The irony of Foucault having a conversation with another member of the intellectual elite immortalized and thinking he is not perpetuating power through celebrity cracks me up. Way to subvert by creating another hegemony

It’s weird, and I’ll stop posting so much, but I’m someone who, while benefiting from their masculinity, is disenfranchised. I’m a man of color who’s probably neurodivergent and more than likely suffer from some kind of PTSD due to growing up in a religious cult, being bullied at school and abused by my parents, and getting sexually assaulted. I’m someone who was teased for his looks and has never felt desired, so imagine being like this and constantly being overwhelmed by and inundated with white supremacist media that constantly portrays the lives of conventionally attractive white people living in excess and divulging and avarice. You never get to see yourself in media. The songs that constantly play around you are love songs and sex songs that you can’t relate to, surrounding you and almost mocking you like the kids in school. Though I know I should overcome these insecurities and prevent myself from falling down certain rabbit holes and pipelines in order to be a much healthier “man”, it’s not like the world itself or people in general make it easy for make to take those steps. Though comphet has definitely influenced the way I see relationships and has probably created within me a desire to long for a heterosexual relationship in order to cure this hole within my heart, I also believe that I genuinely want a life-partner, to be with someone, to be loved, adored, and desired sexually. I believe that that’s something a lot of us feel and which isn’t a byproduct of patriarchy. The desire to be loved isn’t toxic, but I do feel like in certain spaces, that gets read as selfish or being entitled. I’m just venting, but I can’t help but feel like a lot of people in certain progressive circles are, while having good points to make, functioning off hatred and resentment and sometimes forget to aim those energies at systems. Instead, what I see on the internet is a lot of malice towards individuals, even if they deserve it. It makes me so angry. I don’t want to take up space or accidentally silence women. I’m just saying that using insults and body-shaming lingo to highlight how damaging someone’s ideology is will not only fail to help get your point across but will actually embolden that person to believe those ideas even harder. For both sides of the spectrum, on the digital space, it’s like a game for a lot of influencers. Whoever says the most polarizing and anger-inducing, upsetting, demoralizing, hurtful thing gets the most attention, even if what’s being said lacks substance.

How do you feel about women who abuse men? I know from what you’ve said that men abusing women is way more common than the other way around, but what do you make of that scenario? Funnily enough, like Hooks, the more abusive parent in my family was my mother, whereas my father was a lot kinder than her, until he became abusive himself as I got older. To me, it’s not as black and white as a lot of individual feminists make it out to be. I’ve not only seen girls and women say mean and homophobic things, I’ve actually been the victim of bullying by not just boys but girls as well. I feel like with certain individual feminists that there’s less of a desire to create a better world for everyone and more so a desire to replace the current hierarchy with a more matriarchal one. What do you make of feminists who use ableist language like “neckbeard” and patriarchal insults like “small dick energy”, etc.? One thing I absolutely abhor in certain leftist spaces is the tendency for some progressive individuals to body-shame people whom they dislike. I feel that that’s incredibly hypocritical for a group of people who want to create a world that doesn’t rely on subjugation to do that. I’m just tired of it. Maybe my beef is less with feminism itself and more so some of the individuals within the movement who are, well, just plain assholes.

Excellent video once again , thank you!

Our interactions with livestock animals are a priori.. we don't interact with them. We do exploit them in a similar way that the capitalist exploits the worker and "others" the worker. It's an interesting parallel.

Thanks for these!

I was hoping someone was going to explore this. I'm missing mentions of Milgram and Stanford Prison. Which explains or shows why or how this may occur. Maybe history doesn't repeat exactly but it sure seems to rhyme.

Your bartering example is helpful but very ahistorical and backed by little anthropological evidence. It’s not essential to the video, but a dangerous idea to toss around as if it’s “obviously true” when it was a narrative made up by Adam Smith and often used to legitimize the inevitably of capitalism.

Nice I like it, you are funny also. enjoyably to watch

kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z6upnKyYqN2kfZI&si=eFSbqF0FzWF4BKUX. Hanna Arendt sees a much deeper aspect of this WB essay.

Are there any philosophy or history or maybe even political science students in these comments? I am thinking about studying history, European history. Just looking for advice. I love this channel. There is an MA/PhD program at my local state university where I live and just any thoughts would be appreciated. I have a bachelors and masters in mechanical engineering and I absolutely hate working in my field as much of what I used to enjoy about engineering and physics is not included in the workplace Setting which is largely bureaucratic. I am just hoping to find some meaning in my journey of life, and really delve into something interesting to study.. Thanks.

Hello david, I wanted to let you know that you're doing quite a wonderful thing by teaching philosophy and making it so easy to understand. I love your explanations more than all the other philosophy channels I watch. You're so young and already have such a big impact on people's lives, its quite inspiring. I do hope that I can be as scholarly as you someday. Love from Bangladesh!

I think Spivak points out that they have a voice but cannot be heard. So, Third World women aren't completely voiceless.

These ideas are banal. Obviously there are styles which change in time or in other cultures to denote roles enacted. But the domain of the activity is determined biologically. Of course conventions are enacted, but identities are discovered NOT chosen. Grow up, philosophers!

Eichamann visited Auschwitz Birkenau. He knew about the deployment of Zyklon B as the lethal gas used in the gas chambers.

Not all Nuremberg defendants were hung. Albert Speer, Admiral Doenitz

I beg to differ with Derrida if his claim is the war started because of Kuwait’s sovereignty being broken. It needed the prop of the US to ensure its sovereignty. So it is not sovereign. No Middle East country is because it is a production of the French British and US imperial dominance. Two, the war started why: the US Secretary of State told Sadam we do not interfere in battles between Arab states. Do as you want. Saddam’s mistake from the US’ side was that he decided to nationalize oil.

Just please, keep on doing these videos I really do enjoy your simplicity and sense of humor between the lines

Thanku

the mirror stage is more like to be aware of you as a human being, you acknowledge that you are indeed a human, sentient being. that is it, no need for a 8 mins video

Interesting video, but really important to talk about the critique specifically around her comments on the jewish leadership and their involvement with the holocaust. Arendt doesn't give due attention to the fact that leaders were often pressured or threatened to participate the lack of acknowledgement here makes this argument seem really unbalanced to me. In many cases, they were killed and replaced with new leadership (multiple times) until they acted following nazi direction, and many became intermediaries because they believed they could mitigate the damage from the inside. Her analysis of him as truly banal is justifiably and heavily debated (he was a fervent anti-semite). Here, statements like 'Eichmann was horrified when talking about extermination and deportation are not facts. Considering he boasted about being the coordinator of the of the final solution both in germany and when he hid in Argentina after the war, historical reports suggest the opposite was true (read 'eichman before jerusalem' for more examples. BOE is an incredibly important and relevant topic, especially today but Eichmann in Jerusalem attracted alot of critique for a reason. it must be presented in line with it to contextualise it for what it is, rather than show it as what it is not (a certainty). I'm sure this was not intentional, however, the single sided presentation of Arendt's work made here seems to have the trappings of alluding to a long running and highly coordinate jewish conspiracy. This is worrying as this theme is a dominant trope of antisemetic rhetoric and propaganda

What do you mean like we've never seen? I have seen plenty of controlled demolitions. It is pretty clear that some people were ignorant of the fact that various agencies had information (this is a matter of public record) on the "attack" before it happened. 9/11 was just an excuse. I highly recommend you read Douglass Valentine's The CIA As Organized Crime. The invasion of Iraq, after 9/11 was budgeted for prior to 9/11. There's no bigger waste of time than people debating fallacies. Please explain to me what is the difference between The USA and the UN? If you still believe that Bin Laden was the brain behind 9/11, you are delusional.

its worth mentioning that the bechdel test was originally to see if allison bechdel, famous lesbian, could pretend that the characters were also lesbians. that is important history that im not too pleased is often forgotten or left out.

judith butler is awesome but i cant parse her writing at all

how is a platonic ideal different from the numinal world? is it like the same concept. ig it is since its not like, perfection but more mysterious and about existence or something

Economic investigator Frank G Melbourne Australia is following this content cheers Frank

The Israelis were not looking for Eichman. It was Simon Wiesenthal. The Israelis wanted to move on from the Holocaust.

Its not a rumor Foucault was going to wear a wig if you listen closely there are times when someone asks Foucault to put on the wig during the debate. if you listen closely there are times when someone asks Foucault to put on the wig during the debate.

I read Hannah Arendt's work a decade back and it opened my eyes. Thank you for the great video.

The things he described seemed so abstract that I had nothing left in my mind after reading the book. And it will be probably the same after this video. Thanks anyway.