Thanks! I have bookmarked this comment and will read it carefully this weekend. But I'm glad you mentioned Stephen Houlgate. I am, in fact, hoping to speak to him soon this year, but before I do so, I'm trying to get through his massive work Hegel on Being.

@RahulSam _Overwhelmingly_ dense endeavor, especially because Houlgate's duology is specifically intended to cover _every_ development of Hegel's Doctrine of Being. What's truly deceptive about diving straight into this is that it actually only covers the first _third_ of the Science of Logic. Houlgate himself is already trying to complete _another_ volume set on the Doctrine of Essence, and who knows whether he will even get a chance to do the Doctrine of Concept, which is the _most_ important part of his logic (literally _the_ logic, not just ontology and metaphysics) and the entire culmination of it. My recommendation to learn what Hegel's philosophical science of logic is all about is to read Jacob McNulty's work on _Hegel's Logic and Metaphysics,_ which provides not only a systematic _history_ of why this work even matters at all in the history of philosophy and what it is responding to, but also a survey of what the philosophy of logic as a whole is intended to culminate in, which is a far more radical thesis than even many self-proclaimed Hegelians are ready for. You can think of it like this: starting out with McNulty is like taking a first course in undergraduate calculus with some motivation from the history of mathematics (ex: Newton and Leibniz). Starting with Houlgate's _rigorous_ commentary on Hegel's ontology in contrast is like jumping straight into Lebesgue's measure theory where you don't even get a chance to mathematically prove the _survey_ of tools introduced in Calculus I within a semester. Hegel's work of course operates differently at a conceptual level in that the entire _point_ literally is to begin without any prerequisites ("presuppositionlessness"), but the journey will take superhumanly more patience than should be necessary, at least when you're just getting started with his mature system.

That is very kind and much appreciated 🙏 Good luck with your essay! That one’s now a classic by H.

Fair criticism. As much as I respect Prof Harman's work, here's where I disagree with him.

Consciousness is not AN object, but many different objects: every single conscious mind is a distinct object. My consciousness/mind is one object, yours is another and so on.

@@ludviglidstrom6924 That may add some helpful nuance, but it certainly doesn't address the fundamental issue I intended to raise in my comment. Whether we speak of "consciousness" or of "consciousnesses", it remains a category error to think and speak of something that itself never appears directly, but which is the very condition for appearance as such, as an "object" coordinate with other objects. And I say this as someone who is deeply sympathetic to the anti-anthropocentric and egalitarian impetus of OOO. I just think it's a simple confusion, an effort to square the circle.

Haha, why is that?

I'm glad you’re finding it useful, my friend. I’m certainly a neophyte myself; however, I’d just add that Žižek is not a poststructuralist, although he no doubt works in that space.

Haha, mate... I myself am a Žižekian and am not in agreement with all of Harman's views, but I certainly wouldn't call him a fake. Like Žižek, I think Harman is one of the most important philosophers of our time. Not to mention, he's genuinely a cordial person.

He's a fake. No sense of philosophy at all. Lots of fakes are important to wretched people; some of whom know he's a fake.

@@letdaseinlive how about you expand on why you think he is a fake, or would that be too complicated for you?

​@@jodawgsup Fakes are people with no philosophic sense. In the case of Harman he just operates by being important. Careerists get played into it. It's disgusting, but always like that. 🎉

@@jodawgsup Fakes are people with no philosophic sense. In the case of Harman he just operates by being important. Careerists get played into it. It's disgusting, but always like that.

I am still learning to be a better interviewer. I know I have the tendency to cut people off. Hopefully, you’ll find I have gotten better in recent interviews 😀

Thumbs up@@RahulSam

Great to hear, Matt!

Not even close.

is your reply meant to indicate that obj relations theory in psychoanalysis isn't even close to OOO?

Cheers, Tariq. I'm glad you found this conversation insightful, and I appreciate you taking the time to leave a comment. Sometimes, the KZbin algorithm works in our favour!

I’m not sure what your confusion is, mate? Are you studying to distinguish between facts and data?

@@RahulSam Ontological one mate. I am not mentioning "facts" - I am talking about they call "data" - which is a concept that has many underlying philosophical and socio-economic assumptions which didn't got even mentioned in the full episode (which I followed live's premiere). And there is also historical and dialectical aspects of development of the ideas that they talk about which were magnificently ignored. I can say much-much more, but comment section of the YT Shorts is kinda-sorta wrong wall to yell at :)

There is, in my own opinion, some possible critique of the fashion with which Lacan "bounces" around. You could argue that some semblance of prescriptive language use is necessary in a modern social setting to exactly offset some effects of the absurdity of sharing space with 'other minds'. Which is what university, and the agreed history of recorded provenance is all about. Giving us a set of universalized agreements. However, Lacan's ideas are very useful in understanding how societal norms can be morphed through kitsch and pastich, isolation, and today social media algorithm manipulation... into the multitude of individual minds. He's not so much a charlatan, as he is a higher level thought experimentalist who doesn't really nail anything down... meaning that you mostly have to understand what he is talking about before approaching his ideas. In the wrong context, his ideas are more akin to postmodern idealism, which is exactly the thing he is pointing out as absurd.... so it's not cut and dry. Chompski is always talking to the lay person. He is making a warning to not study ideas that are above your intellectual investment to the understanding half of reading anything. And Lacan doesn't really make that part simple.

I find myself asking the questions: How do we prescribe language without universalizing some phenomenal experiences? How do we do that without making some interactions completely arbitrary? Like, the ice is cold... In doing this are we always going to imbed bias into language? Is there a more unilateral way to make sharing phenomena individual as opposed to teacher/student i.e. master/slave in nature?

@@Robert_McGarry_Poems is i am getting your point like that chomsky did not reject lacanian ideas but he emphasis people to have foundational knowledge before diving into complexity and lacan needs foundation first...and chomsky would say to go into people like lacan you have to be foundations first? reply me.... thanks

@akbar-nr4kc Yeah, you get the main idea. Though, I do believe you... that Chompski called him a Charlatan out right. I just don't think it was an honestly nuanced answer.

Absolutely! A tragedy.

Hope you enjoy!

I’d say everyone ought to be a Phil student 😉

@RahulSam now this I can get behind haha fair play

?

Good pickup! Let me fix that. Thanks.

I haven't watched it, but I will now. It's a good one for the weekend. Also, thank you very much for the financial support through PayPal, mate. I appreciate it!

@@RahulSam 4sho! I already ordered Helen's book on the strength of your lobbying

@@christianlesniak And I ended up watching Burning... wow! I think I'm going to write an essay on it. 🤯

@@RahulSam I know, right?! It gets even better every time I watch it.

Glad you found Helen’s work. Hope you enjoy the book!

Im not immersed enough in theory but my instincts are that she has a level headed take on things, much in the same way McGowan does (in my opinion). I liked her comments on the concept of "lack"

@@Feline-friend007 Totally, mate. As I said in my unnecessarily long introduction, I have begun recommending Helen's books as an introductory text to those interested in Lacanian theory.

Much appreciated, Dave 🙏

Cheers, Mikey! Like yourself, Helen's one of the clearest and most astute thinkers I've come across in the Lacanian-Hegelian theory scene! PS. Will be reading your superego piece this weekend

Cheers! Glad you enjoyed it!

Great book! I hope you’ll enjoy the conversation, mate.

Great to hear, Benjamin! Thanks for the kind words. It must have been an utter privilege to be a student of Dr. Yoshimi. He's great!

What is consciousness? Well, that depends on what biology is... and what is biology? Well, that depends on what chemistry is. What is chemistry? Well, that depends on what physics is... Ionic exchange and lipid repulsion boundary layers. Gradient flow. Metabolism. How do these "engines" fuel themselves? By manufacturing positive hallucinations towards those ends... hunger pangs give early warning... sunburn... but what does that mean about self and self-awareness? We must have a decent chemistry theory to back-date and do useful spectroscopy. Everything we believe we know is tied to other information that is also 'incomplete'.

Honestly, as an autistic person, Heidegger never made much sense, but Husserl did for some reason... IDK why.

The garden of forking paths...

I believe he was reflecting on a conversation he had with Bernardo.

This is the core of his critique of Descartes cogito

Which I guess brings up my only question: What does he consider the difference between Hegelian materialism and what he is calling a new formalism? Because that would change how language is prescriptively used...

Thanks!

You're too kind. Thank you!

Yep, that is the problem with definitions. Xeno's paradox... we can always invent a new lower level or outer wrapper to add to the discussion without ever exhausting questions we can ask about said subject/object. The infinite zoom. But just because we can't distinguish what energy is doesn't mean classical physics isn't useful in its current form.

Like, what does proving what energy is actually help us do?

@@Robert_McGarry_Poems yeah kind of, if we can't even be certain that the basis of all our empirical knowledge and data is "real" in the most fundamental sense, not just the issue with perception of it; then what do abstractions matter? What does it matter if we can with certainty say that the presentation of matter is a particle, a wave or both, or that matter and energy are equations or not. For many that seems to be either a problem or very uncomfortable to confront. And it doesn't mean that all is for nothing, but it restores the lost mystery it allows for genuine curiosity and enquiry. At the very same time with the principles described by Kant we have a reminder of being equally careful about matters of mind and thought, of believe and perception when it comes not just to internal experiences but the limits of even logic itself. Strangely enough I still have to meet someone failing to pay bills after spending to much time with all that comes from it in it's conclusions, not even unsure of themselves either hahaha. Totally in agreement with the usefulness of science btw most certainly very useful but maybe taken a bit too serious by some since it is obvious that there seems times when "science itself" struggles to remember it's own principles. That's at least how I interpreted when expect to believe in the possibility of - to pick a current topic in the fascination cycle of the internet - multiple realities, which are not disproven by our inability to detect them or to provide any evidence for their existence at all, meanwhile religious people get treated like delulus because here ofc the inability to provide is evidence for non existence... never really added up for me hahhahaha There is something that seems to be deeply unsettling for many to admit that actually we don't know, which it is understandable I guess.... every little bit of perceived certainty reduces the variables needed to be taken into account. The flip side is that it's all build on a sense of false certainty. Have a great day.

Ah haha! Cracked me up, too!

Well put. I highly recommend the book, which, in straightforward yet sharp language, makes a case for leftist universalism and not getting stuck in (sometimes self-flagellating) endless particularisms.

Cheers!