The Ultimate Goal of Philosophy

Рет қаралды 5,298

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 41

@BigJo3 3 ай бұрын

Ultimate goal of philosophy is to yap until your listener has had enough. I joke honestly solid video, being able to summarise that in 10 minute video is quite impressive

@dvidsilva 3 ай бұрын

Philo = love Sofia = la chica de la escuela que me gusta El objetivo es amar

@johnpoker-y1s 3 ай бұрын

checks out

@andrewwang2209 3 ай бұрын

8:01 Damn, mystical tones in the background got me spooked

@danieleh6845 3 ай бұрын

The goal of the contemporary philosophy is to demystify those phantasies which are given to us as innate. The ultimate goal of philosopy is gramscian.

@Oskar-S- 5 күн бұрын

Just one word "Lovely"

@arepafranklin 29 күн бұрын

This is unintentional ASMR

@nickko4042 3 ай бұрын

I am looking for the clip where you talked about eschatology and scatology. Can anybody help me locate that video?

@FG-fc1yz 3 ай бұрын

2:30 Expl das nichtende Nichts: die Subjektivierung des Nichts (der Abgrund, Leere?), die notwendig vorausgesetzt werden muss (siehe Logik der Wissenschaften: Nichts setzen, damit Sein sein kann) 4:04 Zizek: something is a nothing that is lacking

@AlBundy287 3 ай бұрын

You need more subs

@tygrysgargantuiczny9144 3 ай бұрын

I believe he should be underground just for us

@johnpoker-y1s 3 ай бұрын

@@tygrysgargantuiczny9144 elitist

@EinKleinerFisch 3 ай бұрын

thanks

@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd 3 ай бұрын

The intention of philosophy is not to discover the truth. Philosophy only produces hypotheses. Hypotheses only have value when they are confronted with reality. This observation determines how likely it is that the hypothesis corresponds to the phenomenon it attempts to explain. Humans have never experienced nothingness. We do not know if nothingness "is" possible. What would be the reason to consider that nothingness is a possible "state"?

@noahespi 3 ай бұрын

Thank you for your comment. I appreciate hearing your insight. :) While I can't speak for the philosophers mentioned in this lecture, I might be able to give a clue for what Heidegger might say in response to your comment. In Poetry, Language, and Thought, there is a chapter titled "The Thing". In it, Heidegger gives an example of the jug and explains (from what I can gather) how it's the nothingness, or the void, of the jug that gives it its thing-ness. Being is disclosed in this instance through non-being. The void within the jug is what holds and pours the liquid for our social ceremonies, for instance. In Part I, Chapter I of Being and Nothingness, Sartre argues that we "see" a lack of something when we expect it to be there. Imagine you walk into a cafe expecting to meet with your friend Pierre. However, you don't see him in the cafe; he is missing. Sartre argues that we positively see this lack. In other words, we "see" that some thing is not there. Now if Being is Dasein, and Dasein is being there, the opposite of this is non being, or not being there. When something is not there we encounter nothingness in our experience. In my own humble estimation, most things are like this. I can distinguish my perception of a cube from my memory of the same cube because of what the memory is not. That is to say, the cube in my memory lacks a certain kind of being in perceptual experience. The cube is nowhere to be found in perceptual experience; it is absent, it is not there. There is a certain nothingness to my memory of a cube that makes it my memory as opposed to my perception. I am still in the nascence of my studies in phenomenology and philosophy in general, so your further thoughts on what I have said would be greatly appreciated. :)

@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd 3 ай бұрын

@@noahespi The emptiness of a jar is merely a convenient convention. It is not possible to "be" non-existent. I do not see how one could assert that reality shows the being that "is" through the presence/absence of beings that do not "exist." That seems to summarize a superlatively absurd position. Seeing the absence of something by not seeing it remains absurd and unfounded. It is just a play on words without support, either in logic or in reality. If nothing cannot "be," then what "is" has always been. What actually occurs is a continuous change. But that is not absence; it is mutation. The absence of a pattern is not an ontological absence. I find no difference between forms of being, nor do I notice that reality justifies assuming that humans have a special form of "being," different from other beings. I do not agree that noticing the absence of a being is noticing a "non-existence" (one must be consistent with concepts). What is noticed is the presence of other beings, and it is deduced that a factor has changed. Regarding the cube, given in the scenario of reality, your memory indicates that it formed a certain pattern, and then, upon looking, you can no longer superimpose that pattern onto the current state of things. That does not indicate the presence of a non-existence. I do not see how it could be logically sustained that non-existence "is."

@noahespi 3 ай бұрын

@@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd >>> "The emptiness of a jar..." I only tentatively agree that non-existence cannot be, because the convention still exists, and it refers to something coherent in our experience. We are curious what the nature of that thing is. "Nothing is in the jug." How can we understand that sentence if "nothing" (non-existence, absence, non-being) cannot "be"? To put "is" and "nothing" next to each other in a sentence is a direct contradiction, yes. Nonetheless, the sentence conveys meaning and is true. How can this be? >>> "Seeing the absence of something..." It surely has a foundation in logic, this is what negation is: "Pierre is not here." In reality it also has a foundation. Sartre's Pierre example demonstrates this, but let me also give another one. Imagine I hold out my empty palm, and I ask you, "What is in my hand?" A reasonable answer is, "Nothing." This answer conveys some meaning and is widely understood, so it's likely not just word games. It's not technically true because there are air particles in my hand or what-not, but saying that there is nothing in my hand is a meaningful and reasonable answer that is founded directly in my experience of reality. >>> "I do not agree that noticing the absence..." If I walk into the cafe, I almost immediately recognize if Pierre is there or not. I only see the cafe once in this moment. There is no change in the scenery when I walk in. I notice the presence of every being, but every being is a background to Pierre since I am expecting him. Since I don't see Pierre, I experience no foreground. Pierre is not here, there is nothing in the foreground, everything remains as background. I experience his absence. If I wasn't able to experience the positive absence of some thing (like Pierre), then it isn't clear how we can understand negation at all. Similarly, let's say I walk into the cafe and wait in anticipation for Pierre. Such an emotion and action is only possible because of Pierre's lack of being in front of me. My waiting, my anticipation, is directed toward Pierre's non-being here. >>> "I do not see how it could be logically sustained..." If we don't admit that it can be logically sustained that non-being "is", then it seems we have to admit that saying, "Nothing is in the jug," is incoherent, which seems directly opposed to my experience of an empty jug. Where am I going wrong in my reasoning? Am I equivocating two different senses of "nothing"?

@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd 3 ай бұрын

@@noahespi We use conventional ideas (for practical reasons) that have no relation to reality. "The sun rises every morning." "Creating is making something completely new exist." "Words transfer information." "Truth is an absolute condition." Etc. A good definition of "existence" eliminates all ambiguity and contradiction. To exist must be something opposite to not existing. The exercise of existing, being, cannot be the exercise of not existing. It destroys the meaning of the concepts we use to analyze the topic. An entity is something that exists and is not something that does not exist, and something that exists is an entity, while something that does not exist is not an entity. No. The statement is only comprehensible in everyday terms and in reality it is not true. Inside the jar, there are real entities. Only that which we have conventionally agreed upon is absent. It does not contain wine. Wine exists, but in another part of space or has transformed into something else. Pierre is not here is just a matter of probabilities. If the probability is high, Pierre exists elsewhere. If the probability is low, Pierre is an illusion of your mind. Either his presence or his absence. You do not experience Pierre's absence. You experience the presence of the rest of reality at that moment. You should note that considering what does not exist to exist leads to the contradiction of having to deny the non-existence of the non-existent. :) An empty jar does not prove non-existence. Saying "The jar does not contain wine" (referring to a jar without wine) does not show the non-existence of wine, or the air that the jar now contains, or the magnetic fields that pass through it, or the elementary particles that permeate it, etc. It only proves that the wine is elsewhere.

@SuperLucasSantiago 3 ай бұрын

Free Palestine

@benonaru 3 ай бұрын

damn you

@tygrysgargantuiczny9144 3 ай бұрын

Free Israel!

@maryreilly5102 3 ай бұрын

@@tygrysgargantuiczny9144 Free Palestine!

@tygrysgargantuiczny9144 3 ай бұрын

@Nothining how can something be reborn If it never died? … Maybe when Its being said by Nothing

@michaelwu7678 3 ай бұрын

@@tygrysgargantuiczny9144Israelis are like modern-day N@zi Germans

@alanponikvar3921 3 ай бұрын

Does philosophy have an ultimate goal? How do we know that is the right question? Well, we don't. It is an opinion that we let rule our thinking. Why there is something rather than nothing is only a metaphysical question if we presume there is a divine decider of this question. Otherwise, it is a question for the physicist. The Cartesian subject subsists as the site of a self-performative paradox - the inability to doubt our doubt. The subject is the void that replaces a presumed metaphysical fullness. Hence, Hegel as the "truth" of the modern turn: substance as subject.

@JuanHugeJanus 3 ай бұрын

No-thing-ness IS something... Nothing will and can never be nothing. It does not exist. Something is nothing. The fantasia do not exist, that's all. Does reality stop existing when you realise the fantasia is only a fantasia ... 🙂 Fantasia in Latin is imaginatio.- you do not need to imagine to enter reality, - you can't even exit it...

@novang6093 2 ай бұрын

the reality doesn't stop when you realise that fantasy is only fantasy. as he explain, we need fantasy to access reality. i believe you cant just accept that when you woke up in the morning suddenly there is war going on in front of your house, you will try to seek any reason/news/explanation regarding to what happen in front of your house. any reason you get is "fantasy" to mediate/access/understand/grasp the "reality" (the war in in front of your house). why its fantasy? because the truth doesn't belong to the subject, the truth is out there. well that as far as i understand what he said. maybe im wrong...

@jacobourar 3 ай бұрын

In which books does Žižek mainly elaborate on these ideas? Thanks for the lectures, they are quite good.

@TribuneAquila 3 ай бұрын

Less than nothing

@TribuneAquila 3 ай бұрын

Or really any of them. As žižek has said, he hasn't written 30 books he has written the same book 30 times

@jacobourar 3 ай бұрын

@@TribuneAquilathanks 😃

@BESTMOVIES-cl3lt 3 ай бұрын

Great ❤

@H.C.J. 3 ай бұрын

It sucks that you couldn’t get the full lecture uploaded. Would it be possible to obtain something like a capture card? That way it would save a copy of the stream without having to rely on KZbin’s livestream tools.

@SevenFootPelican 3 ай бұрын

Excellent video, Julian!

@tygrysgargantuiczny9144 3 ай бұрын

I helped him with the background arrangement ☺️

@villevanttinen908 3 ай бұрын

Find God ( love), and demystify God ( hate), it is all about the power ( to me at least), and more or less also to Heidegger ( and Nietzsche too of course).