As a RUclips philosopher myself, I've long wrestled with these issues. What does academic rigor look like in a popular video? What are the conventions for proper citation? When does simplification for a general audience become downright distortion? And so on. It's an exciting time for learning with all the new media but there will be many bumps along the way.
They’re certainly difficult questions to find specific answers to (although general guidelines are certain to be possible and beneficial) but I think the largest issues are found with those that don’t even raise them. And I share the same sentiment of hope and concern!
Philosophy is there for those who seek the wisdom that has been shared. Many philosophers don't have fancy websites that have web stores chock full of t-shirts with philosophical quotes. Nor do they have the subscribers or views to get suggested by any search or video engine algorithm. However, when I find a philosopher who happens to have a website or video channel that has less than 1k subs, it sure is refreshing! It's like finding the weird piece of fruit you ate as a kid from the asian market, but didn't know the name or what it looked like on the outside, but when you bit into it, boy did it bring back wonderful memories!
So meta! Just knowing that a bunch of us humans invest in exploring philosophical thoughts backed by our own life experiences is so heart warming and exciting.
An excellent video! As a lifelong nerdy autodidact, I tend to go for better informed scholarly work in my own reading -- and as for videos, I gravitate toward lectures given in an academic context (or interviews). It is important, I believe, to think things through -- that it is better to DO philosophy than to merely HAVE one (by which is usually meant some kind of ideology, formally or informally). Academics can offer much more of that because if the nuances they bring to the table. Yes, that may be more difficult to digest but I find it all interesting and absorbing, not fitting in with the "cold and heartless intellectual" stereotype.
amazing video! a lot of RUclips philosophy seems to be commodified these days. Applies similarly for science and mathematics (and any 'academic' topic tbh) as well I think. The Daoism being misrepresented is a great example! I can see other Chinese schools being mischaracterised often too (Confucianism being 'follow the tradition!!!' and Legalism being 'tyranical rule!!!' which are basically completely shallow and wrong but are the mainstream interpretation) so I can only imagine what treatment other schools of thought got.
Change won't happen unless someone starts talking about these issues. It can seem pretty bleak shouting into the void, and there's bigger and more aggressive fish out there all competing for a place in our minds. The selective pressure of Capitalism in particular doesn't really care all that much for credible information; I'd say it selects against it really. In spite of all that, your struggle against the nihilism populating our information era is very comforting for me. I hope you get great pleasure from doing the right thing. And I hope that eventually more people will begin to understand the sickness that misinformation is causing. Maybe not soon, but maybe one day. Thanks man!
This is why I only post my own philosophy (economics) and my own art (digital surrealism)...now matter how sophomoric it may be (or not)...I can take full responsibility. My research follows this pattern: read the original work (ex:Veblen's Theory of the Leisure Class); view some lectures by professors on subject; formulate my own view on it from experience and reflection on how I see it playing out in society. Cross reference with other works of other authors. Write about how it relates to my own theories, vision. Maybe do an art piece on it.
Great video! I just found it while putting together my own on the same topic. I'll give you reference since you have priority on some of the same points - that's rigor baby :)
Hahaha thanks! I've just watched your video and I really enjoyed it! I appreciate how your video expands on these issues and I'm interested to see what can come of a unique RUclips philosophy. I wonder if there is another field that none of us have looked much into: academics becoming more involved in public philosophy (like Moeller himself). As of now, I don't think there are many incentives to do so, since I don't think public philosophy is recognized as a genuine academic contribution in most cases. But (and maybe I'm wrong in this) I think that might be changing, or at least there are efforts to change that. How that would play out-would it combat the gamification of philosophy? Would it fall victim to it? Would academics be better off? Would scholarship decline? Would philosophy improve?-seems interesting to wonder about.
@@IanWithyBerry Thanks! There does seem to be a shift towards academic departments valuing and encouraging various forms of public philosophy. However, I think that most of the academics who have taken it up have gravitated towards forms of "legacy media but online". Things like (mostly each other's) podcasts, online magazines etc. Not many have jumped to youtube (with some notable exceptions) and pretty much zero to streaming platforms. I think, from what I've seen, they can resist some of the more harmful incentives since there's no tradeoff for them. They've already put in the work and know their stuff...so even if they appear in the most clickbaity video of all time, there's still going to be that expertise there behind it all. For someone like me, I constantly have to balance things like speed/accessibility against doing careful reading/thinking to make sure I'm presenting things accurately and usefully.
I liked this video and this (the profit motive) applies not only to philosophy, but also to scientific fields. Also, listening to you talk about the profit motive, I would be very interested in listening to you talk about Marxism.
Thanks! You're definitely right about scientific fields too. The short Garisto piece I referenced focused on the shortcomings of "pop-science" on RUclips. As for Marxism and the profit motive, there is certainly a lot of potential there. I'm not sure I'll do much political philosophy in the future since it's a bit out of my wheelhouse and, I think, there's quite a lot on it in general. However, I do think one particular topic that is unlikely to have graced RUclips that I'd enjoy exploring is "Marxism and the Good Life." As much as the profit drive poorly influences education, I think its influence is profoundly negative on ourselves when internalized. It would be interesting to see how Marxism suggests to orient our lives in contrast, especially through its materialistic framework. Questions like: Where are we to find meaning? If not profit, what should drive us? What is it to be human? (A preliminary answer may be production/creativity if I remember correctly.) Thanks for your comment and making me think about this!
@@IanWithyBerry Ooo that would *definitely* be a video I'd watch. Seen plenty of Marxist analysis of relation between capitalism and mental heath but this is a pretty fresh topic from what I've seen.
This video was great, a buddy of mine was really defending tic tok, daily stoic, internet sophistry, I had a similar experience having to explain intrinsic vs extrinsic motivation and its moral implications. I share nearly all the same sentiments you expressed, I will watch your career with great interest...
@@willkamps3271 I probably can't say there are any that I watch without fail but I am subbed to about 40 channels that I keep an eye out for (not that I watch every minute). I'm not too sure how to determine which of them are independent, but if you have any recommendations for good, independent philosophy channels then I'd be glad to hear them! I certainly watch less philosophy on RUclips than I did a while ago, in part because I feel more confident Google Scholar'ing topics (or reading the primary source itself). Also probably in part because there's a bit of a feeling of competition when I remember I do something similar. And at this point, I consume a fair amount of philosophy in class so when I hop on RUclips I'll probably want a bit of a break. Although, with the importance of RUclips as an educational platform, I do have some interest in the inspection and evaluation of a number of videos and channels so as to help guide philosophy study on RUclips. But that's probably something further down the road.
@@IanWithyBerry I agree primary sources are always best. I'm majoring in philosophy and have been thinking of starting a channel similar to yours or nicks non fiction or sisyfus55. Like I said earlier you do great stuff and the effort really shows in the quality of your content compared to the pop/internet philosophy that gets more attention than it should. I'd be cool to cultivate a sort of platos academy of philosophically minded content creators, the bit driven information/data economy is growing faster than the much more intense and rewarding pursuit of wisdom, keep it up man!
@@willkamps3271 An "Academy"-ish sort of things sounds really cool. RUclips could always use more original, well-researched philosophy content so if that's something you'd wanna do then I'd say to go for it. I'll drop a sub to keep an eye out if you publish anything!
It's good you raise this issue. I hope that there will be a trend in which people feel motivated to explore subjects more in-depth. How do you think the social media algorithms can be used to nudge people into this direction? How could people overcome the hunger for shallow stimulus on their feed?
Thanks for the kind words! In terms of social media algorithms, I'd imagine the prospects for better philosophy online are pretty bleak. Extremely simplified content and feel-good quotes will likely always be favored by most (since they're the most accessible and enjoyable). Then the success of particular shallow creators allows them to proliferate their success through throwing their money back into it. (Since pulling up the Dailystoic video a couple of times, I've now been advertised a number of medallions, small statues, and books from the Dailystoic on Instagram.) And, so far as I can see, content aimed at monetary gain is more likely to be aimed at hitting algorithms as well. I couldn't say that in-depth material often hits algorithms very well, but developed critiques seem to more often. I'd imagine that a video titled "Jordan Peterson is Wrong About Postmodern Neo-Marxism" would do better then one titled "Postmodernism and Neo-Marxism: Compatible or Not?" But, even during critiques some depth must be sacrificed because time must be spent considering what one considers wrong when it could be spent developing that which one considers right. As for overcoming the hunger for shallow stimulus, that's a tough question. It would seem that something that challenges or surpasses that shallow stimulus would have to show up on their feed and they'd have to be willing to re-evaluate their thoughts. Plato's allegory of the cave comes to mind. But, so long as shallow content is favored by the multitude, then it will be proliferated and its grip reinforced. As for how an individual makes it out, I would assume a heavy dose of skepticism. "Is this really what it means? Do these guys really know what they're talking about?" Of course, that skepticism can be kicked into motion (like through critical comments/video critiques), but it's ultimately up to the individual to carry it out or not. I think one way to do that on a broader scale would be to make philosophy a more common practice, not just as in reading a few philosophers and memorizing their main points but as in inquiry, critique, reasoning, argumentation, etc. If that was a popular attitude for most, then I doubt shallow content could make it far off the ground in the first place. Thanks for the thought-provoking questions!
@@IanWithyBerry Thank you for your detailed response, it's nice to share these questions and think out loud about such issues. It is problematic how users' brains are trained to respond to short impulses. These issues make me think; How can we respond to what the algorithm asks, but still allow our underlying intentions to flourish? Even with the algorithm, a workaround can be possible.... needs some more thinking ;)
The whole purpose of calling it philosophy is justifying useless sophistry for its own sake. As CS Peirce father of pragmaticism said, all philosophy true to the name is useless for practical affairs. All it can really do is grow the mind.
Pretty funny seeing the old library from my alma mater in this one, lol Great content as always - what role do you think that Patreon and similar funding styles play to cause this sort of generic trash to proliferation? Also, what do you think of the recent theatrical turn of certain channels such as Abigail Thorn, Contrapoints, and Then&Now?
Ah the Socrates sculpture! Haha! I think that's an interesting question since I hadn't previously considered how the different forms of profit may affect one's content differently. While all forms of funding seem to contribute to the motive of doing philosophy for profit, Patreon (and others like it) stand out in being independent subscription services with levels of perks. I could see a few unique results from that. Unlike RUclips monetization, it isn't tied to the "success" of videos but rather the rate of video posting (which, so far as I've seen, is more common than the monthly option). RUclipsrs are already motivated to post often, but, with each video posted tied to a particular amount of profit, creators may be even more motivated to post as frequently as possible. This could lead to cutting corners and length, depth, and quality along with it. Patreon income is also more dependent on being personally liked. Sure you could make good videos, but if people just like the videos, why drop money for more? So content may be driven to be more presenter oriented (as suggested for RUclips philosophy in general by Moeller). The creator will have to have convinced enough people that their content is worth it so creators might be more likely to seek praise and discard criticism. Lastly, there have to be perks for subscribing. While I don't think these perks are commonly that important (since they tend to be shoutouts, slightly earlier access, Q&A preference, etc.), in the case that they're tied to more content, then that's a real barrier. As far as I can see it, the theatrical elements of Abigail Thorn and Natalie Wynn's content is unique in that it's a form of artistic expression rooted in their artistic interests (Thorn did an MA in acting; I think Wynn wrote fiction; I've only ever seen two videos of Now & Then so I can't say much there). Insofar as the standards I lay out in this video are concerned, I think both exceed them, even through a more theatrical presentation. Thorn says on her Patreon page, "There are lots of channels on RUclips that will just summarise famous works of philosophy for you; I want to get people in a position where they can take cutting edge academia and apply it to the real world." Although, she did do the former to an extent for her early content, it's clear that her new content is well researched and original on RUclips. Despite being disillusioned by academia during the completion of their MA's (or maybe Wynn was just a couple years into her PhD), they've clearly maintained the academic rigor. And if this theatrical shift allows them to further enjoy making videos and brings in more people to the study, then that's great. Not that it's a large concern, but I do disagree with Thorn on her hook, "When the British government tripled university tuition fees I decided to give away my MA in Philosophy free to people who don't have the opportunities for learning I've had." This would seem to lend into the idea that philosophy is nothing more than a set of facts or ideas to memorize and that all studying philosophy is is attending a series of lectures. But that's a bit of a nitpick and her videos are now great. Jeez those were some good questions. I'd enjoy hearing any thoughts you've got on these!
I really feel kind of like I'm being talked down to by these kind of philosophical RUclips channels when they generalize things for convenience or dumb things down. I just want information presented in a way that leads to a logical conclusion, and that's it. I don't want any padded out attention grabbing whatever because it just makes me want to click off the video. That being said, I do still think it is important for these types of channels to use easily accessible vocabulary in order to explain things so that they don't run the risk of leaving their audience confused.
It sounds like you are reading a text, cant you just post somewhere the transcription of your videos? I would prefer reading than watching the video. I dont want to sound offensive.
That's totally fair. I've put up some up as Google Docs and Medium articles, but I can look into having a regular place to put the transcripts. I can let you know if/when I do so!
As a RUclips philosopher myself, I've long wrestled with these issues. What does academic rigor look like in a popular video? What are the conventions for proper citation? When does simplification for a general audience become downright distortion? And so on. It's an exciting time for learning with all the new media but there will be many bumps along the way.
They’re certainly difficult questions to find specific answers to (although general guidelines are certain to be possible and beneficial) but I think the largest issues are found with those that don’t even raise them. And I share the same sentiment of hope and concern!
Philosophy is there for those who seek the wisdom that has been shared. Many philosophers don't have fancy websites that have web stores chock full of t-shirts with philosophical quotes. Nor do they have the subscribers or views to get suggested by any search or video engine algorithm. However, when I find a philosopher who happens to have a website or video channel that has less than 1k subs, it sure is refreshing! It's like finding the weird piece of fruit you ate as a kid from the asian market, but didn't know the name or what it looked like on the outside, but when you bit into it, boy did it bring back wonderful memories!
Hahaha, what a wonderful analogy!
So meta! Just knowing that a bunch of us humans invest in exploring philosophical thoughts backed by our own life experiences is so heart warming and exciting.
An excellent video! As a lifelong nerdy autodidact, I tend to go for better informed scholarly work in my own reading -- and as for videos, I gravitate toward lectures given in an academic context (or interviews). It is important, I believe, to think things through -- that it is better to DO philosophy than to merely HAVE one (by which is usually meant some kind of ideology, formally or informally). Academics can offer much more of that because if the nuances they bring to the table. Yes, that may be more difficult to digest but I find it all interesting and absorbing, not fitting in with the "cold and heartless intellectual" stereotype.
amazing video! a lot of RUclips philosophy seems to be commodified these days. Applies similarly for science and mathematics (and any 'academic' topic tbh) as well I think.
The Daoism being misrepresented is a great example! I can see other Chinese schools being mischaracterised often too (Confucianism being 'follow the tradition!!!' and Legalism being 'tyranical rule!!!' which are basically completely shallow and wrong but are the mainstream interpretation) so I can only imagine what treatment other schools of thought got.
Change won't happen unless someone starts talking about these issues. It can seem pretty bleak shouting into the void, and there's bigger and more aggressive fish out there all competing for a place in our minds. The selective pressure of Capitalism in particular doesn't really care all that much for credible information; I'd say it selects against it really.
In spite of all that, your struggle against the nihilism populating our information era is very comforting for me. I hope you get great pleasure from doing the right thing. And I hope that eventually more people will begin to understand the sickness that misinformation is causing. Maybe not soon, but maybe one day.
Thanks man!
For paywalls use sci-hub for scientific papers and use library genesis for books
Wow, thanks! Have known about sci-hub for some time, but never knew about library genesis.
I just want to say that you have been doing a phenomenal job bringing an academic philosophy onto RUclips! I hope you produce more content.
Appreciate your content. Keep it up! Diogenes was in my thought while watching your video.
Nice moves with the video! Hope it gains some traction or starts a conversation about reforming internet philosophy. Hope you’ve been well btw :)
This is why I only post my own philosophy (economics) and my own art (digital surrealism)...now matter how sophomoric it may be (or not)...I can take full responsibility. My research follows this pattern: read the original work (ex:Veblen's Theory of the Leisure Class); view some lectures by professors on subject; formulate my own view on it from experience and reflection on how I see it playing out in society. Cross reference with other works of other authors. Write about how it relates to my own theories, vision. Maybe do an art piece on it.
Great video! I just found it while putting together my own on the same topic. I'll give you reference since you have priority on some of the same points - that's rigor baby :)
Hahaha thanks! I've just watched your video and I really enjoyed it! I appreciate how your video expands on these issues and I'm interested to see what can come of a unique RUclips philosophy.
I wonder if there is another field that none of us have looked much into: academics becoming more involved in public philosophy (like Moeller himself). As of now, I don't think there are many incentives to do so, since I don't think public philosophy is recognized as a genuine academic contribution in most cases. But (and maybe I'm wrong in this) I think that might be changing, or at least there are efforts to change that. How that would play out-would it combat the gamification of philosophy? Would it fall victim to it? Would academics be better off? Would scholarship decline? Would philosophy improve?-seems interesting to wonder about.
@@IanWithyBerry Thanks!
There does seem to be a shift towards academic departments valuing and encouraging various forms of public philosophy. However, I think that most of the academics who have taken it up have gravitated towards forms of "legacy media but online". Things like (mostly each other's) podcasts, online magazines etc. Not many have jumped to youtube (with some notable exceptions) and pretty much zero to streaming platforms. I think, from what I've seen, they can resist some of the more harmful incentives since there's no tradeoff for them. They've already put in the work and know their stuff...so even if they appear in the most clickbaity video of all time, there's still going to be that expertise there behind it all. For someone like me, I constantly have to balance things like speed/accessibility against doing careful reading/thinking to make sure I'm presenting things accurately and usefully.
I liked this video and this (the profit motive) applies not only to philosophy, but also to scientific fields. Also, listening to you talk about the profit motive, I would be very interested in listening to you talk about Marxism.
Thanks! You're definitely right about scientific fields too. The short Garisto piece I referenced focused on the shortcomings of "pop-science" on RUclips. As for Marxism and the profit motive, there is certainly a lot of potential there. I'm not sure I'll do much political philosophy in the future since it's a bit out of my wheelhouse and, I think, there's quite a lot on it in general. However, I do think one particular topic that is unlikely to have graced RUclips that I'd enjoy exploring is "Marxism and the Good Life." As much as the profit drive poorly influences education, I think its influence is profoundly negative on ourselves when internalized. It would be interesting to see how Marxism suggests to orient our lives in contrast, especially through its materialistic framework. Questions like: Where are we to find meaning? If not profit, what should drive us? What is it to be human? (A preliminary answer may be production/creativity if I remember correctly.) Thanks for your comment and making me think about this!
Vtron! I see you everywhere! We have common interests it seems haha
@@IanWithyBerry Ooo that would *definitely* be a video I'd watch. Seen plenty of Marxist analysis of relation between capitalism and mental heath but this is a pretty fresh topic from what I've seen.
@@NoverMaC apparently this is the case! Strange yet fortunate coincidences do happen.
Fantastic video! Thank you for creating, and sharing :-)
This video was great, a buddy of mine was really defending tic tok, daily stoic, internet sophistry, I had a similar experience having to explain intrinsic vs extrinsic motivation and its moral implications. I share nearly all the same sentiments you expressed, I will watch your career with great interest...
Hopefully you were successful in at least planting the seed of suspicion! And I appreciate the kind words!
How many other independent philosophy channels do you keep up with other than your own?
@@willkamps3271 I probably can't say there are any that I watch without fail but I am subbed to about 40 channels that I keep an eye out for (not that I watch every minute). I'm not too sure how to determine which of them are independent, but if you have any recommendations for good, independent philosophy channels then I'd be glad to hear them! I certainly watch less philosophy on RUclips than I did a while ago, in part because I feel more confident Google Scholar'ing topics (or reading the primary source itself). Also probably in part because there's a bit of a feeling of competition when I remember I do something similar. And at this point, I consume a fair amount of philosophy in class so when I hop on RUclips I'll probably want a bit of a break. Although, with the importance of RUclips as an educational platform, I do have some interest in the inspection and evaluation of a number of videos and channels so as to help guide philosophy study on RUclips. But that's probably something further down the road.
@@IanWithyBerry I agree primary sources are always best. I'm majoring in philosophy and have been thinking of starting a channel similar to yours or nicks non fiction or sisyfus55. Like I said earlier you do great stuff and the effort really shows in the quality of your content compared to the pop/internet philosophy that gets more attention than it should. I'd be cool to cultivate a sort of platos academy of philosophically minded content creators, the bit driven information/data economy is growing faster than the much more intense and rewarding pursuit of wisdom, keep it up man!
@@willkamps3271 An "Academy"-ish sort of things sounds really cool. RUclips could always use more original, well-researched philosophy content so if that's something you'd wanna do then I'd say to go for it. I'll drop a sub to keep an eye out if you publish anything!
It's good you raise this issue. I hope that there will be a trend in which people feel motivated to explore subjects more in-depth. How do you think the social media algorithms can be used to nudge people into this direction? How could people overcome the hunger for shallow stimulus on their feed?
Thanks for the kind words! In terms of social media algorithms, I'd imagine the prospects for better philosophy online are pretty bleak. Extremely simplified content and feel-good quotes will likely always be favored by most (since they're the most accessible and enjoyable). Then the success of particular shallow creators allows them to proliferate their success through throwing their money back into it. (Since pulling up the Dailystoic video a couple of times, I've now been advertised a number of medallions, small statues, and books from the Dailystoic on Instagram.) And, so far as I can see, content aimed at monetary gain is more likely to be aimed at hitting algorithms as well. I couldn't say that in-depth material often hits algorithms very well, but developed critiques seem to more often. I'd imagine that a video titled "Jordan Peterson is Wrong About Postmodern Neo-Marxism" would do better then one titled "Postmodernism and Neo-Marxism: Compatible or Not?" But, even during critiques some depth must be sacrificed because time must be spent considering what one considers wrong when it could be spent developing that which one considers right.
As for overcoming the hunger for shallow stimulus, that's a tough question. It would seem that something that challenges or surpasses that shallow stimulus would have to show up on their feed and they'd have to be willing to re-evaluate their thoughts. Plato's allegory of the cave comes to mind. But, so long as shallow content is favored by the multitude, then it will be proliferated and its grip reinforced. As for how an individual makes it out, I would assume a heavy dose of skepticism. "Is this really what it means? Do these guys really know what they're talking about?" Of course, that skepticism can be kicked into motion (like through critical comments/video critiques), but it's ultimately up to the individual to carry it out or not. I think one way to do that on a broader scale would be to make philosophy a more common practice, not just as in reading a few philosophers and memorizing their main points but as in inquiry, critique, reasoning, argumentation, etc. If that was a popular attitude for most, then I doubt shallow content could make it far off the ground in the first place. Thanks for the thought-provoking questions!
@@IanWithyBerry
Thank you for your detailed response, it's nice to share these questions and think out loud about such issues. It is problematic how users' brains are trained to respond to short impulses. These issues make me think; How can we respond to what the algorithm asks, but still allow our underlying intentions to flourish? Even with the algorithm, a workaround can be possible.... needs some more thinking ;)
@@aaoaa8163 Hahaha, seems like a good puzzle and one that I've not got a particular answer for but if you find it then let me know!
The whole purpose of calling it philosophy is justifying useless sophistry for its own sake.
As CS Peirce father of pragmaticism said, all philosophy true to the name is useless for practical affairs. All it can really do is grow the mind.
Pretty funny seeing the old library from my alma mater in this one, lol
Great content as always - what role do you think that Patreon and similar funding styles play to cause this sort of generic trash to proliferation?
Also, what do you think of the recent theatrical turn of certain channels such as Abigail Thorn, Contrapoints, and Then&Now?
Ah the Socrates sculpture! Haha!
I think that's an interesting question since I hadn't previously considered how the different forms of profit may affect one's content differently. While all forms of funding seem to contribute to the motive of doing philosophy for profit, Patreon (and others like it) stand out in being independent subscription services with levels of perks. I could see a few unique results from that. Unlike RUclips monetization, it isn't tied to the "success" of videos but rather the rate of video posting (which, so far as I've seen, is more common than the monthly option). RUclipsrs are already motivated to post often, but, with each video posted tied to a particular amount of profit, creators may be even more motivated to post as frequently as possible. This could lead to cutting corners and length, depth, and quality along with it. Patreon income is also more dependent on being personally liked. Sure you could make good videos, but if people just like the videos, why drop money for more? So content may be driven to be more presenter oriented (as suggested for RUclips philosophy in general by Moeller). The creator will have to have convinced enough people that their content is worth it so creators might be more likely to seek praise and discard criticism. Lastly, there have to be perks for subscribing. While I don't think these perks are commonly that important (since they tend to be shoutouts, slightly earlier access, Q&A preference, etc.), in the case that they're tied to more content, then that's a real barrier.
As far as I can see it, the theatrical elements of Abigail Thorn and Natalie Wynn's content is unique in that it's a form of artistic expression rooted in their artistic interests (Thorn did an MA in acting; I think Wynn wrote fiction; I've only ever seen two videos of Now & Then so I can't say much there). Insofar as the standards I lay out in this video are concerned, I think both exceed them, even through a more theatrical presentation. Thorn says on her Patreon page, "There are lots of channels on RUclips that will just summarise famous works of philosophy for you; I want to get people in a position where they can take cutting edge academia and apply it to the real world." Although, she did do the former to an extent for her early content, it's clear that her new content is well researched and original on RUclips. Despite being disillusioned by academia during the completion of their MA's (or maybe Wynn was just a couple years into her PhD), they've clearly maintained the academic rigor. And if this theatrical shift allows them to further enjoy making videos and brings in more people to the study, then that's great.
Not that it's a large concern, but I do disagree with Thorn on her hook, "When the British government tripled university tuition fees I decided to give away my MA in Philosophy free to people who don't have the opportunities for learning I've had." This would seem to lend into the idea that philosophy is nothing more than a set of facts or ideas to memorize and that all studying philosophy is is attending a series of lectures. But that's a bit of a nitpick and her videos are now great. Jeez those were some good questions. I'd enjoy hearing any thoughts you've got on these!
Well said bro
I really feel kind of like I'm being talked down to by these kind of philosophical RUclips channels when they generalize things for convenience or dumb things down. I just want information presented in a way that leads to a logical conclusion, and that's it. I don't want any padded out attention grabbing whatever because it just makes me want to click off the video. That being said, I do still think it is important for these types of channels to use easily accessible vocabulary in order to explain things so that they don't run the risk of leaving their audience confused.
12:03 This is the first narcissist that came to mind when i read the video title.
Profit and philosophy are incompatible, at least if the former warps or influences is any way the latter
So people are following the light and forgetting it's about going and facing the dark ...
It sounds like you are reading a text, cant you just post somewhere the transcription of your videos? I would prefer reading than watching the video. I dont want to sound offensive.
That's totally fair. I've put up some up as Google Docs and Medium articles, but I can look into having a regular place to put the transcripts. I can let you know if/when I do so!
Legalism is religion, not Kingdom.
The Bible starts with the creation of gardeners. Gardeners with nothing to do except observe nature.
I feel science has the same problem.