On Genealogy (Genealogical Debunking/Skepticism)

We suffer from genealogical anxiety when we worry that the contingent origins of our representations, once revealed, will somehow undermine or cast doubt on those representations. Is such anxiety ever rational? Many have apparently thought so, from pre-Socratic critics of Greek theology to contemporary evolutionary debunkers of morality. One strategy for vindicating critical genealogies is to see them as undermining the epistemic standing of our representations-the justification of our beliefs, the aptness of our concepts, and so on. In this talk, Amia Srinivasan argues that this strategy is not as promising as it might first seem. Instead, she suggests that critical genealogies can wield a sort of meta-epistemic power; in so far as we wish to resist the genealogical critic, we are under pressure to see ourselves as the beneficiaries of a certain kind of good luck: what she calls genealogical luck. But there is also a resolutely non-epistemic way of understanding the power of critical genealogies, one that is essential, she argues, for understanding the genealogical projects of various theorists, including Nietzsche and Catharine MacKinnon. For critical genealogies can reveal what it is that our representations do-and what we, in turn, might do with them.
This talk was given by Amia Srinivasan in 2019 as part of The Aristotelian Society. For more information: www.aristoteliansociety.org.uk
#Philosophy #Epistemology #Skepticism

[@robertcarpenter8077]

Its always a dicey proposition to give a lecture by reading from a prepared text. You probably should either know your material
so well it flows effortlessly from memory - or forget it. The great concert pianist never plays from sheet music. Neither do violinists.
This lends an element of spontaneity, of improvisation - that brings the piece to life. To give a really great talk you've got to
tell a great story. To tell a story you've got to be thinking about the story, there is a very dynamic aspect to it where you have to stay
on top of what you've just said, what youre saying at the moment, and a what comes next. These three modalities of thought make story telling much more alive, more potent, and more compelling than simply reading aloud from prepared text ever could.

[@johnnyroycerichardsoniii3273]

Excellent, thought provoking talk! Thanks for sharing!!

[@kvaka009]

Very good. Critical genealogies need not be directed toward epistemic claims about truth, but toward uncovering self deceptions. Errors disclosed in this way need not hide some truth that the genealogist must themselves possess, but rather showing the contingency of the representation and its self justification opens possibilities of being otherwise. This opening is the higher aim, not truth.

[@jolssoni2499]

Link to the paper this talk is (I assume) based on users.ox.ac.uk/~corp1468/Research_files/aoz009%20%281%29.pdf

[@billlampshade9324]

Great video, thanks!

[@derbucherwurm]

Interesting thought I´m very interested in foucaultian thought personally and and in question of politics I would describe myself as a conservative.

[@JeffRebornNow]

I haven't watched this video yet, but the thumbnail pic reminded me of something one of my philosophy professors said. He said that Foucault had taken much of his strategic way of philosophizing from the 2nd essay of Nietzsche's "Genealogy of Morals." THat's all I remember, unfortunately.

[@XOPOIIIO]

Genealogical believes are based on the fact of evolutionary sustainability. Cultural heritage is similar to biological heritage. You could try to rationally verify is any particular biological adaptation beneficial or not, but the fact that organism survives and spread it's genes, empirically proofs that it's beneficial. The same you could say about religions, cultures and ideas. If they spread, by definition they are true one, at least from evolutionary point of view.

[@languagegame410]

more FOUCAULT, please... more and more and more, PREAZZZZZZE!!!!! !!! ! ...

[@Morgenstern1914]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! !! !

[@findbridge1790]

meaningless twaddle by Tavistock's latest cover girl

[@oversail1]

What was twaddle? Like what did you disagree with? What did you think was incoherent? Thought it was quiet insightful explanation of the problem of genealogical skepticism, the strengths and weaknesses of responses