich library you have in the background. :)
i came this video bumped into my feed cause I have looked up some video on Claude Lévi Strauss in the most elegant and scientific way there was and also because some people see him as the father of modern anthropology after that i looked up a little bit more about this structuralism thing and I'm very glad that i came upon your video
Great stuff. The posture and the whole presention of the lady herself reminds fo my own euphora when I just discovered the disipline of Semiotics and Semiosis concepts. it's great to learn about Structuralism with its shortcomings. This is an opprotunity to attack the whole system of Structural'st idea and perhaps we may be able to make contributions to the exiting knowledge.
there's a difference between "absolutely arbitrary", as in, any specific culture's words are as reasonable a choice as any other culture's words within a structure, and there being utility in using shared definitions within a specific context. This difference is somewhat ignored in the video, as they are presented as contradiction. Structuralists said that all terms were arbitrary, that does not mean there isn't utility in using those agreed-upon terms, even if they are "arbitrary". (though they are only really "arbitrary" if you consider them outside of the context of a specific historical linguistic structure, and the original context that structuralists used the word "arbitrary" in was in considering meaning outside of structure, and using a definition dependent on context like that also consistent with structuralism)
Thank you! I was actually looking in the comment section for someone who has pointed this out. I think the whole critique part goes wrong. For another example, proposing "agent explanation" as something apart from a "scientific explanation" is really not well-thought. Also, she points out that looking at things the way structuralism does has huge implications for our understanding of agency and "meaning". I may ask, So what? As Hume would say (based on a paragraph in "Enquiry") we must not ignore the truths for they may affect our comfort zone, "humanity" and "meaning"!
Don't take me wrong but there are two objects that have intention to divert my attention despite the fact that your lecture is fabulously good and simple to understand.
Found this to be extremely helpful! I don't understand why all of this can't be explained by others in a simpler manner. Please inform me where to locate the 2nd part, on Deconstruction.
Excellent video! I have been working for some time with discoursive semiotics from the school of Greimas, and one of the critiques I've always had is this: Greimasian semiotics (as a genuine structuralist theory) splits all discourse between content and expression (like Saussure with a signified and a signifier). It teaches us to identify WHAT is the content, but also to never look at the content and how it affects what is being expressed. For example, if I analyze a poem and it speaks about love, in my analysis I should mention that it does speak about love, but never look at the lyric-self's opinion on love. I may mention it, but that shouldn't affect the analysis. It's crazy: The content is analysed, but not considered as something that will interfere in the analysis.
Crazy indeed. Because there is this assumption, that the reference of the 'content' is actually inscrutible, or even non-existent. This is I think structuralism's most ridiculous assumption. John Searle has very good work on the topic, on explaining social ontology and interpretation by revealing the amazing capacity that allows for a cognitive system to refer to external realities - the intentionality of the mind.
Can someone help me understand how everything word is arbitrarily created with no essence but only via relations with other things and is dynamic, however structuralism is still deterministic and unconscious? I understand that dynamism can be the determined however I don't understand how being having preprogrammed structures/unconscious rule coincides with having no essence? It seems like being preprogrammed is a type of essence that they're trying to reject?
Yo if all teachers and professors teach like this, at all schools at all levels. I bet there wouldn't be any sleeping student during class out of boredom, at all schools at all levels. I'm glad this video passed by on my feed.
18:10-18:18min. Yeah, there is something to that. Like I could write "thereissome thing too that" (also pronounce it. They woudl also grasp the meaning/signified) and peoeple would laugh, or, say that "that is not the way to write it", that is, refering to a set of organizing rules that specify how lettters, nouns, phrases, verbs are to be combined. But there is a sense that, for most speakers, such rules may exist, but no one knows who came up with it and why they become binding for all speakers. Hence the arbitrary issue. 18:20min-18:44min. A little confusing, but there is something to it. Yes, meaning exists before scientific/empirical verification is carried out. Speakers start with a level of subjectivity with regards to the things they speak about. The issue of certain things being "man/human made does re-introduce the issue of autonomy of course. Perhaps in an unintended way.
Wonderful explanation, thank you so much. So many great examples, especially John Lennox. However, whenever you say "underlining" - I wonder if you actually mean "underlying" ? Your english is better than mine, so maybe you are right. But it feels strange.
I had the same reaction to the "underlining," or "underligning." I knew she meant "underlying" not only from the context, but near the end she says something like, "...and it underlies everything." There it is. I believe these things happen because our tongue or mouth just makes it happen, and we know what we mean, so we don't think about it a lot. But it can change what we're trying to communicate. We had to learn English when my family emigrated from Germany when I was almost twelve -- which is probably why this stuff matters to me. I was quite obsessed with getting things right. I have no accent. My sister was sixteen, and she does gave one. She has a habit of saying, "I wished I had one of those." I have pointed our to her that she means the present tense, but she is always putting it in the past tense by orally (or phonetically) adding the final "-d!" I think her accent makes people give her a pass, and they understand. But for me, the "underlining" was like fingernails on a chalkboard! I would advise to practice saying words with two separate vowels that follow each other, especially when the same or close. "Un-der-ly-ing." Sorry about that, but the lecture was stupendous!
Thank you for making this video, it was really helpful! I'm reading about Deconstruction and purchased Deconstruction by David J. Gunkel and was having a hard time understanding some of the things he was saying about structuralism and this video helped me greatly!
Plato was actually dancing around quantum physics…ideas are manifested potential which exist in pure wave form, until one is isolated through observation and brought to physical form. Quantum to Classical, is correlative to epistemological to ontological.
Hold on.. Isnt light both a particle AND a wave? I mean plato MIGHT have misinterpreted quantum physics, but since the idea didn’t exist at the time, i’m gonna say he was probably referring to the literal heavens and gods he believed in.
if you are serious about this subject, look into Lain Mcgilchrist's Master and His Emissary. great video thank you. The left brain right brain whole brain paradigm is essential here.
16:30 we really needed a professor of mathematics to point this out? This "news" should have been clear at least since Kant's third critique. This just goes to show how desperately the so-called "hard sciences" need beginner's courses in philosophy.
They reject meaning, but they themselves obsessively look for meaning by creating this new whole system of looking at things. They reject absolute truths but they are also certain the fact that their paradigm is/contains the absolute truth
Structure is emergent through the application of bounds on to reality. Our social projection on to reality allows us to choose the bounds i.e. 'the why'.
At long last. An overview lecture on structuralism on RUclips that actually makes sense... I can't thank you enough.
You might say it's... well structured? ;D
You have obviously not been looking at the lectures on utube.
It might make sense, but it is extremely insccurate, sorry to say.
Makes sense because other videos don't make sense enough..
@@timadamson3378 True lol. I think she misunderstands ontology and structuralism. She created a palatable dish for people to easily raven from at the expense of a nuanced explanation.
I love how passionate she is while talking about it, it makes me really enjoy to learn, her love is contagious!! I finally found a video where structuralism is explained very well, thank you so much!
You're welcome
This is amazing! I'm currently in my masters for English and we are going over structuralism this week. It was hard to grasp until I saw this video, so thank you!
Hey there. Do recommend any more videos or articles that explain it in this way? I’m doing a presentation on it and would appreciate the help!
Brilliant. I wrote my French masters thesis in 1983 on the subject of Mallarmé's translations of Poe, and how translation theory did not accommodate the "two axis" problem of meaning in translation viewed from the perspective of structuralist theory. It was very hard work, but very rewarding. The idea was that literal meaning lay on one axis, and poetical 'essence' or the impulse of the sounds of language in poetry lay on the other axis. The ideal translation was one that managed to accommodate literal meaning while conveying the essence of the language of the original in the translation. For what it's worth, this vid completely refreshed my memory of what was behind this damned thesis 40 years ago. The underlying structuralist concept was the foundation stone, but I had forgotten exactly how or why until now. Thank you. I now realize, in retrospect, I wrote a pretty goddamn good thesis, under these conditions.
Is the paper available on the net?
Thank you for the lecture. I'd just like to add a couple of things: Lévi-Strauss wasn't the creator of a paradigmatic (vertical) structural approach, he took this idea from Saussure and employed it in literature to explain mythology. Also, I don't think that your criticism to structuralism is founded. The fact that structuralists (and people in general) use words/linguistic resources to construct their arguments is not a counterargument to the idea of arbitrariness. It does not matter if a tree is called 'tree' or 'arbre', the importance lies in a sound-concept relation, that we connect a specific signifier with what is signified. Structuralists could base their position on a different choice of words, their selection does not show that these meanings are intrinsic.
Could you please lead me to an article or a video that explains this? I’m preparing a presentation and would appreciate the help!
Please refer the book "literary theory" by pramod k nayar. The first talks about structuralist in great lucidity@@AsiaAbdullahh
@@frodoBagginsfromIndia bagginses are so thoughtful and wise. Thank you!
@@AsiaAbdullahh Aww..well If you ever wandered about the baggineses after lotr, Now you know 🤣
Thank you so much for this. Saussure’s writing (or perhaps just his English translations) can be incredibly intimidating and daunting. Even after spending days with them, this video has helped immensely in my understanding and immersion into structuralism.
This is such a great resource. Thanks a lot for posting this!
I really appreciate the insight that Structuralism is an inversion of Platonic Idealism. Also that she considers Marx and Freud as forerunners of Structuralism. Thank you.
One of the few videos about this kind of theory that acknowledges the ironies and hypocrisies. A breath of fresh air, makes your video much more trustworthy!
I'm watching this bc I have an essay due in three days about all the schools of psychology used for advertising and my teacher did not explain the topic NEARLY as well as you did. what the hell! thank you so much this is very clear and one can tell you're super passionate about this, i love that.
Oh my god same. How did that go for you you have you got any tips
I’m supposed to evaluate
omg this helped me so much for my critical theory class, like i completely understood you!!! Lots of writings on structuralism tend to be ranting almost, very all over the place so this was great
I’m still watching the video and will rewatch it a bunch of times. But just wanted to say you beautiful BEAUTIFUL human thank you so much. I’m kinda getting the hang of this now. You explain it so well. Thank you!!!
OMG ! Thank you so much Ma'am. Much love from Algeria 🇩🇿💜
I cannot emphasize enough on the fact that how helpful to students and to overall humanity are these lectures that breaks difficult studies into simplest of its elements. Thank you so much ma'am.
So far this is the most helpful lecture to understand structuralism.. thanks a lot !
15:32 - But if words are arbitrary that doesn't necessarily follows they don't have any meaning, right? It just follows that the meaning we attribute to them is a human projection and not something of things in themselves, right?
yeah. this and some other points made me take this lecture less seriously
100% agree
8% agree
Great! You have really got the gift for turning difficult concept into simple language. Thank you, indeed!
Your explanation is very helpful and simply presented. Looking forward to see other videos.
Awesome - its great to watch this video. As Sorala mentioned:
I love how passionate you is while talking about it, it makes me really enjoy to learn, Its great to see your love and engagement.
Nailed it in the last part; they are complimentary approaches. This subject has been touched on for millenia, but not always in language that is understood well in modernity. There is a need for periodic revitalization of this idea in scientific consciousness of a given age.
The dichotomy that is described in the video is to me very similar to more ancient ideas of governance (of the mind and by extension the state, which is merely mind collectivized) whereby the "true" perception is more of a synthesis between two poles... namely, there is a logical (sometimes depicted as masculine) understanding and an intuitive,creative or mystical (female) understanding. In the marriage (indeed it has in the past been referred to as a holy matrimony within the individual) of these two ways of conceiving arises the child of action that mediates between them. This is basically what people like Jung are getting at when they talk about ideas like "the Transcendant Function" (which is a fascinating line of inquiry for those who are intrigued).
Thank you, finally a proper video on STRUCTURALISM.
Magnificent to find an awestruck calibre of explanation... Nailed it in a solid fashion... God bless sister... Being a lover of literature and a Research Scholar in it, I thank you for the experience...
Found it to be wonderful and useful for literature people like me, and I really love the way you presented it and oh my God, your voice is amazing ❤️.
But I was surprised that you didn't mention Roland Barthes who's such an influential theorist of structuralism who went into post-structuralism later.
Hello, can you help me to understand cultural studies plz?
Honestly, this was an abstruse idea for me to comprehend through the articles I have read, which were overly verbose. The hardest part for me to traverse were the differences that arose from the juxtapositions that I made with different articles, but this video, your enthusiasm, and scintillating attitude, made it highly unequivocal. What I was missing is that in fact structuralism is a methodology, :) thank you!
The passion in your eyes regarding your work and the topics you hit, makes me emotional and wanna make me cry.
This Is GOLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Better than my professor, and books!
Except for the rather trendy, seemingly obligatory objections to Structuralism thrown in at the end, I like this explanation a lot. Thank you. :)
Really helpful and clarifying a lot of not previously connected ideas and notions I had in my head. I also envy you for such a rich library you have in the background. :)
Thank you. This was most illuminating. This explains the world.
i came this video bumped into my feed cause I have looked up some video on Claude Lévi Strauss in the most elegant and scientific way there was and also because some people see him as the father of modern anthropology after that i looked up a little bit more about this structuralism thing and I'm very glad that i came upon your video
This is very helpful, easy to understand and fun to watch. I'm now waiting for the poststructuralism video :)
i can not find the poststructuralism vedio .can you send me the link?
I am getting distracted by all those good looking books in the background.
I'm distracted by her body languages. I don't care if you're the kinesthetic type it's just annoying at that point and almost pretentious.
@@adolfhitler5783 I understand what you mean. I like hand movements during lectures and stuff but only when they are small and calm.
@@adolfhitler5783 Lol coming from "Adolf Hitler", a guy who basically trained himself 24/7 on how to use hand movement and body language.
@@adolfhitler5783 thanks for the opinion hitler
@@MagnaVictus lol coming from a skull wearing glasses which means dead person just like adolf hitler
Thank you for the wonderful video! This is the best under 20 minutes video on this topic. Still looking forward to the Post-Structuralism video!!!
I loove how passionate she is about this topic
Very lucid explanation! You are a gift to students of Truth! Thank you very much!
Great stuff. The posture and the whole presention of the lady herself reminds fo my own euphora when I just discovered the disipline of Semiotics and Semiosis concepts. it's great to learn about Structuralism with its shortcomings. This is an opprotunity to attack the whole system of Structural'st idea and perhaps we may be able to make contributions to the exiting knowledge.
Both are beautiful - The presenter and the presentation.
You are good at it.Go on making it, incrementally,deeper.
Amazingly explained. Would love a similar kind of work for post-structuralism, humanism, post humanism as well please!
there's a difference between "absolutely arbitrary", as in, any specific culture's words are as reasonable a choice as any other culture's words within a structure, and there being utility in using shared definitions within a specific context. This difference is somewhat ignored in the video, as they are presented as contradiction. Structuralists said that all terms were arbitrary, that does not mean there isn't utility in using those agreed-upon terms, even if they are "arbitrary". (though they are only really "arbitrary" if you consider them outside of the context of a specific historical linguistic structure, and the original context that structuralists used the word "arbitrary" in was in considering meaning outside of structure, and using a definition dependent on context like that also consistent with structuralism)
Thank you!
I was actually looking in the comment section for someone who has pointed this out. I think the whole critique part goes wrong. For another example, proposing "agent explanation" as something apart from a "scientific explanation" is really not well-thought. Also, she points out that looking at things the way structuralism does has huge implications for our understanding of agency and "meaning". I may ask, So what? As Hume would say (based on a paragraph in "Enquiry") we must not ignore the truths for they may affect our comfort zone, "humanity" and "meaning"!
Don't take me wrong but there are two objects that have intention to divert my attention despite the fact that your lecture is fabulously good and simple to understand.
English master's students everywhere are kissing the ground you walk on.
Ohhhh.
.my God....such a hilarious comment ...😂🎉🎉Good for mam😊😅
Found this to be extremely helpful! I don't understand why all of this can't be explained by others in a simpler manner. Please inform me where to locate the 2nd part, on Deconstruction.
This was very helpful. I liked the way you connect these rather abstract ideas to everyday things. Philosophy you can use!!!
this was amazing. awaiting the video on post structuralism eagerly :)
Easily understandable very good way of teaching...
a video that’s ACTUALLY helpful 🥺 thank you so much
Excellent video! I have been working for some time with discoursive semiotics from the school of Greimas, and one of the critiques I've always had is this: Greimasian semiotics (as a genuine structuralist theory) splits all discourse between content and expression (like Saussure with a signified and a signifier). It teaches us to identify WHAT is the content, but also to never look at the content and how it affects what is being expressed. For example, if I analyze a poem and it speaks about love, in my analysis I should mention that it does speak about love, but never look at the lyric-self's opinion on love. I may mention it, but that shouldn't affect the analysis. It's crazy: The content is analysed, but not considered as something that will interfere in the analysis.
Crazy indeed. Because there is this assumption, that the reference of the 'content' is actually inscrutible, or even non-existent. This is I think structuralism's most ridiculous assumption. John Searle has very good work on the topic, on explaining social ontology and interpretation by revealing the amazing capacity that allows for a cognitive system to refer to external realities - the intentionality of the mind.
Thank you so much! This video helped me immensely as I was not understanding structuralism. I truly appreciate your video!
Thank you so much from your explanation I get some ideas to write my paper., it is obviously clear and knowledgeable
Great! clear and easy to understand. Where is the video she mentioned for post-structuralism?
Finally, your explanation gave me peace about structuralism. Now, what about Post-structuralism... any recommendation?
Is there a post structuralism video?
Best video on structuralism!
Wow clearly and beautifully explained. I can say that you were enjoying while explaining the concept to us. Thanks for the video!
The CD example os brilliant. Basically if you remember that you can remember structuralist idiology. Very cool
That was really helpful. I am waiting for the post-structuralism now.
Is the post structuralism out yet?
Can someone help me understand how everything word is arbitrarily created with no essence but only via relations with other things and is dynamic, however structuralism is still deterministic and unconscious? I understand that dynamism can be the determined however I don't understand how being having preprogrammed structures/unconscious rule coincides with having no essence? It seems like being preprogrammed is a type of essence that they're trying to reject?
Hey. Can you help me find part2 the post structuralism video?
Same here. This introduction to structuralism is so good that I was eager to know about post-structuralism. But I couldn't find it. aw 🥲
You are amazing, please make more! Please just go hardcore on this philosophy stuff my young soul needs it!
Yo if all teachers and professors teach like this, at all schools at all levels. I bet there wouldn't be any sleeping student during class out of boredom, at all schools at all levels. I'm glad this video passed by on my feed.
What other video-essays on structuralism do you recommend?.
18:10-18:18min. Yeah, there is something to that. Like I could write "thereissome thing too that" (also pronounce it. They woudl also grasp the meaning/signified) and peoeple would laugh, or, say that "that is not the way to write it", that is, refering to a set of organizing rules that specify how lettters, nouns, phrases, verbs are to be combined. But there is a sense that, for most speakers, such rules may exist, but no one knows who came up with it and why they become binding for all speakers. Hence the arbitrary issue.
18:20min-18:44min. A little confusing, but there is something to it. Yes, meaning exists before scientific/empirical verification is carried out. Speakers start with a level of subjectivity with regards to the things they speak about. The issue of certain things being "man/human made does re-introduce the issue of autonomy of course. Perhaps in an unintended way.
Thank you a million for this lecture.
❤️❤️❤️
Wonderful explanation, thank you so much. So many great examples, especially John Lennox. However, whenever you say "underlining" - I wonder if you actually mean "underlying" ? Your english is better than mine, so maybe you are right. But it feels strange.
I had the same reaction to the "underlining," or "underligning." I knew she meant "underlying" not only from the context, but near the end she says something like, "...and it underlies everything." There it is. I believe these things happen because our tongue or mouth just makes it happen, and we know what we mean, so we don't think about it a lot. But it can change what we're trying to communicate. We had to learn English when my family emigrated from Germany when I was almost twelve -- which is probably why this stuff matters to me. I was quite obsessed with getting things right. I have no accent. My sister was sixteen, and she does gave one. She has a habit of saying, "I wished I had one of those." I have pointed our to her that she means the present tense, but she is always putting it in the past tense by orally (or phonetically) adding the final "-d!" I think her accent makes people give her a pass, and they understand. But for me, the "underlining" was like fingernails on a chalkboard! I would advise to practice saying words with two separate vowels that follow each other, especially when the same or close. "Un-der-ly-ing." Sorry about that, but the lecture was stupendous!
Thank you for making this video, it was really helpful! I'm reading about Deconstruction and purchased Deconstruction by David J. Gunkel and was having a hard time understanding some of the things he was saying about structuralism and this video helped me greatly!
Very well and clearly explained! Thank you very much!
I'm interested about her lecture in post-structuralism to supplement my presentation but can't find it. Anyone know where I can find it?
Plato was actually dancing around quantum physics…ideas are manifested potential which exist in pure wave form, until one is isolated through observation and brought to physical form. Quantum to Classical, is correlative to epistemological to ontological.
Hold on.. Isnt light both a particle AND a wave?
I mean plato MIGHT have misinterpreted quantum physics, but since the idea didn’t exist at the time, i’m gonna say he was probably referring to the literal heavens and gods he believed in.
if you are serious about this subject, look into Lain Mcgilchrist's Master and His Emissary. great video thank you. The left brain right brain whole brain paradigm is essential here.
I am so istracted by your bookshelf and I mean that in the best way possible
Thank you so much for this video!! So well explained!!
You just helped me cement and unify a million seemingly unrelated conceptions into a coherent whole and I would like to kiss you.
Where's the link to the video of post-structuralism?
Absolutely loved this! Would you mind making a video on post-structuralism?
This was a fantastic explanation. Thank you!
finally we have THE lecture 😊
i love how passionate she is while talking
Really interesting video. Thanks for posting it. I was wondering if there is any difference between the words "ontological" and "existential."
Is there a video on post structuralism?
Well explained! This is useful and such a great deal of resource and practical ideas about the topic. (p.s. I love your background though 😍)
Thank you for this amazing and informative vid on structuralism
Thank you for a clear and concise overview of this topic. Is there a follow up on Post Structuralism?
Beautifully explained by beautiful philosopher
16:30 we really needed a professor of mathematics to point this out? This "news" should have been clear at least since Kant's third critique. This just goes to show how desperately the so-called "hard sciences" need beginner's courses in philosophy.
Thank you so much, my political philosophy teacher didn't really expain this part of the book :)
I didn't find the video of post-structuralism
Thank you for this amazing video 🙏🏻
My favorite teacher :)
hey, could you point me to the paper you used at 14:12?
can somebody explain the first irony? 15:05
They reject meaning, but they themselves obsessively look for meaning by creating this new whole system of looking at things. They reject absolute truths but they are also certain the fact that their paradigm is/contains the absolute truth
This was really great. Thank you.
Structure is emergent through the application of bounds on to reality. Our social projection on to reality allows us to choose the bounds i.e. 'the why'.
It is a great lecture...and amazing lovely lecturer
Great presentation!
Well done. Did you ever do one on "Post Structuralism?"
Best lecture to understand strctulism very effeteint
Nice what a great explaination about structuralism ,usefull video
Thank you so so much! This video was really helpful!!!
which structuralist said "meaning is not a product of human desire"? & what do you mean by "meaning"?