Видео

왜 韓國式 冊이름이 있나요

Please cover Alena Zupanic on her stance on her understanding reading of Antigone, by Sophocles.

So a well rounded intellect is required in order to be happy which requires study that is almost impossible with all the mindless distraction the modern world provides

So Neiches self made man being relitive to its self is constituted by motives rather then ambition.. To reject ambition for motives would require a well rounded intellect which almost nobody aquires until old age

great lecture!

Hello and thanks for watching! If you’d like to access my seminars and ebooks please visit: www.patreon.com/julianphilosophy

Hello from NYC

Hello Julian, have you thought about talking about the philosophy of Max Stirner?

This whole hypothesis relies on the premise that "the figure of parental authority actually helps child to access its true enjoyment". Is there any proof that child while doing what it pleases is not enjoying itself? No! The whole premise relies on the authority of the psychoanalyst (who is "supposed to know") and a linguistic play with words (le nom - le non). All Julian wants is to castrate your desire, he wants you to be docile and let others think for you. He wants you to fight for your own submission to a capitalist state and repay installments of the imposed infinite debt.

This is the best explanation available on youtube 👌🏾 straight to the point… easy to understand

Made my day thank you

Very beautifully said Julian. It is of great value to learn how others have perceived, experienced and expressed the world around them throughout history, and for where we can find similarities and differences to ourselves. Through this great weaving of ideas, perceptions and experiences we can participate in the world building of our present.

Julian, ive lost my father when i was 4 y/o. Not going into details, this event had profound negative effectsnin my life. What would lacan or zizek say aboit this. About losing your father in childhood?

Ans of course the freudian prohibition that the father represents is against the incestious desire of the child to be with the mother which lacan characterizes as a metaphor that allows the child to reject psychosis and enter the world - namely the symbolic order Thats some deep stuff

As someone who has struggled under liberal parenting, this video has been very useful. Thank you, Julian.

a good father pulls out because it is better to have not been born

Correction and apologies: upon further reflection I realize that I somewhat misrepresented Žižek’s example about the child meant to visit the grandmother. I erroneously claimed that the child is offered a “choice”, when in fact Žižrk’s position is more nuanced: the child is told that they are “supposed to want” to visit the grandmother. This is symptomatic (for Žižek) of the way in which in a supposedly permissive society social domination is outsourced to the nominally free subject, who is “supposed to want” to dominate himself on behalf of the silent/hidden authority. I see now that I missed this crucial dimension in my video, and I’ve been feeling rather badly about it. Hope this comment serves to rectify this somewhat. Apologies. Julian Ps: I’ll do a longer and more nuanced take in tomorrow’s livestream. You can join me here at 9am USA PT.

We can now sit back and enjoy this fathers day appreciating all the times we were scolded and told, No. And perhaps question our existence for all the times we were allowed to act with all abandon against their will 😂

Thank you Julian, always looking forward to one of your videos

1:50 zizek said the liberal parent says “if you don’t go it will make your grandma very upset” not that he just has the option. He meant there’s still force and the kid still has to go

I’ve assumed that the perverted stance on that issue would be the opposite than the adult child obsessing over satisfying the father. Ive assumed the enjoyment mechanism would come to a pervertion of the structure for an adult to maintain spite to his understanding of the father, for a person supposedly capable of self definition to check with himself what would oppose the authority he imagines his father still has, thus maintaining it as a symbol to endlessly try and spite

it's interesting to consider Lacan's idea of prohibition and jouissance in terms of post-modern and neo-liberal politics. Today the left wing so heavily pushs an idea that as long as we continue to deconstruct and demolish prohibitory social systems we will be free. Yet the more we do this the more un-free we feel. imo it should be more about replacing the signifier of the father with something which better fits the needs of a post-modern society, instead of demolishing these things completely and stoping there. The university has been a target of left wing protest recently, just as it has in the past, and instead of advocating for a development of universities and how higher education institutions in general function in the west, the goal mostly is to demolish them in favour of a 'grass-roots' education. Yet at the same time, universities have historically been one of the greatest existing formal institutions that have contributed to and developed left wing political thought and the numerous social issues that encompasses, granting these issues formal recognition. There seems to be a big lack of understanding today on what 'revolution' should look like and how prohibition does not mean oppression. Zizek has a good quote about Lacan's views of the 1968 protests, and how what the students unknowingly were fighting for was a new master. It's better to just be upfront about that, instead of advocating for a completely unrestricted society.

I look forward to these, thanks Julian!

Great video!

Yo Julian, thoughts on Alain Badiou?

awesome!

It is the father that maintains the private space in insulating woman and children from the wise elders.. Poverty is the only way to collapse said liberal private spaces in banishing said fathers to the outer periphery as the crude animals they are

My “Complete Guide to Žižek” ebooks can be found here: www.patreon.com/julianphilosophy

Good point about the sanctity of Hirayama's actions. Hadn't thought of it like that.

This video essay perfectly sums up all the best impressions I have about philosophy as a human activity. I really see it as something that deeply affects our entire being in a way that does not lead to alienation, isolation and disgust, but towarda love, new kind of connection with others and willingness to engage in life meaningfully and with a new strength. I think your channel radiates all of these values, which makes it so unique and nurturing.

My symptom appreciates your symptom, Thank you for sharing

The German term "Geziefer" was originally a word for "sacrificial animal", and today it is found almost exclusively in the Bible. "Ungeziefer" were all animals that were not considered sacrificial animals, which then became a term for vermin, disgusting animals, undesirable animals (usally Insects). Well, I found that out on Wikipedia, I thought it might be interesting...at least if you want to interpret Kafka (I prefer to let him sink in). Great explanation Julian, thank you for your work, sorry, "unwork". ;-)

Singing in the dark times Philosophy as escapism, look high fall into pit of your own making - Plato: instead makes us look for inconsistencies. Human gesture to learn more about reality as a world building exercise

If you want a companion piece to this video Don Carveth just dropped a critique of Beckers book The Denial of Death. Similar themes and Dons channel is gold for psychoanalysis.

Hello Julian, no expectations here, but if you could it'd be awesome, i'd like to hear more about the concept of pathology at least defined for philosophical terms. I realized just now that pathology means illness or disease, but per the Lacanian and Zizekian adds on this Kantian lecture and referring to there being this pathology within us tied to the ethical maxim, what does that actually mean? I was interpreting that term wrong as simply self interest, but I'm more befuddled by this concept of pathology as it relates to the moral maxim and what it embodies within us as conduits of the ethical maxim. Is it really an illness or is it simply a moral flaw presuming self interest and moral maxim is incompatible, and what if they are aligned as with executing justice upon the husband for pleasure but also fulfilling a moral duty at the same time? Thanks in advance.

I just took some absolutely amazing notes on this mini lecture. Kant's Categorical Imperative: What if everyone acted the same, in adherance to a declared moral law? If it leads to hell, we should not do it, if it leads to heaven we should. This interpretation is not staying true to the Kantian philosophy. Kant did not believe there was any apriori framework that we could guarantee to ourselves that our actions were indeed "good." When is it appropriate to lie? Kant would say NEVER, even if to help someone or to prevent pain. What if you know your friend's husband is cheating on them? You don't like the husband because of this, and you know it could destroy the marriage by divulging this to your friend. Reason's to tell your friend: • If I don't tell my friend, it betrays the friendship and helps the immoral husband. Or, as her friend, she expects you to tell her. • You tell yourself it is your duty to tell her, to speak the truth is a must and that you must follow the moral agency of the ethical maxim. Reasons not to tell your friend: •It's possible for the friend to turn on you, maybe she already knows and didn't want it being broadcasted, becomes embarrassed. • Or, she did not genuinely want to know, or be forced to confront knowledge she may have been trying to disavow, or was in denial of. She could also just say thank you so much for telling me. Per Lacan, the element of Pathology is irreducible to the act of duty on 2 fronts: 1. What if you secretly want the marriage to end? You hate the husband for what he's done and derrive happiness, relief or pleasure from divulging the truth. Is the divulging of the truth, at this point self-interested, or for the sake of justice on behalf of the ethical maxim? 2. If you're a true friend, isn't preserving your friend from pain more important? (Here I question what of the point of long term pain being eventually greater than short term pain, precious time lost in a dishonest marriage could be a greater disservice to your friend.) 3. The properly Kantian dimension: What if divulging this truth causing pain and distress to the marriage under the guise of the ethical maxim 'Do not lie', what if you are hiding behind that? Kant: Even if you're doing your duty, you have to assume the radical subjectivity of your position. As soon as somebody says, "I had to do it, I had no choice, I was compelled by the ethical maxim," it is not longer acting ethically. [Is it really no longer ethical? Isn't this concept on a spectrum of 10%-90% genuine ethics versus pathological self-interest?] Lacanian/Zizekian "Pervert" hides one's enjoyment to be the agent of "the other." ☆ For Kant, we can never be the agent of the other of a disembodied moral ethical law. We have to radically assume the pathological element within the ethical as our own. ☆This is precisely NOT the apriori moral framework that affirms our actions are good because they adhere to the ethical maxim. We never fully distinguish our own particular subjective pathological intent from the universal law. So we have to assume our actions, which are pathological, are the unfolding of a universal moral law, so we have to be radically responsible for our actions. You cannot hide behind the moral law, but instead you ARE radically responsible for your own pathological interests that are inextricably tied and co-mingled with the agency of the moral law evoked within you. Kant's radical idea is that the traditional idea or ethics, as to simply follow the pre-ordained commandments which signify good and ethical living is itself unethical, perverted ans estranged [not as far as the moral law is concerned, but the pathological self-interests within oneself that are inseperable from your said moral actions]. Instead to be truly ethical, you must assume the pathological elements of your actions are present and take radical responsibility for what you do as a result, it cannot be blamed on or said to be 100% ordained by an ethical maxim. We cannot hide behind the moral agency of the ethical, moral law. Because of this, the Kantian subject is properly modern and moral in the sense that he is faced with the impossible question of how to act and how to assume the full responsibility of one's own actions [pathologies among the expressions of a moral, ethical law.] Thanks for the lecture Julian!

Will you do a episode on boethius on the some topic? would fit perfectly

In the dark times Will there also be singing? Yes, there will also be singing. About the dark times.

What about Kant's most unimportant idea?

Thanks for this consideration of Marcel Proust's early wondering and the place of philosophical thought in our life journeys.

Thanks! 🐝

In the past weeks, I felt like I had things more or less figured out in terms of where I fit into things. That came after a long time studying these videos and others like them, as well as committing myself to working hard at my hobbies and commitments. Then I disrupted my sleep pattern significantly and wasn't eating as well. I am now struggling to recover what I felt was a healthy balance between knowing that I had my limitations and knowing that so did everyone else, and that's ok. I now feel this is not ok, and I back where I once was. This lecture about being stuck and how wonderfully human that is seems..., well it's uncomfortable, but it also seems to just be conjecture from your position. A literary example interpreted by one person does not a universal truth make. In other videos I felt like there was an epiphany sensation, but here I no longer feel this. Is this just simply a physiological difficulty in producing something like dopamine during this week of poor sleep? How much does the sensation of "truthiness" depend on our ability to eat healthy food and hit REM sleep consistently? All of this seems inadequate in the face of physiological stressors. I worry that our elections will face similar challenges when voting populations are struggling.

Can you explain neitzschean criticism of categorical imperative

I,m from iran

Paul Cilliers notion of a contingency imperative tried to move Kant's ideas into the complexity domain. Well worth a read.

I think Jesus said it a long time before Kant... but hey we're material girls in a materialist world

here is kant, haha jk here is lacan woops

hello julain i have question from you regarding zizek position plz answer it. did zizek accept the idea of innatism .that we have limit of our understanding ,limit of knowledge and innate genetic capicity for example as human embroyo cannot grow as same chicken wings.meaning we have mysteries and problems . for example free will for human falls in mysteries not problem.did zizek accept or reject chomsky these ideas.

Only those with access to porn and food should be held accountable as agents of action.. Poverty is a weapon of white people in lording over the global south

kant stop watching this series