سپاس از نقد شما...بنظرم کسانی که این فیلم رو دیدند حتما باید مستند کلوزاپ نمای دور رو هم ببیند نسخه کاملشو البته که تو یوتیوب هم موجوده...حرفهایی که سبزیان میزنه و البته مصاحبه با همسایگانش خیلی قابل تامله...
با تشکر کیارستمی یه جا گفته بود جذابیت سبزیان براش به خاطر حفظ کودکیشه. سبزیان کسی ست که یه فرد ایدئولوژیک مثل مخملبافو الگوی خودش می کنه و می تونه به شکل نمادین بزرگ شده مدرسه فیلم قبلی کیارستمی یعنی مشق شب بوده باشه. مدرسه ای که عشق و محبت رو در افراد می کشه سوژه های منقاد و سرکوب شده تربیت می کنه و در نهایت خودآگاهی اونها رو تحت فرمان یک سوپراگوی تنبیه گر مثل مخملباف قرار می ده.
Thanks for sharing such great content as always. I just wanted to point out that in your statement where you said, “essence doesn’t exist,” it seems that you are considering essence in this context as a fixed form. This interpretation naturally opposes the classical definition of essence and even diverges from Cartesian perspectives on the matter. However, essence is not entirely rejected by existentialist thinkers like Sartre and Heidegger, or even by Deleuze. Rather, it is perhaps understood as a dynamic essence in their frameworks. In general, most philosophical traditions, in one way or another, acknowledge the existence of essence, but they differ fundamentally in how essence is understood-whether as fixed and universal or as dynamic and emergent. Don’t you think it’s overly generalised to deny the existence of essence altogether, and, by extension, its manifestation through human characteristics or qualities that we encounter in everyday life? I must also add that I’m deeply impressed with your thoughtful responses to comments here. It’s very kind of you.
I acknowledge that my use of language may not have been entirely precise, particularly given the constraints of an informal setting. However, my intention was to critique essentialist views - the notion that humans possess fixed, immutable qualities. This perspective directly opposes Cartesian thought, which posits a fixed, thinking essence (res cogitans) for the human subject. Even Heidegger can be interpreted as prescribing a form of essence through concepts like 'being-in-the-world,' 'facticity,' and 'authenticity,' which imply a certain underlying structure for human existence. Contemporary thought offers various critiques of essentialism. Deleuze, for example, emphasizes the dynamic, rhizomatic nature of existence, where difference and becoming are the primary forces, and essence is ultimately non-existent. Or in Julia Kristeva's approach, the speaking subject is nothing but the confluence where gender, history, sex, culture, and all the constituent elements come together. Derrida, in his deconstructive project, aims to dismantle fixed structures, yet, as Vattimo points out, Derrida may still retain a nostalgic longing for an original, foundational structure, thus subtly reinforcing a form of essentialism. This is a complex issue with a rich history of debate. However, my core point remains: contemporary philosophical thought largely rejects the notion of a static, pre-determined essence. The concept of a 'dynamic essence' that you mentioned actually reflects this anti-essentialist tendency, acknowledging that human identity is fluid, evolving, and constantly in flux.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
عالی عالی عالی دمتون گرم
💙💙💙💙💙💙💙
ممنون از ویدیو مفید و ارزشمندی که منتشر کردید 👏👍
ممنون از لطف تون
خیلی عمیق و مفصل پرداختید❤خیلی ممنون🙏
لطف دارید
بسیار نقد مفید و دقیق بود و تا حدودی هم حرفهای تازه و نکات جدیدی مطرح کردین در تفسیر کلوز آپ که جالب بود! 👍🏼
مرسی از همراهی
درود بر شما
پایدار باشید .
مرسی از لطف تون
عالی🎉
🙌
عالی
درود
مث همیشه عالی و درجه یککککک ممنون❤
لطف دارید
@ShavandFilmSchool حقیقته
@@Billy__Wilder 🙌
@ShavandFilmSchool ❤
عالی خسته نباشید پرقدرت ادامه بدین
مرسی از توجهتون
Great analysis as always.
Much appreciated!
👏👏👏
🙌
❤
🙌
سپاس از نقد شما...بنظرم کسانی که این فیلم رو دیدند حتما باید مستند کلوزاپ نمای دور رو هم ببیند نسخه کاملشو البته که تو یوتیوب هم موجوده...حرفهایی که سبزیان میزنه و البته مصاحبه با همسایگانش خیلی قابل تامله...
مرسی از اشاره به این نکته ی مهم. لطف کردید
@@ShavandFilmSchool ممنون از شما و حسن توجهتون
با تشکر کیارستمی یه جا گفته بود جذابیت سبزیان براش به خاطر حفظ کودکیشه. سبزیان کسی ست که یه فرد ایدئولوژیک مثل مخملبافو الگوی خودش می کنه و می تونه به شکل نمادین بزرگ شده مدرسه فیلم قبلی کیارستمی یعنی مشق شب بوده باشه. مدرسه ای که عشق و محبت رو در افراد می کشه سوژه های منقاد و سرکوب شده تربیت می کنه و در نهایت خودآگاهی اونها رو تحت فرمان یک سوپراگوی تنبیه گر مثل مخملباف قرار می ده.
نکته ی مهمی بود. مرسی
Thanks for sharing such great content as always. I just wanted to point out that in your statement where you said, “essence doesn’t exist,” it seems that you are considering essence in this context as a fixed form. This interpretation naturally opposes the classical definition of essence and even diverges from Cartesian perspectives on the matter. However, essence is not entirely rejected by existentialist thinkers like Sartre and Heidegger, or even by Deleuze. Rather, it is perhaps understood as a dynamic essence in their frameworks.
In general, most philosophical traditions, in one way or another, acknowledge the existence of essence, but they differ fundamentally in how essence is understood-whether as fixed and universal or as dynamic and emergent. Don’t you think it’s overly generalised to deny the existence of essence altogether, and, by extension, its manifestation through human characteristics or qualities that we encounter in everyday life?
I must also add that I’m deeply impressed with your thoughtful responses to comments here. It’s very kind of you.
I acknowledge that my use of language may not have been entirely precise, particularly given the constraints of an informal setting. However, my intention was to critique essentialist views - the notion that humans possess fixed, immutable qualities. This perspective directly opposes Cartesian thought, which posits a fixed, thinking essence (res cogitans) for the human subject. Even Heidegger can be interpreted as prescribing a form of essence through concepts like 'being-in-the-world,' 'facticity,' and 'authenticity,' which imply a certain underlying structure for human existence.
Contemporary thought offers various critiques of essentialism. Deleuze, for example, emphasizes the dynamic, rhizomatic nature of existence, where difference and becoming are the primary forces, and essence is ultimately non-existent. Or in Julia Kristeva's approach, the speaking subject is nothing but the confluence where gender, history, sex, culture, and all the constituent elements come together. Derrida, in his deconstructive project, aims to dismantle fixed structures, yet, as Vattimo points out, Derrida may still retain a nostalgic longing for an original, foundational structure, thus subtly reinforcing a form of essentialism.
This is a complex issue with a rich history of debate. However, my core point remains: contemporary philosophical thought largely rejects the notion of a static, pre-determined essence. The concept of a 'dynamic essence' that you mentioned actually reflects this anti-essentialist tendency, acknowledging that human identity is fluid, evolving, and constantly in flux.
@
I’m so deeply grateful for your thoughtful and informative response.
Much respect!
@@aminbadran9817 🙌