Maurice Merleau-Ponty - Phenomenology of Perception (1/18)

[@버섯들의왕]

I LOVED IT! The first 13 minutes is already incredibly helpful and constructive, and the way in which you explain his phenomenology is simple yet sophisticated - just what I was looking for! Thanks you, really, for the video!

[@absurdbeing2219]

Brilliant. That's awesome. Thanks for leaving a comment. Long live the King of the Mushrooms!

[@JZMurdock]

When I was getting my degree in psych, (Western Washington University, 1984 with Dr. Rod Rees), one day our he gave us a task for that night. Read a certain paragraph at the beginning of Maurice Merleau-Ponty's book, Phenomenology of Perception. Next class. We had some people in this class from the business department getting business degrees and needing a psych elective. One girl from Biz said in class she hated the class and just wanted to get back to the biz dept. None of them could finish that paragraph. I was stunned. All of my fellow psych classmates finished it. Though some with difficulty. Yes, I finished it. To be fair, Ponty is not for the faint of heart. And yes, I still have my copy of this book. I turned my now-adult kids onto it as teens for talking points and even put ref to it in a short story of mine years ago ("Andrew" in "Anthology of Evil" the finishing novella in the book, which led to my writing my next massive macabre sci-fi book, "Death of heaven"). Still. Ponty... fascinating stuff!

[@absurdbeing2219]

Doesn't help that ONE paragraph in PoP can run well over a page!

[@JZMurdock]

@@absurdbeing2219 To be sure,, I look down on no one for not understanding a paragraph in that book. Though the one in question was only a quarter or less of page. But being unable to even finish reading it seems... sad? ;)

[@TeaParty1776]

@@JZMurdock M-P is Kantian, studying the experiences of the unfocused mind. Its worthless, pretentious, complexxitty-worshipping, destructive of the focused mind. He does not see the forest for the trees. He sees twigs and leaves. He does not study how the mind works to guide mans survival in concrete reality. Planting a seed for food reqquires the mind, not reducing man to an animal. Modern philosophy is subjectivism lurching into nihilism.

[@eeeeeeeeejks]

I love the way you explained it, "an attempt to put the subject back into the equation". Fascinating that that would have to be done in the first place!

[@elendil354]

This quote is a perfect example of fancy sounding nonsense. If you would try to actually parse this statment it results in an infinite loop. A coder that writes: "WHILE equation IS unsolved: ADD subject TO equation" Should promptly be fired. But in normal language such nonsensical infinite loops are passed off as profound insigts all the time since few ever bothers to actually PARSE and DEBUG the logic of normal language statments.

[@eeeeeeeeejks]

@@elendil354 man i can completely see where as a coder this sort of loose phrasing to illustrate a concept would really be aggitating. And if i were a coder, it would bug me too. But as an artist and thanks to throwness, here we are with me still finding value in the way it was said. But point taken, i have my own pet bones to pick with language sometimes too.

[@elendil354]

@@eeeeeeeeejks Signal to noise is applicable to all fields. Im not a coder btw.

[@TheCoin100]

Thank you! These lectures will help me a lot in preparation to writing my Master's thesis. Very grateful for this.

[@absurdbeing2219]

That's what I love to hear. Good luck!

[@TheCoin100]

@@absurdbeing2219 Thanks a lot :)

[@samanthaclark4410]

Truly enjoyed this ! It’s helping me so much write my source review essay ! Cant wait for the rest , you explain it so so well, I tried to read the book but found it so difficult but this is great ! Thank you :)

[@absurdbeing2219]

Thanks a lot for the comment Samantha. I'm really glad the video makes the book a little more accessible. Merleau-Ponty is such an interesting thinker, but you're right, he's so hard to read.

[@aseem9873]

Thank you Nathan for your wonderful lectures on PoP! I have a background in anthropology with a focus on body and embodiment, and MP is one major theoretical influence in the field (another being the French tradition of Mauss-Foucault-Bourdieu). I will definitely follow this series!

[@absurdbeing2219]

Thanks Aseem! Really interesting to see the broad influence MP has.

[@holistic_physicalist]

Hi, I'm working on a series on Merleau-Ponty's first book, The Structure of Behavior, on my own channel, and I'm excited to be able to watch this playlist to help me digest Phenomenology of Perception which I'm hoping to dive into next. I have particular familiarity with gestalt, and the gestalt influences on Merleau-Ponty, so if you want to watch the first part of my new series on Structure of Behavior you might find it interesting! I know it's a less popular read. Kurt Goldstein was a particular influence on that book of his, which I am hoping to spread more awareness of. Thank you for your work!

[@absurdbeing2219]

Oh awesome. I never read _The Structure of Behavior,_ but I really should. I have also heard, interesting things about (but, again, never read) Kurt Goldstein. Great to hear of someone else doing the same kind of thing. Good luck with the series!

[@holistic_physicalist]

@@absurdbeing2219 awesome! Yes, highly recommend you read chapters 9 and 11 of Goldstein’s The Organism to go along with your reading of Structure of Behavior because the overlap of ideas is remarkable. I have a four part video series on The Organism which I just finished up.

[@gpalmer456]

Very nice video. Have been wanting to read PoP for several years and finally buckled down and ordered my copy. As a counselor, Being and Time was incredibly influential on how I perform my work and am hoping to extract some ideas from PoP to improve my own methodology. Great video. You’ve earned a subscriber!

[@absurdbeing2219]

Thanks a lot! I'm sure MP won't disappoint.

[@baby_ears]

I don't think you ramble too much - it's helpful to hear different re iterations that dance for an idea. That helps the concept settle in. I like your style. I've been looking for a reader guide for PoP and boom this is it! and now..onto your next video..

[@absurdbeing2219]

Thanks for that. That's really good to hear. Great to have you on board. Strap in. Please keep your arms and legs inside the carriage at all times. It's going to be a bumpy ride!

[@JoeBussiereXXX]

This is cool feels like a college class

[@absurdbeing2219]

Thanks.

[@roygbiv176]

Great intro, I've just been looking for a breakdown of Merleau-Ponty, I'll be following this series closely.

[@absurdbeing2219]

Excellent. Welcome aboard.

[@nathanhassallpoetry]

I found part one! You'll be my gym listening. Cheers Nathan.

[@absurdbeing2219]

@@nathanhassallpoetry Hey Nate. The old mixing philosophy with a workout trick... Can't argue with that!!

[@nathanhassallpoetry]

​@absurdbeing2219 managing to get to this finally. Thank you.

[@RocknRolla1967]

when you said you felt like you're overexplaining stuff, I actually really liked all the different ways you explained it. Those different ways of saying it made me get it more :)

[@absurdbeing2219]

Thanks a lot for the feedback, Tereza. I have wondered what viewers think about that. It is a habit of mine, so I'm glad to hear it is a help not a hindrance.

[@boredtolife7879]

I am looking forward to this series! I appreciate your videos.

[@absurdbeing2219]

Thanks a lot. I'm excited to work through this book too.

[@evanolan5410]

Thank you so much for doing this! You have really helped me to understand Merleau-Ponty, which is important for my studies :) i look forward to watching the rest of the series. I have subscribed and liked!

[@absurdbeing2219]

That's so great to hear. Thanks for leaving a comment Eva.

[@samuelemistrorigo156]

thank you for all of your videos! I am an italian student who is studying the phenomenology of perception and your explanation is incredibly clear and useful Grazie :)

[@absurdbeing2219]

Awesome! Thanks for leaving a comment, and it's so great to hear you like these videos! Prego (thanks Google translate)

[@msmelanie.]

Nathan thanks so much. So looking forward to this series on Merleau-Ponty 😊🙏

[@absurdbeing2219]

Thanks Melanie. This sure has been a long time in the making, hasn't it. Better late than never, I suppose!

[@fufala84]

Great content! Really helps with my psychoanalytic studies actually.

[@absurdbeing2219]

Great to hear. Thanks!

[@fufala84]

@@absurdbeing2219 Keep it coming! I love Henri Bergson and it was great to see that you have vids about his thoughts as well.

[@absurdbeing2219]

@@fufala84 Oh awesome. Yeah, Bergson is pure gold.

[@georgiamorgan4784]

This is fantastic, look forward to watching further videos :)

[@absurdbeing2219]

Thanks Georgia. Welcome aboard!

[@robertkowalczyk762]

You are a brave person! I studied The Phenomenonogy of Perception in my final year at Stirling University in 1975. I'm just watching your first class and your struggle really takes me back. It was the most rewarding study I've ever undertaken and the methodology revealed within has never ceased to inform my being -in -the -world. I'm excited to have your work ahead to further help my understanding. Thank you.

[@absurdbeing2219]

Hi Robert. That's probably a mix of bravery and insanity you're noticing there. I couldn't agree more though. _PoP_ is such a rewarding read if you can fight through it to the end. I hope the rest of the series proves useful.

[@lucyspringall9623]

Thank you! This 1st video is super helpful for an art student that just needs a basic/foundational understanding

[@absurdbeing2219]

Oh great! Thanks for the comment. Quite interesting to see how popular MP is with artists.

[@John-u4p]

I'm listening. I'm being there. I'm seeing. Thanks to you.

[@absurdbeing2219]

@@John-u4p Thanks John. Best of luck as you work through PhP!

[@cuttygrass]

Excellent - using MM-P in my PhD and these videos are like having a conversation with someone about it. Really useful, and since you're a fellow kiwi it seems like talking to a colleague! Cheers.

[@absurdbeing2219]

Haha nice. Great to hear from another Kiwi! Best of luck with the PhD.

[@Novapsihoanaliza]

Great lecture! Best channel on youtube!

[@absurdbeing2219]

Thanks a lot Vladimir. I'll do my best to live up to that very generous assessment.

[@JuanitoTartara]

Hey, great video, thanks for sharing. Have you considered on making videos on Schütz' Phenomenology of the social world? Would be a great series of videos to watch

[@absurdbeing2219]

Thanks Juanito - I have never heard of Schutz. He does seem interesting. Good to put him on my radar, but a video series is probably not on the immediate horizon.

[@JuanitoTartara]

@@absurdbeing2219 His work on phenomenology was very influenced by Husserl and he applied that theoretical and methodological framework on the social sciences.

[@richardfairley9882]

That's a great start! This is one text that defeated me - even Heidegger's 'Contributions' seemed easier! Looking forward to this journey...

[@absurdbeing2219]

Thanks. Yes, I also found his writing style hard to penetrate in a way that, as you say, I don't think Heidegger or Sartre were.

[@growingmelancholy8374]

I think the mistake people make in approaching Merleau-Ponty is failing to understand the context in which he is writing AND the extent to which he puts significant importance on the body in relation to perception, knowledge and understanding.

[@absurdbeing2219]

​@@growingmelancholy8374 Right. And if you miss that second point, there's really no way you can understand MP at all.

[@growingmelancholy8374]

@@absurdbeing2219 Indeed. And since Heidegger was mentioned in the original post, I'd like to say that I like how Merleau-Ponty sums up Heidegger's magnum opus. Also, I would refer anyone who wants to "combat" Heidegger's thinking to Levinas' Totality and Infinity. I hope we can move beyond Heidegger one day and that thinkers like Merleau-Ponty and Levinas can take more prominent roles, particularly in American philosophy departments. Merleau-Ponty actually has a much more prominent role in gender studies, sometimes without people even realizing it, than he does in American Philosophy departments. I can't speak about elsewhere.

[@absurdbeing2219]

@@growingmelancholy8374 That's interesting. It does seem MP has attracted some attention outside philosophy departments. I didn't know about gender studies, but I was surprised to see a couple of comments here from people in the visual arts.

[@kso35]

Thank you for covering this book!!! I have been on the fence on buying it or not. I think I will now. Thank you!

[@absurdbeing2219]

That's awesome to hear! I definitely recommend _PoP._ You also mentioned the sound in the video is low. I just had a listen on KZbin, and I think you're right. I might have to invest in a standalone mic.

[@calfredie0170]

I can't wait to start this series! Ponty I feel is quite overlooked. One question I have however is whether or not you plan to touch on Hegel at any point. He has been a huge influence on Continental Philosophy

[@absurdbeing2219]

I couldn't agree more. He is massively underrated. I''m actually a little surprised (but obviously pleased) at the response to this video. I thought I was the only one who had stumbled onto him! I bought PoP knowing almost nothing about Merleau-Ponty, and expecting a philosophy within the Sartrean worldview (especially considering their close association). Needless to say, I was very pleasantly surprised. I definitely do want to read Hegel at some point. He's not at the top of my list at the moment, but one never knows when the Philosophy Muses will strike!

[@zleepo]

thank you for such detailed n same time precise analysis ... english is not my native, but i hear and understand your sharing sound and clear, really appreciate your effort and sincerity, very enjoyable channel !

[@absurdbeing2219]

That's great to hear.Thanks for watching!

[@Niekoue]

Hi Absurd Being I'm doing a paper on how phenomenology in general and Merleau Ponty in particular breaks with Cartesian subject-object dualism (with focus on the phenomenology of perception), and in what way and to what degree the subject-object dualism has a place and can be reintroduced to the phenomenological framework (or unframed work??) of Merleau-Ponty in particular and phenomenology in general. It has proved to be a monumental task! What confuses me is that Merleau-Ponty continuously uses the notions of object and subject, even though he presumably wants to get rid of this paradigm. How can you use the terminology of a paradigm you don't participate in? It makes no sense to me. I would really like to hear your thoughts on the matter! I'm all in on the lived and inhabited body as a metaphysical prerequisite for experience of the world, and how the world is given to the body as for-the-body, ready-to-hand/for-the-hand etc. He says that the positing of objects is the death of consciousness, yet he posits many object, and he investigates the cases scientificly - which basicly means presupposing Cartesian subject-object dualism, since Descarte founded science on objective observation by scientific subjects.

[@absurdbeing2219]

Hi Niekoue, That sounds like a really interesting paper. Your question was a good one and warranted a proper response, which therefore turned out to be a little long, so I hope you don't mind, but I posted it on my forum instead: www.absurdbeing.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3127 Thanks for the interesting question!

[@Niekoue]

@@absurdbeing2219 thanks for the thorough response, it is much appreciated! I like your analogy of lower dimensional and higher dimensional space. Maybe object and subject are the boundaries of a spectrum of being-in-the-world, to make another mathematical analogy. Further, if we always experience in a subject/object dualistic way, why would we want to get rid of it in the first place? Maybe the point is not to get rid of it, but to make the line of distinction fluid; changing from moment to moment. Thus salvaging Descartes. I'm just thinking out loud. I've really got my mouth full with this paper. Anyways, thanks again for taking the time to help me out :)

[@zeb358]

Hi Nate, so glad to see you tackle Merleau-Ponty. I've never read his stuff in any detail but have listened to Dreyfus lectures online which are excellent. What I like about Merleau-Ponty are the parallels between his thinking and that of Buddhism. In that, both take a non-dualistic stance to human bodily existence . And he rejects Satre's strict dualism of being in itself and being for itself. I like Merleau-Ponty's idea of the body as neither pure entity nor pure consciousness, it is an ambiguous middle point. Thus the body is equal to behavior of one's body - which is very existentially gestalt. I also like his pessimism of the existential reality that there is no salvation and therefore he lacks any desire to liberate people from the suffering and pain caused by the reality of living in the world. Buddism adheres to this too but to a point - becasue to the buddhist there is such salvation to be found in Nirvana. That's where they both depart, I think. But overall the similarities centre around the no-self and his non-dual approach to the self when he says "I apprehend my body as a subject-object, as capable of "seeing" and "suffering". Anyway, I will at some point tackle his magnum opus one day but it is nearly 700 pages long and I got a queue of other books shouting out to be read too! So glad you'll be tackling this! Cheers!

[@absurdbeing2219]

Hi Zeb, Right. I didn't make the connection with Buddhism when I read PoP, so that's good to know. He definitely is the guy to go to regarding grounding existence in the body though. He is very much underrated, I feel. I read him not expecting a lot, but was totally blown away. I really want to read The Visible and the Invisible now as well. Needless to say, I highly recommend PoP, although I know you have a lot on your plate! Looking forward to hearing more of your thoughts as this series progresses...

[@comu157]

Yeeeah, MP sets traps for our knowledge. I was quoting him in a paper for a class on philosophical dissertation (the theme was language and socialization and cognition) until I actually reread the passage and went even further just to see the man demolish my views on the subject.

[@absurdbeing2219]

Haha~that's a good story/warning

[@Chalkhat]

@@absurdbeing2219g😂

[@claretan5625]

A year late for this comment but I just wanted to thank you because this is so helpful!

[@absurdbeing2219]

Ha - never too late to receive compliments! Glad it helped!

[@van5958]

Is there a distinction between having a body and being a body?

[@absurdbeing2219]

Definitely. The first implies that 'you' are something different from your body; i.e. that your body is like a possession you own, or an instrument you use. The second means 'you' are embodied; i.e. there is no you without the body.

[@karolinarupp1710]

Thank you for the great introduction! I was wondering though if essences have intentionality?

[@absurdbeing2219]

Hi Karolina. Thanks for watching. Interesting question... I see the essence of a thing as basically just what a thing is in our experience; i.e. prior to every secondary, reflective thematisation of the thing. This, I think, is a phenomenological account of essence; as opposed to a metaphysical account, which might see essence as some special, inner 'core' that is the 'real' thing. Intentionality, on the other hand, applies only to conscious subjects. So, your question then is, 'Are conscious subjects essences?' Or perhaps, 'Do conscious subjects have an essence?' As I have defined essence above, I would have to say no. This sounds too much like a soul for me. In short, I think humans have intentionality, and the things we perceive have essences only insofar as they are perceived.

[@karolinarupp1710]

@@absurdbeing2219 Very interesting! Thank you!

[@NARCISALISPAHIC]

Great book, thnx for your work.

[@absurdbeing2219]

Thanks for tuning in and leaving a comment!

[@jimmyfaulkner1855]

Fascinating video! I have a question though. It is quite obvious that Merleau-Ponty’s criticism of Descartes’ Cartesianism (and its fundamental assumptions) implies his rejection of both substance dualism and physicalism. These are the two dominant views in the philosophy of mind. However, since this is the case, what are his ontological views on the nature of consciousness (the mind-body problem)? Are his views aligned with something like ‘dual-aspect monism’ or are his phenomenological views that unique that it transcends meaningful classification?

[@absurdbeing2219]

Thanks. Glad you liked it. You’ve touched on something I’m quite interested in, and which tends to be, in my opinion, a source of virtually endless confusion; namely, the difference between metaphysics and phenomenology. Substance dualism and physicalism are both what I would call metaphysical positions. I would also call the mind-body problem a metaphysical one. When I say ‘metaphysics’, I mean concerned with _explanations_ concerning the fundamental nature of reality. Metaphysics must explain, for example, how consciousness, time, space, etc. arise in the universe. The thing is that MP is doing phenomenology; i.e. _describing_ lived, human experience _already in a world._ There are no ‘explanations’ for any of these things in phenomenology; just descriptions of how we _live_ them. Thus, I wouldn’t call him a dual-aspect monist because this is a metaphysical position. I probably also wouldn’t say that “his phenomenological views [are] that unique that it transcends meaningful classification” either, because a) he is part of a rich phenomenological tradition including Husserl, Heidegger, and Sartre among others, but also because b) rather than transcending classification, it is more that he is working in a different domain; i.e. phenomenology as opposed to metaphysics.

[@jimmyfaulkner1855]

@@absurdbeing2219 Thanks for the response! I think you make great points in clarifying that phenomenology and metaphysics are usually two different domains of philosophical analysis and inquiry (especially that of Husserl). It would therefore appear misguided in attempting to decode the metaphysical implications of a phenomenological analysis when it comes to understanding the nature of perception via our experiences. However, the more time has gone by, the more I am coming to believe that Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenological philosophy has important ontological implications. In The Visible and the Invisible, (I know it is incomplete but it is still an important book), one of the commentators of it has pointed out (Xavier Tillette, Merleau-Ponty 1970, p. 88) that “in a poetico-ontological incantatory style,” Merleau-Ponty intended to fulfill, in his own words (all of these quotes are found inside The Visible and the Invisible), “the necessity of a return to ontology," that is, "the necessity of bringing them [the results of The Phenomenology of Perception] to ontological explicitation." According to him, "The Phenomenology of Perception, which can be considered as psychology, is in reality an ontology." With all this in mind, I believe we *must* therefore consider Maurice Merleau-Ponty's entire phenomenological philosophical project as essentially ontological in orientation. The *Phenomenology of Perception* aimed to establish an epistemological foundation for our ontological beliefs, while *The Visible and the Invisible* seeks to illuminate the nature of our perceived reality from a phenomenological standpoint. These projects share a continuity, as the former's epistemological phenomenology implies its ontological thesis, and the latter's ontological thesis is inevitably deferred by extensive phenomenological descriptions. Consequently, Merleau-Ponty's ontology can be seen as a phenomenological ontology, where the inseparable connection between the knower and the known in the act of knowing makes it logically impossible to separate phenomenology as epistemology from ontology as the theory of Being - they are two sides of the same coin, differing in focus.

[@absurdbeing2219]

@@jimmyfaulkner1855 Nice. I actually totally agree with that. I've also read _The Visible and the Invisible_ and 100% agree that it is as important as you say. Further, I also agree that phenomenology and ontology are two sides of the same coin. However (there is one 'however'), I don't think ontology is metaphysics. Cartesian dualism and monism aren't ontological notions - they are attempts to explain how the universe is such that mind can appear (or not appear in a strict physicalist picture) in it. 'Being' is something different (or one of those two words is redundant). I am going to (self-) publish a book soon (along with a vid here introducing it) which goes into this in much more detail. This is my biggest criticism of MP - he drifts into metaphysical territory I think, without realising it, especially when it comes to time. The end of _PhP_ reads, to me, like an attempted metaphysical explanation of time which misses the mark because he has no metaphysical foundations. He drifts into the metaphysical regarding time in particular because, in my opinion, he had Bergsonian duration (a fully-fledged metaphysical concept) in the back of his mind. I do plan to do a series on _V&I_ later this year, so some of this might come up there!

[@jimmyfaulkner1855]

@@absurdbeing2219 I am glad to hear that you found what I said fruitful and that we both appreciate Merleau-Ponty’s book: The Visible and the Invisible. I am looking forward to both potentially reading your future book and potentially watching your future videos discussing this topic 😊. I do want to clarify one thing though. You said you “don’t think ontology is metaphysics.” I find that fascinating because I always thought ontology (the study of ‘Being’) is really a sub-branch within the branch of philosophy that is metaphysics. I always pictured it as ontology tells you *what exists* (or what the world is made out off) and once that is established, metaphysics tells you how *it all fits together* (or how everything that is determined to exist, interconnects with everything else, thereby potentially creating a fully coherent systematic worldview). According to you then, why is ontology and metaphysics separate from one another? How do you define both of them? How is ‘Being’ distinct from ‘metaphysical notions’ in the philosophy of mind, such as Cartesian substance dualism and physicalism (whether reductive or non-reductive)?

[@absurdbeing2219]

@@jimmyfaulkner1855 Those definitions of ontology and metaphysics seem pretty defensible to me. I guess my only criticism would be that ontology defined like that seems a little redundant. If, you are a physicalist, then your ontology is physical matter. If you are an idealist, your ontology is mind or consciousness. Ontology as a discipline, then, wouldn't exist because it's just a _general_ name for your _particular_ belief regarding what the world is made of. I take my definition of being from Heidegger as that by which a thing is the thing that it is. The 'being' of different things (time, space, matter, consciousness, etc.) can thus be investigated to more fully understand what they are. My metaphysics is more like your ontology, but I define it as the fundamental nature of reality, and understand it as a whole in relation to parts. I talk about metaphysics quite a bit in several of my articles on my blog/website, so, in lieu of my book dropping (which I am just about to get back to work on and which explains all of this in much more detail), I would direct you there. Sorry if it seems as if I'm fobbing you off, but there is just so much to say about this topic that I can't do it justice in a YT comment. Suffice it to say, all your questions will be answered in about a month courtesy of Amazon!

[@stefanielorimer9693]

yay - what a find :D thank you.

[@absurdbeing2219]

Hey Stefanie. Welcome aboard!

[@鄭貞子-z8k]

I appriceate your lecture.

[@absurdbeing2219]

Thanks so much.

[@Gray-dr2ri]

I appreciate this series, I recently read this but I was in a rush so I was reading about 70 pages per day, and so I may have missed a few points

[@absurdbeing2219]

70 pages a day. That is quick. Never fear. I have all your MP needs right here!

[@lifenlivingpriyam]

Sir can I have ur mail I'd I want to ask something about merleau ponty

[@absurdbeing2219]

Sure; [e-mail] - oh, and just call me Nathan.

[@lifenlivingpriyam]

Thnku so much sir..😊

[@matthewjbacher]

If it never finishes, why do all the philosophers always claim the end of history?

[@absurdbeing2219]

The 'history' in the expression "end of history" is narrowly defined in political or socio-economic terms. The idea that history 'ends,' then, suggests that humanity will eventually settle on an optimum style of government. For Marx, this was communism; for Hegel, it was one which allows the attainment of the Absolute.

[@navi6110]

ahh, thank you. I am so happy for this.

[@absurdbeing2219]

Thanks Navi. Welcome to the series!

[@flewgarcia]

Gracias ! muy bueno

[@absurdbeing2219]

You're welcome! Thanks for watching.

[@hunter11945]

this videos helped me read and understand being and nothingness last year, im starting phenomenology of perception now this year with absurd being again. thanks for the mentoring!

[@absurdbeing2219]

Oh brilliant. Welcome back for round 2! You'll like Merleau-Ponty, although he is quite a tough read (even compared to B&N).

[@roygbiv176]

At 20:50 you characterise idealism as solipsistic, I'm not sure this is a fair critique as idealism may acknowledge multiple coexistent subjects with some fundamental unity in their consciousness. They are dissociated personalities of universal mind, but as such their own subjectivity is only as real as that of their peers.

[@absurdbeing2219]

Thanks for pointing that out. I'm painting idealism with a bit of a broad brush there. The way Merleau-Ponty discusses idealism (or 'intellectualism' as he also calls it) is always in connection with the idea of the _subject_ as the constituting consciousness, rather than a universal Mind, within which individual subjects participate. (Your use of the word "personalities" suggests a Bernardo Kastrup influence there perhaps?)

[@roygbiv176]

@@absurdbeing2219 yes well spotted, I've found Kastrup refreshingly lucid and accessible, I think he manages to logically express the sentiments that spiritually inclined people have, and his system is abstract enough that I havnt found reason to object to it yet. Admittedly he was my entry into idealism so I'm not very familiar with other uses of the term.

[@Haveuseenmyjetpack]

15:58 epoche is pronounced ee-poh-kay - 99.9% sure. I appreciate your reading! Thank you.

[@absurdbeing2219]

Good to finally know!

[@carlalopes2182]

Ea poh kea (withou 'ay') 'e' as you read in (e)ver. Greek.

[@carlalopes2182]

Thank you so much for this lovely introduction!

[@PierreRousselot]

@@absurdbeing2219"Eh-poh-kay": first 'e' is an epsilon (short 'e', "eh") and last one is a long eta ("ay," though I think the Br. pronounciation is a *bit* closer to the "eh" of an epsilon). And "hyle" (or "hule"), the Gr. for matter, is polysyllabic and also ends in an eta. So "hoo-lay."

[@elendil354]

Having a body-- and everything about the body -- is only known through a concious experience, so how does Poty create a mind/body distinction? It seems arbitry to me.

[@absurdbeing2219]

Short answer - there is no mind-body distinction. Minds are necessarily embodied. Yes, I know about my body (and everything else) through conscious experience, but Merleau-Ponty's point is that conscious experience is precisely not a disembodied, transcendent mind observing an objective 'reality' through a machine distinct from it, and which it somehow manipulates. Of course, I can view my body as a physical object (like science does), but even then, the 'view' that I take on it (the conscious experience) is necessarily embodied. I can only see my body 'through' my body.

[@elendil354]

@@absurdbeing2219 "Minds are necessarily embodied" - This is true only if there is an external world AND if that external world is ledgible to us via pereption, otherwise it does not hold. And the external world cant be ledgible or perhaps even cant exist since any external must be beyond and separate from sense perceptions. It must be made of something other than sense perceptions, othervse it would not be separate. So we can know that the "world in it self/the external" is nothing like out sense perceptions. It is illegible and beyond our power of conceptualization, and thus illegible. Redness, Shape, testure, hunger, having a body, space, time etc, are all manifestations to conciousness. Not the other way around. So anything we can experience and percieve cant exist separate from that perceptions. ANd saying that it does is saying that there are square circles. Because the nature of a aquare is to be not a circle. And the nature of the external is to be NOT perception. So we acan not even form a thought about it. OK sorry for the long reply, and than k you for yours. Im Trying to sort out these questions about what reality is, can be or cant be. And im not a philosopher so sorry if i said something very stupid :D

[@absurdbeing2219]

@@elendil354 No need to apologise - it’s always good to discuss this stuff. So, your claim is that since the external world is different from our sense perceptions of it, even made of something different, the external world is therefore “illegible” or “beyond our power of conceptualization.” This conclusion doesn’t follow. It’s like saying that because a photo of a cat isn’t made of fur and skin, and is “separate from” the cat, it therefore can’t be an accurate visual representation of it. What _does_ follow from that initial observation is that a truly external world cannot be _the same as_ my sense perceptions of it. I agree with this. Exactly the same can be said about the claim that redness, shape, etc., are manifestations to consciousness, and anything that we experience can’t exist separate from those conscious perceptions. This conclusion just isn’t valid. With regard to your claim that it is the “nature of the external… to be NOT perception,” I am not claiming the external world and my perception of it _are the same._ I’m simply saying that there is an external world, and I perceive it. Yes, minds are embodied only if there is an external world to which we have epistemological access. I think both of these are, in some form or fashion, true, though. I don’t think we can adequately describe conscious experience if we start from the assumption that we are transcendent, disembodied entities either surrounded by a reality of which we cannot form a single idea, or surrounded by nothing.

[@TeaParty1776]

M-P evades mind except in a random part of PofP. Hes amusing but not a philosopher.

[@christopherhamilton3621]

@@TeaParty1776I think your dismissal is rather superficial. Why not present your argument rather than an opinion?

[@dannysze8183]

the volume is too low.

[@absurdbeing2219]

Yes, thanks. I only just realised how low it was. I wish I'd spotted it earlier.

[@dannysze8183]

@@absurdbeing2219 I wanted to listen to your lecture but cannot. must be interesting.

[@absurdbeing2219]

You can't hear it at all? That's disappointing. I mean I know it's low, but it's easily audible on my computer if I turn the volume up.

[@dannysze8183]

@@absurdbeing2219 that is ok. I have low concentration. what do you think about Heideggar ? are you PhD in philosophy ?

[@absurdbeing2219]

Ah ha. Love Heidegger. No PhD (in anything) so satisfying my desire to learn/teach philosophy on KZbin instead.

[@kso35]

the sound in your videos is very low, can you speak up more? Thank you. :)

[@todwinminas9512]

who's here because their philosophy teacher made them to

[@TeaParty1776]

M-P is the philosopher of nightclubs.