Episode

Philosophize This! Clips: / @philosophizethisclips
Get more:
Website: www.philosophizethis.org/
Patreon: / philosophizethis
Find the podcast:
Apple: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/2Shpxw7...
RSS: www.philosophizethis.libsyn.org/
Be social:
Twitter: / iamstephenwest
Instagram: / philosophizethispodcast
TikTok: / philosophizethispodcast
Facebook: / philosophizethisshow
Thank you for making the show possible. 🙂

[@Z1ddee]

I've listened to alot of podcasts and KZbin videos on philosophy and your channel by far has been my favorite. You make philosophy relevant and easy to understand all without being pretentious. Thanks so much for your hard work. You deserve way more views and likes than what you have.

[@thooks30]

Love your show. Thank you for all of your hard work. I can’t get enough and share with all of my friends and family. Thanks for all of your efforts.

[@tjk355]

This is one of your best yet.

[@ryanholsapple5179]

I LOVE THIS PODCAST

[@elijaguy]

so does me. very much so!

[@hashishincloudyeyes6887]

Love the show!

[@mattgilbert7347]

This is excellent work. When I go to your site and click on the link to the transcript to episodes 116 and 117, the link takes me to the transcript for ep 113 (Frankfurt School) which is an episode I have listened to, and I did go to the transcript for some quote-mining :) I wonder if the problem is at my end? I'd really like to be able to extract a few lines from the transcripts to these Structuralist episodes, for the purposes of sharing, or as a bit of "clickbait" when I share the audio to my Facebook. More people should be following your podcasts, and I'd like to think that by sharing, I'm maybe helping to bring a few more listeners to this excellent channel. Thanks, Steven.

[@elijaguy]

0:52 is polarity inevitable here? perhaps a continuous interaction between culture molding individuals and individuals molding their cultures, all the time, everywhere?

[@snakeh9836]

a zen talk would be fun.

[@thearchive8687]

Consume away. ;)

[@keegster7167]

I love Ferdinand de Saussure!! I’m so glad you mentioned him. But to me, he’s a linguist

[@sandersnoeren9683]

I think he mentions that in the episode before this

[@FranciscoAlvRai]

The knowledge in myth is only hidden to the literal eyes of the modern folk, but there's nothing obtuse about it nor is it trying to be. It's the most direct way you can say something at that level of complexity. Also, to call propaganda technics a kind of mythology is a gross reductionist misrepresentation.

[@christinemartin63]

Yeah, I can see how this would be. We are free to swim however we want--but are confined to the limits of our pool (i.e., context of our birth).

[@PeterZeeke]

This vocalises something I could never articulate my entire life

[@abch5807]

🙏 Guru Dev 🙏

[@PreciseVids]

26:37 This is the society we live in.

[@connerfields4753]

Didn't the pragmatist philosopher Charles Sanders Pierce also found a more complex and technical version of semiotics at the same time?

[@91jubaku]

CS Peirce wrote about semiotics in the 1860s. De Saussure was born in 1857. But they were contemporaries, dying around the same time, so we should consider both founders of semiotics I would say

[@mobiditch6848]

I get waved at a lot...but curiously they’re all missing four fingers.

[@122222770]

So, if I'm in a pool and I'm swimming it's not me swimming but the structural push of the water imposing it's cultural assumptions on me? :)

[@mariadsouza9616]

WOW

[@connerfields4753]

"God decides he needs to shake the etch-a-sketch and Noah needs to build an ark".

[@anthonyconde7604]

Sarah Palin summarizing the Bible to a class of kindergarteners

[@samthesomniator]

Interpretation of Mythology as a factual story. That is the thing with creationism. 😂

[@teopasca6403]

"you didn't come out the womb waving at everyone"

[@Oners82]

Regarding the soap thing, maybe people just don't want to eat off of dirty plates because of germs and shit? The mythology thing does sound rather far-fetched to say the least.

[@rampant9358]

It's not that we don't need it, it means it goes deeper. We think more about soap than what we actually think on a surface level. For example, ¿did you knew there is no purpose whatsoever in soap making foam? You can google that; foam doesn't do shit in the cleaning process, you can even create almost "foamless" soap, but we usually get super foamy soap. ¿then why it is there and for what purpose its being put? Soap "needs" to have foam because, in our "soap-myth" bubbles represent cleaning, and the more foam the more succesfull you are at that.

[@michaeldrew3292]

@@rampant9358I use the bubbles or foam like the soap, to wash over me and clean without the soap bar in my hand. I think the foam is not really any different to the soap.

[@politics4270]

😂❤❤❤

[@brianharris6437]

The way the presenter mangles the surname of Roland Barthes really grates on my ears; it should sound like Bart and not Bars because final S is nearly always silent in French words. This is on par with saying René Dess Cars. Next time he should spend the two minutes at most it takes to track down the right pronunciation online. It's on Wikipedia, for goodness sake!

[@frederickanderson1860]

Stupid reasoning its obvious that any stupid person who meditates too much. Philosophers think to much and always never come to a final conclusion.

[@puneetsharma4687]

this is completely bs , you can make up any meaning out of stories you like, from the most immoral story you can map so really valuable moral.

[@91jubaku]

Not all meanings extracted by interpretation are valid or true

[@mobiditch6848]

Puneet Sharma interesting that you didn’t “make up (just) any (old) meaning”, but rather produced a fairly typical ill considered meaning. A meaning participating in and demonstrating the very notions treated. Certainly there are multiple and even contradictory meanings available yet not “any” possible meaning since for instance I didn’t get the atmospheric conditions on average for temperatures in July for Los Angeles. There are clearly constraints to the interpretive possibilities; at least if I wish to be semi coherent in a conversation with others. Even if I were to suggest that this lecture is at bottom a discussion of Southern California weather my interlocutor would be accurate in assuming that I was either demented or maybe experimenting with a highly idiosyncratic poetic device. Yet even then the interpretation would be checked within certain constraints.

[@Oners82]

@@mobiditch6848 This lecture WAS about the weather in Southern California, clearly you are only looking at a surface level interpretation ;)

[@mobiditch6848]

Oners82 good one!!!

[@Oners82]

@@mobiditch6848 Lol ;)