Phenomenology on love and auto-affection, Dr. Ellie Anderson
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 сен 2024
- Support Overthink on Patreon here: / overthinkpodcast
Professor Ellie Anderson, co-host of Overthink philosophy podcast, presents a conference paper version of her article "My Heart is Yours: A Phenomenology of Self-Revelation in Affective Consciousness." This paper was presented at the conference Perspectives on the Heart: A Workshop in Phenomenology through SUNY Stony Brook, and is published in the 2022 volume Phenomenology and Perspectives on the Heart, ed. Anthony Steinbock: link.springer....
You can read the article here on Dr. Anderson's Academia page: www.academia.e...
For more from Dr. Anderson, check out Overthink podcast!
Enjoy our work? Support Overthink via tax-deductible donation: www.givecampus...
Join our Patreon for exclusive episode segments, monthly Zooms, and more: / overthinkpodcast
Website: overthinkpodcast.com
Facebook: / overthink-podcast-1054...
Apple podcasts: podcasts.apple...
Spotify: open.spotify.c...
Buzzsprout RSS: feeds.buzzspro...
Find us on Instagram, Twitter, and TikTok at @overthink_pod
I wanted to improve myself so much I hated myself. When I accepted myself I immediately started to change. I think of it as “Why would you want to improve yourself or your life? Because you love yourself and you think you deserve it!”
Your channel has been my first introduction to anything philosophy related and I can't thank you enough for how engaging and easy to understand your explanations are. Seriously can't get enough!
Thank you, so happy to hear! We hope you'll check out our podcast as well (this channel is an offshoot of it): we're available on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts!
www.overthinkpodcast.com/
@@OverthinkPodcastPhilosophy you make philosophy interesting and practical
@@OverthinkPodcastPhilosophy Nancy Bauer is into fem theory? Okay, she is an awful person. Thank you for warning me. I won't look her up
I am an Electrical Engineer and I am reading a ton of French philosophy and phenomenology. I love this. Thank you.
Dr. Anderson, my heart is yours ❤
Thank you for yor labour!!! It´s very important to me, to learn English and philosophy! You are a genius. Gracias, desde Argentina.
Thank you. I really really wish I become a philosopher like you in the future
Amazing presentation
I love watching your videos. I enjoy learning about philosophy and you explain everything really well.
Ellie please do a video about Levinas! He is such an underrated figure in contemporary discourse, yet everything about him, his ideas and the history that shaped them is exceptional. I'm aware of your familiarity with him, so please help us levinasians do justice to his work. I mean, of course, If you feel like it. Love you guys anyways!
Incidentally, this is one of our upcoming videos! :)
The experience of self-love is no where near an experience of making-love to another ontic human being, they are in entirely separate state-space’s!!
true, unless you have a good imagination or augment yourself with a cocktail of legit psychedelics
I love this channel so much. I don’t know what you are talking about, but it sounds really cool.
The podcaster is good, but the comment section is so off key
Regards from Colombia!
that vocabulary blows mine away like one 1950's super double windy wind
Phenomenology of Love might want to consider mystics also [esp. Teresa of Ávila]. 1. Teresa's love of her beloved 2. Love towards her from those that think of her as their patron saint 3. Love towards her of those that "fall in love" from reading her / Aside: 1 and 2 operate from assumption the love is requited / Aside 2: running Prof's analysis on the case of mystics is interesting [to me anyway]
You are wonderful. The content is well taught, and short, which is good. My complaint is that the sound on almost all of your videos has a spike on the upper end of highs and I feel that the most while listening to you using headphones. Just a thought that might help you out.
Beautiful reflection on love and auto-affection as a separate mode of consciousness! I wonder why 'the look' and 'touch' are emphasized here but not 'the hearing.' Just remembered Cyrano de Bergerac's love letters to Roxanne and how they triggered and nourished love.
The sexual organs offer a portal to feel what it is like to be others. This is why semen retention is so powerful
Dr. Anderson .firstly thanks for your animated presentation . Question or concern relevant to your talk from a personal experience !
i once went through existential therapy ( thing to do in late 70s) . I was probably not much younger than you at the time though not nearly as intellectually equipped as you .( very admirable ) i never found out until much later it was existential therapy something i knew little of . ( though having understanding of Jung and Freud as was the speciality of my former teacher ( Dr Marion Woodman .who later became a international acclaimed Jungian analyst ). The therapy was in the setting of a Foucault problem area of institution .Diagnosis ..."obsession with the mind "
During the course of therapy it was a blank stare ( look) where from time to time he would drop a existential "nothing " or " are you there yet quote " .sometimes in a office that had one book on the shelf ( getting through a divorce ) Certainly not a bookshelf full of intelligent books like yours something that would captured my eyes and secured my interest .it was all about splitting off and becoming something opposite to what i consciously was believing . . When i was out with friends or family i would often get " what are you looking at " or " why are you looking at me ?"
i was not conscious of the fact i was transfering the existential Look from my therapist unto others becoming than self conscious of it . it was a uncomfortable feelings for the other and myself . Ass it was not natural . I find existentialist tend to stage the existence by intent . Later finding out a girlfriend of four yrs prior to my therapy ( who left for another because he was there with her at the cottage beach while i was in the city working .) her fathers best friend was a psychiatrist and head of another hospital that practised existential therapy ,as well as my best friends mother was a nurse in a psych ward . So i was without knowing was in a middle of existential warfare . I grew up a Christian though much like Kierkegaard enjoyed the aesthetic life to its fullest while still having love for philosophy and psychology that all my friends felt strange .My family being old school had no understanding of neither . To top it off i went into the arts . Bottom line i feel a existential stage is no different from a religious stage. its outside of natural consciousness . The LOOk is more cognitive stare rather than a biological function .
in its fine if you are in that game and know the language but otherwise it creates the very things it talks about . namely extreme anxiety , anxst uncertainty and a blank landscape barely recognizing ones own shadow that is casting over others as a lie .From being a extreme social person at school , competitive athlete in three sports , four school shows , and on the student council while working part time .No couch potato ! i was wrongly considered a loner in a corner that now ( by therapists ) as a loner in a corner ( viewed in a staged isolated existentialist setting maybe ,but not true to my being ) I developed the worst case of agoraphobia imaginable and than i decided to go through it myself rather than giving my mind up to another . my 'experience life not be another,s experiment ." concept . I eventually found myself rooted in firm soil as my mind found my own body again .
professionals must understand that they are playing a game relative to a learned language . Being Plato ,Aristotle . Spinoza . Kant , Hegel . Nietzsche .Heidegger ,Husseral ,Sartre etc, they all like you were all academic scholars of the highest order Though the application of concept unto another psyche is a different matter . That is where i feel psychology and philosophy has different realities .Where what appears to be a scratch on paper or a spoken word in the Derrida binary concept is not what a baby or a adult not versed in philosophical academia experiences . Nor the induced Look of Sartre .
Along my journey i have covered many times over all the works of the philosophers of academia certainly can relate it to the history of art . In doing so though i always thing back on that existential experience and to understand it through the eyes of the philosophers.
in summary when i was artist as a young man i recall ( or rather your words recalled in your video ) i wrote a poem that said ' i see through the eyes of the one I love " . That i have feeling for not so much the confusion of existential therapy that flattened my poetic feelings .
Thanks again, ,i feel your journey will be ambitious and helpful to yourself and others .
Enlightened self knowledge and awareness of self vs. no self awareness and projecting that onto the world
Thank you so much as you discussed in length 🥰
Wow! thank you. more amazing stuff.
Love is a river, constantly flowing. It depends WHEN the 2 lovers look at each other and the current environment of each.
Thank you for this clip. I recommend you to make a live video for Q and A session. Thank you in advance!
We host live Q&A's for our Patreon subscribers! You can learn more here: www.patreon.com/overthinkpodcast
@@OverthinkPodcastPhilosophy
Thank you!
those outlook notifications really raised my blood pressure lol
This is so very interesting. My mind immediately went to "othering" in the dehumanizing/oppressive sense. I feel like men and others in positions as oppressors do no allow themselves to be aware of how the oppressed view them as objects. As if they perhaps limit their understanding of themselves via only allowing in-group (other oppressors) to be a part of their self reflection. When they do not realize themselves through engaging with themselves as an object through the vision of the oppressed, they never achieve critical consciousness and full humanization/self realization. (I'm thinking of this in the sense of the oppressor oppressed dialectic of Paulo Freire)
Thanks so much for your inspiring videos and podcast! I'm learning (and laughing) so much and I love it.
This is a well-presented and good paper and I love the ironic name "overthink" for your podcast, and I need to touch up on Sartre and =Being and Nothingness=. I do read Hegel as general reader, and I appreciate his =Phenomenology of Spirit= as my favorite of his works, but I think I understand better so far his =Logic=. Overall, Husserl was a philosopher I think about a bit, and also the book Derrida did on Husserl's Introduction to the Origins of Geometry. I realize we talk about subject and object. Can we make a distinction between object/subject and objectivity/subjectivity? Or are they forever linked? Also, I just read Jean Luc Nancy's =Listening= which is good too to read. Thank you for your presentation.
About love, I just remembered a book I wrote a while back called =Relationships and Dating=, ha! It is read here by a audiobook reader, but if you ever hear or read it, you might like it since I was thinking philosophy but writing something else, structured like a structural book, but it investigates love in different ways. ruclips.net/video/bbwxYGwwOzE/видео.html
Dr Ellie is cool.
Another great video, keep ‘em coming!
Amazing content. Can I suggest using a de-esser ausio-wise? Much love.
I so much would like to know what an essence is. As a critical rationalist I believe its just a convention of words. It has been 40 years that I try to understand phenomenology
Excellent!
Well done!
Thanks Allie, I like your “hi” and channel (but I’m from CA too :-))
When one talks about adding Affect to philosophy, and that is an important stance to take, what is the realism structure of that statement? To me one can with a movie see a sort of gold standard of realism. Even see affect upon the Professors face, but what attaches affect to the movie? What is that realism structure? We are familiar with aspects of a movie realism in that image frames succeed each other so a movie records motion realistically. We can’t though know what is realistically recorded of the emotion structure. One clear to me realism of seeing emotion on camera is how feelings have duration that exceeds frame rate. Professor Anderson’s mood extends out from the start as captured by the movie to a knowable finish of the feeling. This is not reflected in the movie technology. Though the audience being familiar with movie realism culture is not especially awake to the lack of realism to the duration of feeling structure.
Hi! What would be the adequate books written by Beauvoir and Merleau-Ponty related to phenomenology of love? Thank you, in advance!
Do Feurrbach's concepts of Love and The I-Though relationship illuminate the 20th Century phenomenology of Love?
At 9 minutes you discuss affective consciousness, Bauer et al; Are you saying it is not a dualism but a spectrum? Similar to ‘learning’ and ‘teaching’ the concept of ‘me and you’ because a sense of self is already present and can be seen as a prerequisite to learning this?
What an illuminating piece. i'm looking forward to exploring more of your work. in the meantime, here's a question: In what sense is the individuation mediated via Devon a revelation for Trey? You mention (in the article) that the circuit is "never closed," the "self-images always have something fictional about them," and, "Yet the self-images are nonetheless revelatory." Where does the fiction end and the revelation begin?
I wonder if we can look at imbalance of objectivity vs subjectivity generationally. The current generation that is criticized for being too much out there could be applauded for how effective they are at navigating objectivity, but maybe lack subjectivity by balance, leading to do many conversations about anxiety and mental health. And reverse for other generations. This is obviously a generalization, but there is a component where the general is what gives awareness to the individual about what is possible.
soooo sweeeeeeet
Definitionally totalitarians do try to suppress the total, not just parts.
Thanks Prof :)
Do not forget that Sartre became a communist after being in a camp that made him realize his commonality and his shared ness. Your theory is very American. You start from self. That is great. You need grow up and understand that I started from us!
i too presented a published Springer conference essay on love this year (saved yours to my Academia.edu library)
Affect and cognition are the same form of consciousness viewed in two respects, the first from the perspective of the subject, the second from the perspective of the object. With the first, the Will generates the reality that is observed. With the second, the Will simultaneously organizes and reflects on what is made. Because the Will will have to reflect on what it has done, it requires a conscious observer to do so, and hence why the telos of the universe inevitably births self-aware beings. It is also the case that what is generated has always been the resting state of the universe(consciousness) meaning the universe behaves as self-aware in all times and places precisely because conscious observers exist
I'd argue that many of the points do not just apply exclusively to love, but to most social relationships to varying degrees
It wouldn't be as juicy of a title, now would it?
@@SonnyWane true
@@Eclipse.7897 Hahaha
Hey Ellie, love the channel, it's a great way for me to digest larger concepts and sorta keep up with my friend who is a philo major going into post grad.
I'm writing a screenplay right now that incorporates a Phenomenological look at Love thematically, and listening to this got me thinking of how I might incorporate Gary Chapman's "Love Languages" with that.
How I'm understanding this as short as possible: A self-image we may have from reflecting on our relationships will always be partially fictional, but how effective or ineffective the communication of a loved one will cause us to either skew that self image even more from reality or become a very vivid representation of how we think we are perceived by them.
And I imagine, jumping off of how you tied your feminist theory on how mens lack of socialization on verbal expression causes stress to their partners, this ties directly into how Chapman saw common dissatisfaction between partners and how differences in what he called "Love Languages" caused one another to perceive the other as not communicating love, or in many cases, at all.
I'm more so curious if you have any thoughts on that, given that it's kind of considered pop-psych at this point but I did find the overlap interesting.
One need not look farther than Social Media to understand where love comes from, it comes from the acceptance, approval, validation and love of others. Psychologists do not like this though and will not admit it because it is defeatist and isn't in line with the current state of psychology. We can't ACTUALLY love ourselves because love does not come from our own being but from others.
For the male phenomenology see Levinas "Totality and Infinity" appendix B "Phenomenology of Eros."
Hi there, Dr. Anderson here. I have actually published on this, focusing on why I don't agree with Levinas's phenomenology of eros: www.academia.edu/38082645/From_Existential_Alterity_to_Ethical_Reciprocity_Beauvoirs_Alternative_to_Levinas
great records
9:09 regarding “i can feel this, but i can’t make sense of this through a cognition“: it is not clear why you/she can’t. It depends on which hand you are currently focused on. If you are focused on a touching hand, your associations will be more of an active, projective kind. It will be about proportion of “active” vs “passive” associations your memory/imagination delivers at any given moment.
I'd like a whole romance novel written in the "Devon and Trey" narrative style.
Have you discussed William James??
He's a great influence on pshycology and modern philosophy
www.overthinkpodcast.com/episodes/episode-61
Would you mind to talk about Jorge Luis BORGES...
I-Thou . I wonder does Buber get dismissed as a theologian?
One has to praise Professor Anderson’s video deliveries as first rate. However, one has to also ask what is the realism we see of her reading the written text she uses to prepare these videos. One might see conversations recorded off some online tool between professor and students that is similarly linear showing of the word content, but the language like use of the video is missing from the milieu of the recording. Can we use the terms like phenomenological being of the recording? The Anderson movie is not like lived words said from the Professor to say students. So there are realism questions to be asked of this movie arising out Existential or Phenomenological uses of the content.
An Object is an elemental, the mind moves on, objectification of animate things , may be a mistart out of the gate, and our perceptions and interaction dictate the intercourse of man.
"The lack of men's socialisation around verbal expression" (quote)
my comment: makes them better warriors then partners, a grunt or yell is easier (and perhaps more satisfying) then a 10 min D&M. (conversation)
' hermeneutic labour' (quote)
I love it when a label is so fresh and so rare that googling it brings up multiple references to only three people.
what about artists who socialize mostly in a non-verbal manner? You can produce works of art as a non-verbal statements and see how environment reacts via donations or maybe other works of art or even synchronicities! … so one can be in a kind of a meta-dialog with reality itself, but a non-verbal one.
@@illiakailli but will most of your art be sports, video games, or scanty clad Si Fi heroin's
@@martinpennington4429 i personally prefer surrealistic paintings. Are you tired of simulacrums?
Ellie I planning to write a book on philosophy essays, mine and other's. Can you please send me some stuff written by you. Could be short about 2 pages or so. Thanks and best of luck.
'while this is impossible it is revelatory of the self all the same' ?
I most enjoy my philosophy with a thick Texan accent. (rip. Rick Roderick)
Sartre's notion of body for-itself does seem to nullify a strictly dualist interpretation of his work. He even differentiates between objetité of the for-itself and objectivity of the in-itself. The inertia of consciousness is experience through the body which auto-affects. Remember that the look does not necessitate a voyeur, there can be also his absence.
Also lacan's mirror stage entirely depends on the look. The relation of the body to the mirror through the look creates an imago mundi of the body and self: the ego itself, this creates the possibility of the virtual and the dialectic relation to the symbolic or language itself. For sartre language originates from the for-other, its instrumentality presupposes a world and the in-itself. What do you think?
I'm a fan btw :)
Also the ego is entirely in the world for sartre, transcendent. It's a field of immanence. Also why sartre remains fully current is that i dont believe like deleuze that representation can be nullifies therefore the importance of cognition and seeing.
Paglia's reflection on the androgenous and the onanist tendencies of the masturbator and the constitution of the self in the figure of the shaman and writer would be a good counter point to nancy. Self touching consitutes a type of self-affection that structures your being in the world. Paglia's symbolic intepretations of this through literature are marvellous. The shaman represented by the uroborus also necesssitates the impossibility of self -impregnating, there is something failed in this process of auto-affection, it resists reification which despite some thinkers is also the condition for all work and achievement as arendt would also have put it.
Also, have you read gillian rose?
Lacan would entirely disagree with these thinkers every imaginary(erotic) investment is also narcissistic which does not imply a cartesian self.
What do you think of a video on Lukács's theory of reification? I also tend to think that a lot of post-sartre generation philosophy in france is a dead-end
I do tend to think that the notion of love as moral emotion is equivocal. What is love's source? In this i follow nietzsche that it is self-interested. What are the self-imposed limits of love so that it can become moral would be a perhaps more pertinent question. Auto-affection does seem to fall back on narcissism. Loving relationships and the releasement of the other's self as you speak of them and no doubt through later influences remind me of heidegger's being-with. I do have to say that it does seem to aim at an apex that is, at least, out of sight.
@@abiliomorim449 self-impregnattion leads to degeneration in a long run and evolution proves that. Even mating close relatives are getting sick after several generations. In the world of ideas you can’t just exist in an vacuum, therefore impregnation comes through the very act of perception and you are on a receiving side! what a time to be alive … ;)
@@illiakailli you misread me
Cool, but the feeling of love can not be separated from the associated chemicals, like oxytocin.
Enjoy the pod. Would be better if you’re not reading the info and just be your charismatic self.
Different videos for different purposes :)
Affective-consciousness is the reality and it is not restricted to consciousness!! An experience always includes some input from the experiencer molding the said experience!! Even in a non-conscious physical detector whatever it detects is conditioned by the precision of the instrument?? We can only detect what we are capable of detecting?? A 35mm camera takes photos in visible light, but that is not to say that the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum is not present in the subject of the photo?? We are biological detectors we only experience what we are capable of and that does condition our experience!! If you consider quantum theory it goes even further in saying that the act of observation alters whatever we observe fundamentally and not in an epistemic sense!!
yeah, and this is all just a language game. But what’s the point, making a stunning career in academia? How does what you just said or heard in this video helps you in real life?
@@illiakailli Hi, I think in order to answer your question we should consider what is real life and what are the different approaches to it. If we think about someone whose life goes about mundane repetitive activities (make money, try to be happy, rest and repeat) and has no interest in higher knowledge, then this, as any other kind of dicipline about truth, is meaningless. On the other hand, if the approach is to try giving answers to the ultimate questions, such as existance, consciousness, mathematics, nature, then this is relevant (no matter if done academically or personally). Phenomenology exposes that reason (that what is so called the scientific method, ultimatelly, mathematics) is just one of the ways in which a subjectivity generates an objective truth, but there are others that follow different methods and some of them, like in this case, can only be expressed by language. Great part of our mental processes work with or by language in its many forms (signs, img, words, meanings, concepts, geometrical ideal forms), so if what she says has no real use (maybe couse it's so abstract and non intuitive), neither does knowing logic rules, mathematical formulas, what is a triangle or anything that is expressed, maybe in a peculiar, but yet still in language.
Sorry for making it so long, tried to omit as much as possible, and sorry for any mistake, English is not my first language.
@@pabloalegre1201 Pablo, I do appreciate your detailed comment. My post was a bit provocative, because obviously ‘ultimate meaning’ as well as ‘practicality’ are very subjective things. Making career in academia is a perfectly legit adaptation strategy in a modern world and therefore very practical. If you watched/listen all podcasts of these guys, you know that they are quite conscious about problems of academia and often joking about the fact that its all ‘smoke and mirrors‘. Just listen to the way she changes her way of speaking: from very adequate and easily understandable, that she uses in most of her videos, to a very cryptic one, a maze-like cypher, that you need to listen several times in order to make sense of. But what is the reason for such complexity? Maybe she tries to express very complicated ideas? No, if you unpack what she is saying - things are very relatable and relatively simple. Its just a language game that they have to play in order to prove that they are worthy to be a part of the elite institution. So, what do you make of it … is there a just cause behind this culture of elitism?
@@illiakailli This is actually the first video I ever watched on this chanel and could not make my mind yet, but I think you make a good general point and I can relate to it.
For the first part, talking about ultimate meaning (as a whole) may be quite idealistic, but if we go by baby steps there could be a path. There are two possible meanings for subjective and they depend on the context. It could refer to a phenomenon arbitrarily defined by the subject (my ideology on, my taste on, etc.) that is not based on objective facts (epistemic), or to an existance that can only be experienced by a subjective being (ontological) such as pain, sadness, motives. So if we can define those atributes (as and by themselves) without the need of factic (natural) correlation, to say that ultimate meaning and practicality are subjective as if they can not be settled on common grounds negates the possibility of finding their objective true being.
Regarding what you say about elitism, I think you are every bit right. For instance the need to overcomplicate certain explanations that make them sound like escolastics, or the compulsion to define every aspect in "scientific" terms, yet generating a reductive and in many instances dualist view, adding the progressive divission and specification in science won't make this segregation go away. But with this said I don't deny there are fields of knowledge that are actually complex and the usage of language and concepts are far from intuitive. My opinion on elitism is the same as with any group that think of themselves owners of some special truth, there is no reason on such thing. Nowdays is relatively easy to start your own research in any field outside an academic environment if the intend is to know, but if the reason is to debate or publish in a formal manner, then one must face or comply with many of the pompous circular empty discourses of knowledge.
Pd: It all started with the video, but I went away from its content, not my purpose to endorse or deny it nor the use of the language, just my personal approach to non every day knowledge.
Hi Ellie, I really love all your videos, but found this hard to listen to. You usually sound so connected. At times it sounded like you were speed reading. You usually communicate perhaps more from a place of affective consciousness. I could not feel your heart today.
Hello, i very much like your channel. What do you think of sartre's critique of dialectical reason?
isn’t it more a critique of a marxism rather than dialectical reason itself? I didn’t have a chance to read the original, but maybe you can outline main points of that critique here?
@@illiakailli too big of a book to do that. Critique in philosophy means to assign the inner limits of something. Sartre seek to prove or justify dialectical reason. The limits of dialectics is matter itself as practico-inert that is as matter mediated through human praxis that returns a result with its corresponding counterfinality to human projects. The practico-inert is structured through scarcity and the corresponding historically situated modes and relations of production. The structuring of society means that there are series as well as groups. The serialization of individuals (can also be seen as atomization) strengthens institutions that find their force in a group breakthrough or revolution. Series fuse into groups and petrify into institutions wih their sovereigns and subjects. Institutions and groups rearrange the practico-inert field, this means the distribution of scarcity through the series ( scarcity of goods, people but also time) the group is the moment of reciprocity and the assignment of rights and duties it structures itself so that it can survive. It also is contary to a notion of hyperorganism, this means it risks dispersing itself at all times groups count on reciprocity-terror and the 'apocalypse' for the maintenance the group: think of the french terror. There's much more but I don't have the space.
@@abiliomorim449 thank you for your detailed response. To be honest, it is very hard to understand what is written in your last post. I'm a software engineer by trade, so bear with me. By dialectical reason I always assumed a relatively simple triad: thesis-antithesis-synthesis. I find this model very helpful in understanding how new knowledge is generated and it explains well the very necessity and inevitability of a conflict between different ideas in our heads, among individuals or groups.
Can you please outline some inner limits of such model using simpler words and down-to-earth examples?
@@illiakailli dialectics is indeed viewed as a sublation between opposites. Sartre wants to create a structural amd historical anthropology. Neither mechanistic materialist dialectics which sees a human being as a relfection of his material conditions and as an epiphenomenon of the movement of matter neither as idealist dialectics which sees in the reconciliation of opposites the movement of the idea or spirit (hence hiperorganism). Man for sartre produces his own situation and his own traps that he has to negate and supersede through collective action. He wants to end marxisms theoretical paralysis.
Dialectics in marxism is about man's self production through labour and less a theory of logic itself.
By yhe word limit it doesn't mean the relative unsuitability of a theory, but rather, in kant's terms, the conditions of possibility of dialectics. maybe i expressed myself rashly. Put it simply how does the negation of a negation lead to affirmation or does it? Sartre contenda that it does through action, but man's actions can turn against himself through their results and nullify the overcoming of his situation
♥️ ❤️ ♥️ 👏
🌹💀💀💀☠️☠️☠️💀💀💀🌹
Odd to hear that philosophers still use 'subject' and 'object' as words with distinct meanings, like bishops and knights on a chessboard. On the other hand, every subject is also an object, while many objects are not subjects. I object. I, object.
So profound, want your cookie?
Well, I feel like an idiot listening to that and not understanding everything. Anyway, I am gonna try.
When professor Anderson stares or gazes into the camera like this, what is the realism content of this motion picture? Is that ‘gaze’ objectifying the camera. Making it a thing in itself? Or reading a philosophy book by Sartre is that a gaze into Sartre? Is that a phenomenological being? I might say indirectly I’m gazing at Sartre by reading his words, but the reality is Sartre is dead, and the lived words on the page means nothing in the real experience. We know more about Professor Anderson than of Sartre by seeing Professor speak into the movie camera. But the gaze of Professor Anderson at the camera tells us nothing about the camera as object.
Love is only way to reach God.
Running Up the Hill (Make a deal with God).
Love is a ridiculous game and nothing more, nothing mysterious at all.