When I had a brief stint of studying philosophy as a young man, I had an epiphany of sorts at a lecture about Kant. It might seem simple now, but I realized that against all kinds of claims and skepticism, you could ask for a certain claim: what would I need to experience in reality for me to be able to claim this? Now, having dealt more with parts of academical knowledge that is more empirical and less philosophical since then, I have sort of advanced from this, I think. One huge problem that philosophy has when it is doing a priori reasoning about the world and about how we gain knowledge about the world (and this knowledge-achieving and so forth) is that it is often severely limited by the philosopher's imagination as opposed to reality. Reality as object of study, but also the ways that we acquire knowledge about the world as object of study, are or can be much more complex than is easily imagined. One simple example of this is the metaphor from geometry of 'triangulation' to arrive at some data point: You acquire knowledge of something, not by direct observation, but by holding in conjunction other, perhaps seemingly unrelated observations, and deriving from the conjunction of their truth (in a simple sense, no large T's here) together with certain laws (that of course has to be supposed, but then again that's all empirical science) the knowledge of this new data point. A lot of science function like this. And the simple epiphany of my youth did not equip me to suss this out from a merely philosophical standpoint. It maybe could have. But direct experience with how empirical science works was more effective to drive it home for me. ...I admit, this comment was probably tangential to the subject being discussed here. I was very interested in Lacan and Zizek in my youth as well. But at the same time, I was always trying to understand it in terms of application or consequences. And I don't claim for a moment to have a great insight into philosophy or psychoanalysis, I was a dabbler. But I feel like I did abscond with some useful insights here and there. And yes, I might plead guilty to being a bit simple-minded. Were it not for their obvious short-comings, I would probably have been a good contender for being a follower of the logical positivists. Edit: I did a mistake in one of my overly complex sentences. Also, I liked the lecture. I like your lectures in general. Though I sometimes have a hard time following everything. Maybe age has made me more easily distracted.
If you're not a fan of the positivists, have you ever read any of the pragmatists? They have that same maxim, that a belief is something upon which I'm willing to act, and that beliefs are false when the material predictions they imply turn out false. I think you'd enjoy Peirce, Dewey, etc. (They can be tough to read, you might wanna start with sellers or find a reader, but whatevs)
@@rosenbaummilton7720 Thank you for the recommendation. I had heard much about Peirce, but I found him difficult to read, so I didn't stick with it. I of course know of Dewey, but I haven't read anything by him. But yes, I think I lean pretty pragmatist; though, I would guess that some of their maxims probably turn out to contain some contradictions as well, if scrutinized hard enough. Probably. (Like that thing about Hume and putting books to the fire and all that - and turning that question to Hume's own work to ask if he, by this logic, would commend his own work to the flames.)
You’ll likely cover this in future lectures but would you say that Zizeks vision for dialectical materialism is for the us to stage a fantasy that accounts for the irreducibility of the subject with himself? A fantasy that is counter to capitalism’s fundamental belief that commodities can fulfill us and if so would the true success of such a project not ultimately be its own failure. Like we fail to properly imagine a world where we can conceptualize the subject as irreducible but we enjoy this very failure and that process of enjoying the failure is what leads to a radical form of subjective engagement, a form which may transgress capitalism.
17:27 Van Gogh ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:Van_Gogh_Landscape_with_carriage_and_train_1890.jpg 0.This is practically the last work of Van Gogh that seems to be the culmination of Impressionism, in the sense that the author was able to create a new, basic, most important element in the observer's mind, without the application of the material element on the canvas. 1.In the geometric center of the picture: the axis of the wheel, and it is it the driving force of the wagon, not the horse. 2.Please note, the horse is not on the picture, but only accessories to it. 3.In the background, the train: symbol of the technical engine, but moves in the opposite direction. 4. In the garden of the working party (local observer), who does not have any relation to the movement of the carriage. 5.That's a philosophy.* 6.By the way, the author has been going to this work with different similar paintings. 7.In fact, the author expertly used what we do often in everyday life: for example, recreate the part of the subject (person), which is not seen “from own frame of reference/coordinates”. 8.How? With the help of previous experience, that is, speculation, what Einstein said. -------------- *) - However, it is art, but not science.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
Ps: the thumbnail is a photo I took at a mattress store in Santa Monica
Nice talk, thank you
Audio on top this time 😃
When I had a brief stint of studying philosophy as a young man, I had an epiphany of sorts at a lecture about Kant. It might seem simple now, but I realized that against all kinds of claims and skepticism, you could ask for a certain claim: what would I need to experience in reality for me to be able to claim this? Now, having dealt more with parts of academical knowledge that is more empirical and less philosophical since then, I have sort of advanced from this, I think. One huge problem that philosophy has when it is doing a priori reasoning about the world and about how we gain knowledge about the world (and this knowledge-achieving and so forth) is that it is often severely limited by the philosopher's imagination as opposed to reality. Reality as object of study, but also the ways that we acquire knowledge about the world as object of study, are or can be much more complex than is easily imagined.
One simple example of this is the metaphor from geometry of 'triangulation' to arrive at some data point: You acquire knowledge of something, not by direct observation, but by holding in conjunction other, perhaps seemingly unrelated observations, and deriving from the conjunction of their truth (in a simple sense, no large T's here) together with certain laws (that of course has to be supposed, but then again that's all empirical science) the knowledge of this new data point. A lot of science function like this. And the simple epiphany of my youth did not equip me to suss this out from a merely philosophical standpoint. It maybe could have. But direct experience with how empirical science works was more effective to drive it home for me.
...I admit, this comment was probably tangential to the subject being discussed here. I was very interested in Lacan and Zizek in my youth as well. But at the same time, I was always trying to understand it in terms of application or consequences. And I don't claim for a moment to have a great insight into philosophy or psychoanalysis, I was a dabbler. But I feel like I did abscond with some useful insights here and there. And yes, I might plead guilty to being a bit simple-minded. Were it not for their obvious short-comings, I would probably have been a good contender for being a follower of the logical positivists.
Edit: I did a mistake in one of my overly complex sentences. Also, I liked the lecture. I like your lectures in general. Though I sometimes have a hard time following everything. Maybe age has made me more easily distracted.
If you're not a fan of the positivists, have you ever read any of the pragmatists? They have that same maxim, that a belief is something upon which I'm willing to act, and that beliefs are false when the material predictions they imply turn out false. I think you'd enjoy Peirce, Dewey, etc. (They can be tough to read, you might wanna start with sellers or find a reader, but whatevs)
@@rosenbaummilton7720 Thank you for the recommendation. I had heard much about Peirce, but I found him difficult to read, so I didn't stick with it. I of course know of Dewey, but I haven't read anything by him. But yes, I think I lean pretty pragmatist; though, I would guess that some of their maxims probably turn out to contain some contradictions as well, if scrutinized hard enough. Probably. (Like that thing about Hume and putting books to the fire and all that - and turning that question to Hume's own work to ask if he, by this logic, would commend his own work to the flames.)
Life is but a dream
You’ll likely cover this in future lectures but would you say that Zizeks vision for dialectical materialism is for the us to stage a fantasy that accounts for the irreducibility of the subject with himself? A fantasy that is counter to capitalism’s fundamental belief that commodities can fulfill us and if so would the true success of such a project not ultimately be its own failure. Like we fail to properly imagine a world where we can conceptualize the subject as irreducible but we enjoy this very failure and that process of enjoying the failure is what leads to a radical form of subjective engagement, a form which may transgress capitalism.
17:27 Van Gogh
ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:Van_Gogh_Landscape_with_carriage_and_train_1890.jpg
0.This is practically the last work of Van Gogh that seems to be the culmination of Impressionism, in the sense that the author was able to create a new, basic, most important element in the observer's mind, without the application of the material element on the canvas.
1.In the geometric center of the picture: the axis of the wheel, and it is it the driving force of the wagon, not the horse.
2.Please note, the horse is not on the picture, but only accessories to it.
3.In the background, the train: symbol of the technical engine, but moves in the opposite direction.
4. In the garden of the working party (local observer), who does not have any relation to the movement of the carriage.
5.That's a philosophy.*
6.By the way, the author has been going to this work with different similar paintings.
7.In fact, the author expertly used what we do often in everyday life: for example, recreate the part of the subject (person), which is not seen “from own frame of reference/coordinates”.
8.How? With the help of previous experience, that is, speculation, what Einstein said.
--------------
*) - However, it is art, but not science.