Parmenides: Pre-Socratic Philosophy
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 05. 2024
- Professor Angie Hobbs discusses the ancient Greek Pre-Socratic thinker, Parmenides. This is from the University of Sheffield.
00:00 Introduction
04:59 The Way of Truth
12:30 Analysis of the Way of Truth
20:42 The Way of Seeming
41:32 The Legacy of Parmenides
#Philosophy #Parmenides #Metaphysics
I love the way she keeps summing up as the talk proceeds. Thanks for the video.
Yes, her didatic is incredible.
Wow I'm going to have to listen to this one again, so much to unpack. I really enjoy the way she takes the time to explain different interpretations.
I'm willing to believe a LOT of people are literally not thinking of anything.
The evidence is strong.
Dr. Hobbs is now my bedtime stories.
You'll get no argument from me; and she could tell me a bedtime story any night of the week....
If Parmenides interests you be sure to check out Peter Kingsley's phenomenal work.
One of the absolute best "In Our Time" guests.
Great show. I love the Zenobia episode
Thank you for this presentation.
I enjoy the clear vision that goes from the Vedic philosophy to the Greek...to Buddhism, Bergson... Bernardo Kastrup.
Straightforward, elegant.
Incredible. Simply an incredible and clear lecture on one of the most opaque philosopher.
I came across a great book called 'Reality' by Peter Kingsley. Any opinions on it?
To be,or not to be,that is the question!
Great presentation Dr. Hobbs! All of your parameters could also lead to an intertwined argument to interpret the truth according to the presocratics. We have already released our own philosophical theory that is available to the public!
great lecture! Thank you.
It's the best explanation I've ever heard about Parmenides words. Congratulations, and I encourage you to deal with other "difficult" philosophers (are there easy ones?) such as Zeno himself, Hegel, etc.
Now imagine the word "difficult" without the inverted commas. Does that change the meaning?
@@anhumblemessengerofthelawo3858 depends if you mean that the philosopher 'is difficult' in a predicative sense, or whether the 'difficulty is' in an existential sense existing as one of the qualities of the said philosopher
Thank you so much for this wonderful lesson about Parmenides. I loved professor Hobbs's clarity and enthusiasm. Wonderful video.
This explanation about Parmenides gave me the will to get more knowledge about his thinking. Thank you very much for being so informative and clear.
Very thorough and informative, and I love her hair!
Thank you!
Beautiful philosophical stuff
Thnks for sharing
Also i feel the lady is very cool plus smart too
Clear, easy to follow the complexity of his philosophy
good work
What a Beautiful explanation of all the forms of consciousness! And the disillusioned ego and sense of self! Brilliant!
Thank You...
She is a masterful teacher, as with others below, best presentation I have seen so far. My opinion, check out Parmenides in light of Zurvanism, as explained by Mary Boyce, History of Zroastrianism Volume 2. Showing Zoroastrian influences on Presocratic philosophers. Being is non local monist eternity, and the seeming is finite linear time and dualistic.
Frankly, the best interpretation of Parmenides' poem I've heard. But, after reading and rereading different interpretations/translations of his poem and other authors writings on Parmenides philosophy, I've tentatively come up with a theory that what his 'being' is, is Consciousness itself. There can only be consciousness(the way of truth) and things that appear to us within our consciousness(the way of opinion). Anyway, great video and great work by the presenter. 🙂
Nice take, but Parmênides says that Being never ceases to exist (become not-being) so by your interpretation our conciousness Will never cease to exist.
@@alexandrefelipealmeidacost347 yes, that's a good point. I must say, that I come to this from my studies of Advaita Vedanta. That may have influenced my interpretation of Parmenides theory. I'm not sure if the ancient Greeks had a native word for consciousness, but esti seems/might fit that meaning?
@@alexdetrojan4534yes, in Advaita Vedanta Being and Consciousness (Sat and Chit), are ultimately realized to be the same , which means the reality of the universe and the reality of Self are the same.. So Atman (Self) and Brahman (the ultimate reality) are the same. This is stated in the mahavakya from the Mandukya Upanishad.. Ayam Atma Brahma.
The other fundamental idea in Advaita Vedanta is Shankara's famous statement..
brahma satyam jagan-mithyä jivo brahmaiva näparah
Which means that Brahman is unchanging truth, reality.. (satyam) Since reality is defined by that which doesn't change.
.. changing appearances have no existence of their own and are merely apparent.. (mithya) Always changing ungraspable (jagan)
...the reality of jiva is Brahman (ultimate reality)
@@alexdetrojan4534 What about if consciousness is merely the lens with which we perceive 'what seems'
What? There is nothing special about the neural activity of a recently evolved ape species, sorry. Not to mention within his historical context there is no equivalent word so you might as well say "replace being with Jabberwocky".
Thank you so much for this
Do you do one on Wittgenstein?
She is specialised in Ancient Greek philosophy. There are plenty of great videos about Wittgenstein on this channel and others.
Wonderful discussion. Hopefully, you will broach the works of Hegel
That's beautiful. We're not used to study Parmenides...
4 possible interpretations why Parmenides also wrote Way of Seeming stated by Professor Angie Hobbs
1) The Goddess wanted Parmenides to hold his own in debates against other natural philosophers.
2) The Goddess thinks Way of Seeming gonna enforce the Way of Truth. The world of appearances is false because it says there is both being and not being.
3) The Way of Truth is compatible with the Way of Seeming. Appearances exist but being exists underneath.
4) The Way of Truth needs Way of Seeming. (Assuming Parmenides know the Way of Truth is contradictory) Reason on its own can't tell much on its own and so we have to turn to our senses.
Thank you!🙏🏻
It seems that being is like a book which we open and read
everything is there
but we must turn the pages ...
What is on page ten is not on page one
And then there is the appendix; which might need to be removed at some point....
Thank you for putting this lecture on CZcams. If Parmenides was indeed a true dialectician as suggested in interpretation 4, which would turn him into an even more innovative thinker than we already know he was, shouldn't we find traces of this in subsequent works of the Pre-socratics, Plato/Ari or in various testimonia? Or perhaps you consider that such traces actually do exist?
I'd like to see Professor Angie hobbs weave together Heraclitus and Parmenedis
I was confused about Parmenides. Now I have a wayout.
Lovely...
Read the book, "In the Dark Places of Wisdom" by Peter Kingsley
Journey faithful song
Angie, men like great Parmindes, Zeno, Socrates..etc have drastically different value system than the one 'westren' thinkers usually try to force on them. their discussions reveals only as much sense as the reciever's noble status allows.
The way of seeming is not just a description of how things appear but a theory in the style of theories of the day -- for example, Anaximenes' theory that everything is air -- and that is the idea that Parmenides is arguing against. There is only one satisfactory way to make the distinction between appearance and reality that doesn't just posit 'more of the same', and that is to posit something that does not have, or lack, 'predicates'. Interestingly, Anaximander had a not dissimilar idea, with his 'apeiron', the 'formless' basis of all existing things, but (arguably) Parmenides' logic is superior to that of his great predecessor.
Top again. 🌹
You can see Nietzsche's philosophy in this and Heraclitus so clearly. The laws of appearances and 🔥.
Epicurus next?
good
Thanks for this lecture! Parmenides thoughts remind me of the tenets of Vedanta: Brahman is real, the world is appearance. The soul is not other than Brahman. Indeed, these are questions one ought to reflect on one's whole life.
Exactly!
I doubt he would understand any more than we what they were talking about lol
He is explaining we are not the main character. We are only one character enjoying all views with half truths putting the peaces together. However our progress of technologies is false. That now we have lost our way and our humanity is dying, lack of knowing itself.
We're STILL grappling with this problem. And quantum mechanics is clouding the issue even more--that a thing can be AND not be simultaneously, while we are observing it with our senses.
Potential = Being
Actual = Becoming (actualized).
That which is, that is nothing in particular (actual), is by definition everything in general (potential).
Principle: Reality (That which is).
Attribute: Absolute (All-inclusive).
What appears as separate and opposite, is in Reality - Continuum.
Being aware of nothing is still being aware - of being aware.
I think that his point was that like thought nothing can exist, in the present, in a negative state. For example I can't be not a thing. I can't be 'not green' because in whole or in part I can't be and not be. In other words, 'not green' can't be within the set that represents what I am. We can think about negative states, but we can't BE not a thing. In that sense all that is, must be an IS.
21:28 Here is one of the best examples of why a broad horizon is helpful when it comes to - everything, really - but to history and philosophy especially: What the goddess is telling Parmenides is exactly what the World Mother tells in the Srimad Bhagavatam when she grants her boon and shows herself: What is seen is Maya which seems to exist so much that she makes people believe this to be real, but is an illusion, completely different from consciousness, intelligence and real being.
Parmenides would have a clue what you are talking about, not to mention that religious text has no evidence going for it.
Angie Hobbs is a babe.
Extraordinary how these arguments about being and nothingness (so ably and engagingly explained by Dr Hobbs) are the same as the ones modern cosmology grapples with: did the Universe emerge from nothing; is nothing even a ‘thing’; does time really exist?
The Ways feel very mystical to me, like merkabah. I can't help but feel that this was meant to be understood on an emotional level rather than analyzing each claim, and that (for mystical teachings) it would not be intended to be discussed except between a couple of people, slowly, as a way to expand their mind.
I'm not saying I intend to experience it that way or I wouldn't be here. That's just the vibe I get.
I feel like if reason refuted itself about being, the natural conclusion would either be that the methods of reason were faulty or that there is no being. I think that's cool but would seem to be the opposite of the point.
I can point to nothing: here it is!
Are all smart people gorgeous or are we designed to perceive them as more gorgeous than they are, just because we get enchanted by their mind?
It seems to me the Eleatic conception is caused by a limitation in language. Perhaps language is merely a symbol?
What I often find so fascinating about Parmenides is not so much his philosophy being very similar to the philosophies unfolding in the East at the time, but how the West tragically managed to drop this philosophical line throughout so much of its history, went about effectively claiming they were the pinnacle of right thought for centuries on end, only to finally get to today in which both science and philosophy are now reconsidering the truth behind his philosophy, while still giving very little deserved credence to the centuries worth of deep philosophical understanding that the East had been immersed in practically the whole time from which the West had long jumped off the rails. It's as if one cannot help but to think irony and hypocrisy became the West's bride and groom, and we are tragically, today, paying the cost of such an abominable union.
are you familiar with Guénon's writings?
@@pseudoplotinus Nice call. A rare and wonderful breakthrough coming out of the West.
If Being refers to the Existential being as opposed to the Predicative being then, analogously, Nothing, which has no referent and therefore not an Existential being, refers to the Predicative being only, doesn't it? Such as there is nothing in my right hand and something/s ( a pen, a wedding ring) in my left hand. Nothing can be thought quantitatively out (e.g. zero) and only in relation to something, such as the absence of discrete things within a set (e.g. the absence of a pen and wedding ring in my right hand). That much only Nothing can be thought out. It can only be tought quantitatively or else, predicatively, as the absence of a discret unit.
I take issue with such notions of "I think; therefore, I am". Isn't it the goal of deep meditation to not think; for Being to expose its awareness as separate from thought. Being proceeds thoughts, thoughts are not Being as they are merely noticed by Being.
As somebody who is an anxious intellectual my logos chatters constantly... It's practically all I know. But through a spiritual experience I was able to separate completely from my thoughts. It was only after a few seconds that I noticed the silence.... No thoughts, just basic observational awareness of my surroundings. Then the thoughts started to float by, but I didn't closely associate with those words I was thinking like I would normally would. Neuropsychologically, the 'self' is constructed through the default mode network as it organizes an autobiographical story with habitual patterns of self-reference. The 'self' is a neurobiological way of organizing synaptic patterns- synaptic patterns pre-originate the default mode network, thus Being through other neuronal systems probably arose before the seeming-ness of the 'self'.
I think it is acting towards universal goals; motivated seeking truth; being conscious of the world as it is with ourselves removed, can we see the strands of how things are and how to bring upon universal goals.
16:53 bookmark
Wow, one immediately thinks William Shakespeare putting words in the mouth of Hamlet, King Lear, and Prospero, to name a few. To be or not to be and nothing comes from nothing. What is just seems to be and nothing more
B4 i existed, i did not exist. But now i exist, all that i am already existed b4 me.
Modern physics is also confirming The universe is one through entanglement theory.
Kewl!
I think of him more as Post-Heraclitean, but that's me. Okay, I'll watch the video.
And maybe Parmenides just like poetry. Because it sounds nice.
great video. intuitively however, I don't feel all is absolute. it may be so for the soul, but as mortals we respect the laws of conservation of mass and energy, where change is absolute. change is just an illusion is great for rational satisfaction but seems to yield nothing practical... I enjoy every other distinction about only beingness and thinking being inseparable, but this idea that the manifested realms are automatically false reality, is usually some guy in the caves with his eyes closed all his life. no one judges him for that, so don't judge me for surfing today's wave (not to say anyone is mad with me for that lol)
I'll write down here the interpretations 3 and 4, they're just too heterodox and I might forget it.
Interpretation 3
If there is only the way of truth, then how the appearences originate? It would be impossible to have any difference if the only truth is the logical one.
Then, the dualist world (Being and Non-being) has to be real in some sense. On the abstract ontological sense, there's only Being, you can't think of differences, but these become real on the predicative sense.
We would then say that the way of seeming is also the world of predicates (of contingency, of aristotelian qualities), where something can "not be" another, because we are refering to Non-being on the predicative sense.
Therefore, on the absolutely ontological sense, there's only one Being. That's the horizon that pure logic can get us, we can't derivate predicates from it, only one tautological truth (proto Wittgenstein?).
Interpretation 4
If the way of truth, logic, can't give us true meaning to work out with and defy our experiences (if there is only one, then even our words don't exist, and even logic wouldn't function), and the way of seeming (empiric) is completely illogical, then we can't have a single way of knowledge.
That's the dialectical interpretation, where there is no single way, and knowledge should be defined in some other sense - by a mixture between both ways.
thinking is also just a part of seeming. You can’t actually think what being is because thinking involves arising and ending, there are periods of no thinking, yet being still is. you can only seem to think being. Being is required for the seeming of thinking of being to be. Being is prior to thinking. Seeming is being, appearing as everything.
at this point i'm thinking parmenides was correct. Spinoza developed this idea further. even Heidegger said everything existed in relationship to everything else. there is something similar to this in buddhism which is the web of existence. it seems to me the theory of relativity says space time is a pre existing cube. quantum physics postulates that everything (including magnetism and gravity) is made of particles. there are also informational theories about our universe based on the fact that in experiments the direction of a particle's movement is dependent on observation. all this seems to tell me, its all one thing. it could be energy, or information, but its all one thing it seems to me.
Diogenes of synop- 'all things come into being through a conflict of opposite, the sum of those opposits, the whole' flows like a river.
Is diogened the grandfather of all western thought due to greeks traveling to the far east?? Or is he the plagurised grand master Aristotle said him to be to Alexander?
I suggest both.
@@DJWESG1 it seems to me that there are the opposites. And there is life in time. This is the flowing. But that flowing and those opposites are actually one unmoving thing. That’s probably more along the lines of Plotinus. I also think about how Brahma blinks his eyes creating the universe, every blink is a new universe. Brahma sitting on the lotus which grows from Vishnu’s navel. And Vishnu sleeps and dreams it all, and Vishnu himself is laying on the cosmic ocean. This myth to me reflects the incomprehensible immensity of the system. That goes back layers and layers. Infinite universes on infinite layers. Every black hole a universe. Maybe every brain and particle a universe. That is all one thing I think.
You should check out non duality videos on CZcams.
@@saimbhat6243 glad you got it figured out. Thank you for your input. secondarily i dont think i was postulating a theory of physics. thirdly i'm not dogmatic about anything, even a materialist ontological belief.
I was wondering about what Professor Hobbs says 8 mins in that you "cannot think nothing" - . Wouldn't "nothing" be a non-experience so that you could never know you were having it ?
Help, Im stuck. I cant move.
-Parmenides
Oh, my god, I cant stop moving.
-Heraclitus
I will change from this to that,
-Aristotle
'Look at my house' - Diogenes
'Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones' - Chaucer
@@gplunk We have much stronger glass now.
@@TeaParty1776 And The Stones are almost retired; or dead....
@@gplunk Chaucer and the Rolling Stones. Sounds like a new rock group/
Why do I have this distinctive notion that a woman understanding is a far deeper ocean than men?
Who dat woman?
This being is like this is that in the ribhu gita
Zen is thinking not thinking, or hyshirio consciosness.
Philosophy breaths life into soul! Viva la Parmenides! But I argue, that the Middle Way is all things and beings!
early Tao we are all empty idols wow 😯
For a simpler but in-depth look at Parmenides's text: czcams.com/video/pf6qZH8o4uM/video.html
Now that's a head of hair!!!! Tresemme?:)
What is this person's name again?
Professor Angie Hobbs (from the "Description" section beneath the video)
@@trondknudsen6689 thanks!
Because zero is a product
The full meaning of a statement cannot be understood apart from the context in which it is being used. For example, if someone simply says, 'nothing exists', it is not clear whether they are using the word 'nothing' to denote something they have nominated as 'nothing', and at the same time claiming that it exists; or, if they simply mean there are no things that exist whatsoever. On the other hand, the statement, 'nothing does not exist' can be understood as, again, something being nominated and denoted by the word 'nothing', but this time including a denial of it's existence; or, as meaning, instead, that everything exists.
I sort of took it to mean a kind of proto-nominalistic argument that universals don’t exist, because all things are unified into a singular particular “blob”.
Hence whenever you point at any given particular and call it by some name, you’re making two mistakes. Your assuming there is something that can be non-artificially distinguished from another thing, and your assuming a category(of at least one thing) that isn’t the unified “blob”.
I could be completely wrong about this and I probably am, so take the above with a few liters of salt.
@@xenoblad > non-artificially distinguished
Try focusing your mind rather than waiting for a revelation.
@@TeaParty1776 I was positing what Parmenides was intending to mean, not what I personally was doing.
@@xenoblad Parmenides certainly wouldn't believe in the existence of universals, anymore than he would believe in the existence of particulars. The only thing that exists for Parmenides is being itself. I believe he would reject the whole 'universal/particular' distinction in much the same way he rejects all distinctions whatsoever. Even the distinction between being and non-being as ultimately real would be rejected by him, because non-being (according to Parmenides) cannot even be thought. In other words, he seems to believe that the seemingly most fundamental distinction that our minds can make between something and nothing is just a fiction of our minds themselves... Kant was in this way a follower of Parmenides.
@@alwaysgreatusa223 yea… I think we agree? Right?
Nothing comes from nothing is not true because everything comes from nothing; it is called the singularity ❤
what "is" the singularity?
_"the dissolution into nothing is the dissolution into unity, for there is no nothing"_
THE RA MATERIAL
It's the CTMU
To me, the avatar, nothing is everything!
Re: "nothing" Parmenides I wish would have taken up the Buddhist suttas re nothing. Buddhism quite extensively touches upon nothing, and I wonder if Parmenides was influenced in any way by the nothing discussion of that ancient era going on in India. The four Buddhist "bases" include the "base of nothing". And Buddhism goes way into achieving that base of nothing in meditation.
My favorite Greek philosophers are all the pre-Socratics. (search for some great quotes of Anaximander: "Snippets from Professor Richard McKirahan's chapter "Anaximander's Infinite Worlds")
Nothing and infinity, to Buddha aren't Nirvanna/Nibanna, but are meditative stepping stones to it.
Philosophy teaching, I was a dropout in university as a philosophy major, is I think fundamentally wrongly taught.
It ought NOT be personality centric/organized.
It ought be concept organized with the personalities and eras of discussion laid out covering all angles to the key concepts.
Rather than force students into the writings of personalities, focus on the concepts, and list then the personalities tied to the concepts.
Concepts first, personalities second. For example, a Course in a university about the relationship and all angles of Nibbana Nirvana vs all angles of nothing ever in philosophic thought.
A "Nothing/Nibbana Course" would likely be a hit. And from it, then spin off into all the personlities in human history venerated for touching on the bits to it.
When you can think about everything, you are always thinking about nothing as everything is never known.
When you can think about nothing, you are always thinking about everything, even about what is not known, what is yet to reveal itself.
Meaning!!!
Nothing can exist.
Nothing cannot exist.
Meaning!!!
Of the logos which is thus always uncomprehending are humans both before they have heard it and after they have heard it.
(the brake of breath ((coma)) goes for both cases. The logos which is always, uncomprehending are humans and the logos which is always uncomprehending, ((of)) that are humans and as a consequence is not used in either place)
Meaning!!!!
Nothing exist, until everything exist.
Everything exist, because nothing exist.
Meaning!!!
You see, but cannot see.
You hear, but cannot hear.
You speak, but cannot speak
You think, but cannot think.
You touch, but cannot touch.
You taste, but cannot taste.
Meaning!!!
That is the orbit.
That is the orbit.
That is the orbit.
...................
...........
......
...
..
.
Hi, this one say to PR. Angie Hobbs, about Parmenides.
Parmenides is saying about PR. Angie Hobbs' I, the Self, the One, the Nondual one, the Transcendental,
which is Parmenides' I, Heraclitus' I, Zeno's I, Socrates's I, and Jesus' I.
When PR. Angie Hobbs sees anything, the seer the seen and the seeing activity altoghther is only PR. Angie Hobbs' I, the Transendental nondual I,
When PR. Angie Hobbs thinks anything, the thinker the thoughts and the thinking activity altoghther is only PR. Angie Hobbs' I, the Transendental Nondual I,
When PR. Angie Hobbs hears anything, the hearer the heard and the hearing activity altoghther is only PR. Angie Hobbs' I, the Transendental nondual I,
When PR. Angie Hobbs says anything, the sayer the said and the saying activity altoghther is only PR. Angie Hobbs' I, the Transendental Nondual I,
PR. Angie Hobbs' I is PR. Angie Hobbs' all
and PR. Angie Hobbs' all is PR. Angie Hobbs' I.
Therefore Moses say about God,
I am who I am.
So,
I am that I am.
I am whoever I am.
I am whatever I am.
i am whenever I am.
I am wherever I am.
I am however I am.
Come to PR. Angie Hobbs' origin I,
the eternal Life Being.
Nice life!!!
Parmenides is the ultimate monist !
It seems that reason or Zeus /Athena or even Saint George, did not slay the dragon/serpent... the 'Old God' still is.
I would argue that the St George’s of the world probably had a bit of the ‘Old God’ in them yet. The Templars too.
Here’s a solution. I witness my thoughts therefore I am the witness NOT the thoughts. 😮
I want a goddess to appear to me.
I was taught truth from a book on woodworking. Not wavy nor crooked.
Very different from nature.
You mentioned it was a sphere. Yes. If you look in all directions, you have created a sphere.
If you ignore depth.
Something caught my attention. The farther in any one direction the farther in all directions.
Ignoring depth that would be the level of detail.
Let’s see what Advaita Vedanta says. There is only Being. Pure Being can manifest itself to itself as appearances, All the phenomena are appearances, “Appearance” is the root meaning of the word “Phenomenon”. So, the real nature of everything and every being is Being. The multiplicity is just an appearance, that is, the single seems to be multiple.
The waves are appearances of the ocean. Now, the senses and reason are limited. All the interpretations about “what is” are incomplete. Perceiving this, there is quietness, silence, regarding the comprehension of the totality. The Silence is the Truth. Silence is immeasurable. It is unknowable from the point of view of the appearance named "Intellect". Silence is what I am, because Silence is the essence. "Tat Twam Asi" (Thou art That).
Oh, I could learn "philosophy" from her...
Weirdo.
She is somewhat easier to understand, though some parts were hard to follow like the part about linguistics and the difference between existential nothingness and predictive nothingness.
Nothing is a no thing.
Just say yes.
It's obvious Parmenides never doesn't disbelieve. 🤔 (Green Fire, UK)
He sounds like a German idealist.
somebody pls condition this woman's hair
I _really_ hate the new convention of filming people who are sitting in a room by themselves talking to a television audience from angles so that they don't look into the camera-it's fucking _rude._ Heraclitus said êthos anthropôi daimon-what kind of fate will be yours if you can't look your audience in the eye?
And let's be clear: don't pretend that _you_ were selected because of your expertise in Greek philosophy; no, you were chosen because of that expertise _and_ because you are a _beautiful_ woman with a _magnificent_ head of _blazing_ red hair; know how I know that? Because that's the thumbnail that got _me_ to click-although I will concede that your video appeared on my home page because I am interested in philosophy, I imagine that many viewers who have intellectual interests related to philosophy but don't know the names of any pre-Socratics would _not_ have clicked on the video if the thumbnail were of some alleged bust of Parmy baby pictured next to a title with a sigma serving as an "e." So don't tell me, ô Darie, ouden legeis!
Loved the lecture!
Shut up. Angie Hobbes is a very distinguished academic, not some attractive woman who exists for thumbnails for simpletons like you.
The filming gives in rise to the perverted sense of "peaking in" on some private conversation, it piques interest. But also, to be looking in the "eye" of the lense recording her, instead of to the person(s) in the room is also rude... hmmm. Do we heed to the humans presently around us, or to future ones imagined?
@Daris Daguerre: I guess getting clicks from their gender identity that they would have not gotten otherwise is not something that the controlling patriarchal oppressors have found a way to experience - despite it being something to which they have a natural desire - but rather the oppressed (women like her, I guess) enjoy, due to a predominant group consisting of pro-patriarchy and anti-patriarchy and patriarchy-neutral people performing those clicks that they would have not otherwise.
@@derekg5563 Good Gawd A-mighty! "From _their_ gender identity"? Brrrr! Your gobbledygook is _impenetrable._ You should really spend a year not reading anything but Austen, Dickens, James, Kael, Orwell, Shakespeare, and Wordsworth so you can learn to write English. Ugh! I'm going to read some Elizabeth Barrett Browning to cleanse my mind of the offal of your prose. Ptooh! Ptoooh! Ptooooh!