I recently read "The Abolition of Man" by C.S. Lewis and this is exactly what he discusses. A lot of people (especially academics) think that their critiquing (criticizing) everything makes them intellectual and wise, where Lewis sees that this does more harm than good to the larger social fabric. Thanks for another insightful video Robin!
The past year or two I’ve noticed more and more how I seem to be surrounded by negativity, both online and in the workplace. Every conversation I hear seems to start as a complaint. It’s made me really appreciate instances where something or someone is celebrated. And I try to stay out of comments sections.
The problem, in my view, does not lie in the bitterness that drives the feeling of guilt when enjoying anything. The problem is that it all comes down to consumption. You are constantly repeating it, consuming this, consuming that, content. Many people, I mean, many, are becoming too comfortable with being defined by their consumptions. For some people it's everything, so the only notion of enjoyment comes from it. You can always create. In a way, I think we are all creators. When you connect with another human being face to face, when you spend time playing, fooling around, creating a memory of a great afternoon or night with a friend, a lover, our families, then we are creators. We feel more fulfilled, more alive, more human. And the bitterness recedes on its own. Creation is the antidote to a passive vicarious life and the only thing that is needed for this is a connection, with others, with life itself, with the impulse to transform the emotions that we capture around us in the alchemy of art, creativity. Living life outside the media and passive consumption. You definitely cannot live a full life by passively only consuming “content.” That's the trick. You cannot find a cure for the symptoms without attacking the root of the problem. And please stop referring to music, movies, art, or anything you enjoy as "content." Yes, most of what the media apparatus spits out today qualifies as content, committe-defined entertainment that is pre-digested, but we are getting too comfortable calling everything content and we apply it indiscriminately without taking into account each work of art, be it music. , paintings, movies, books, poems and it feels ugly
Your comment gets to the root of the problems in current society. Kudos. I'm a visual artist and a poet, so I'm happy to read an insightful, observant person's refreshing thoughts about creativity as alchemy versus passive consumption of "content." It's alchemy for the creator as well as for the person experiencing the creation. I think I'm probably older (65) than this video's demographic, but I think what you wrote about creating memories is spot on, because it costs literally nothing to goof off with friends, surrender to gravity as you roll down a grassy hill, scream with hilarity and terror at "seances" we had at pajama parties. You give me hope for the future.
@@elainealibrandi6364 I don´t have to much hope myself but it makes me sad to see we are hooked by the drugs of distraction and consumption and we are losing touch with the source of our humanity. A couple of days ago taking the trash I dropped accidentaly a potato chip and latter on I saw it was covered in ants and my first thought was to step on them but then it hit me; they are on the patio, they are gonna take that potato chip bit by bit cleaning in the process so what is the problem? we are programmed to be like this to mesure value by what bothers us and don´t look around in child like wonder and be gentler with nature and ourselves. Its all about convenience, consumption, don´t take the time, don´t give second chances, everything is disposable, everything is liminal, and it feels sad and hopeless
@@user-ho4ps9ts1k But you are not hooked by the drugs of distraction and consumption, and neither am I. We are not the only ones. All of my friends feel the way we do. I fought against my programming, and you are, too! Try to find other enlightened people. I know it can be lonely and isolating. And overwhelming. I didn't start finding them until later in life, but they're out there. Don't let the mindless zombies affect your joy. Watch them as if they're aliens, maybe pity them, but be grateful you're not one of them. We have to walk through our lives with them, but we don't have to be them. Our minds are limitless and free.
I accept that this comment will be highly ironic, but this is exactly the problem with critical theory. It's all well and good pulling something apart to see how it works and how to improve it, but if you never put it back together again you can never improve anything. It is just broken at that point, and it will remain broken until it is fixed. Critical theory is great for criticising, but it is highly dangerous when it is the only thing a culture is focused on. Is it any wonder that it feels like everything is broken when we aren't taught to be engineers, only destroyers?
Too many know what they are against but can’t explain what they are for and what it would look like and how we would know it’s been attained. Western culture has been self-cannibalizing for centuries in the name of progress and reform but it when does it end? It’s radical critique of meta-narratives undoes it’s own claims and values and cannot unify the the multitude who are naturally skeptical.
The issue is critique is always uttered by individuals. Solutions need to be collective. So you don't actually come closer to solving that which you are criticising by reducing the amount of criticism.
thank god this video is not sponsored by better help cuz I got scared when he said he spoke with a therapist and the segway would be BETTER HELP 💀 anyway, nice commentary as always!
The point in culture when not only free speech is related to as if it is an UXB but being listened too is an almost unaffordable pipe dream, you could purchase in 50 minutes packages. Commodification is a batch.
I also went through a similar realisation a little while ago and it suddenly made me so aware of how much negativity I was consuming in all forms of media (music, movies, video essays, even news to an extent) everything that would come into the mainstream media would end up getting called out for being 'toxic' or 'cringe' just in a matter of a few weeks. But then this realisation sort of made me look forward to things like 'hopecore' or just uplifting things in general. I also removed myself from the whole negative and loathing crowd to start enjoying things like watching my neighbour play with his dog or simply the evening wind. Sometimes I honestly just prefer the vain wants for aesthetic beauty which don't seek to undermine every single institution or paradigm out there.
It's not in vain, l grew up in a heavily, industrialised area, l spent a lot of time mentally"squinting" like a film director making a frame with their hands but less obviously gestural haha. I would surreptitiously scour for beauty in amongst the invasive ugliness, (sulphur smell too) once it was railings reflecting as wavy in a wind blown puddle, often the complex shifting spectrum of fuel spilled in a puddle, or above the chaos, crossing jetsteams puffing up and then dispersing in the sky. Inconsequential beauty, kept me sane and still does. I deeply understand the classic Japanese aesthetic now, simplicity and stark beauty, it's life saving.
I think my main critique, is the criticism. We don't have to be skeptical all the time. We can take on faith an author, without having to pick them apart. Sometimes, just understanding them is enough, and making sure you understand them right. You don't argue with an artist. You understand them. That's something many people don't realize, is they use Postmodernism as a way to deconstruct, not as a way to understand. You can remove parts of the thesis you don't like, and grasp the outlying meaning. My main mode of literary theory is finding agreement and embracing the author's intentions, and finding where it's true. That helps you understand the author, rather than dismiss them. Because generally, a person can't be wrong about everything. You know? Even in the authors I'm not very certain of, I find points where I understand them, and empathize with them. That's really all we need to do.
I have stuff online, mainly audio-books, ebooks, etc. and something I find fascinating is that people will think nothing about reacting negatively to something that isn't for them. If I didn't like fantasy or romance novels, it would be wrong of me to rate a fantasy novel or romance manga, especially if I'm not trying to set aside my feelings. But somehow, it's still ok and accessible for me to leave a one star review. It's a bit like disagreeing with a conversation you're not interest in but you still listen in on. It's an uneven power dynamic between creator and audience; that somehow we have to be psychic and no you hate posts on Wednesday, or that you're not in the mood for the colour red. To be honest, I think audiences are spoilt; there's endless entertainment, many of it for free, spanning all of human existence, but how dare anyone post a painting they made you didn't like.
Maybe it's because formerly people would go to the theatre restaurant library cinema ... Now it's impudently invaded their personal space, their intimate space even, it's on their phone, which is now part of their body map. Uneasiness, it's a proximal thing.
@@veronica_._._._ I'm a writer. I wrote a fantasy romance and received a one-star review for my novel due to the main characters not being destined right from the very beginning, aka 'the one', instead they are each other's 'second chance mates'. Anyway, this is a wolf shifter novel so basically readers are aware of the concept of soulmates so is the characters. To quote the reviewer: "The hero laments losing his "soulmate" to another male because he made the mistake of rejecting her, and then when he gets an opportunity for a "second chance mate" (the heroine), he has the gall to tell her that the first girl was his soulmate?? You would think the heroine would be a little deflated over hearing this as a soulmate is supposed to be "it" for a person, but nope! She tells him her college boyfriend that passed away 7 years ago was her soulmate. They made the word soulmate seem trite, which is never good for a romance novel." The story explores the theme of second chances in life. The scene she specifically tackled in this is just a casual conversation of two 'not quite couples yet but are attracted to each other' about their previous lovers. It was a scene to show that both main characters had previous relationships they lost, mistakes they committed and acknowledgement of their own fault as to why the previous relationship ended. The keyword here is 'was.' It seems like the reviewer believes in the idea of 'the one'-that a person should have only one true love, which is very common 'cliche' in fiction. I get that. I hope she only holds that view in fiction because, in reality, expecting 'one true love' in today’s dating world is a recipe for disappointment. Since then, I learned to place those as trigger warnings to my books to make sure readers know exactly what they're going into before they read it.
I often am insomnic, and I use the time I'm not able to sleep to read. I slow down a lot because my brain starts to deteriate after being awake for 16+ hours, BUT the joy of reading increases. It just hits harder then. Makes me immune to byronic unhappiness because I've had a beautifully short night.
Hermeneutics, as we can read on page 581 of Liddell & Scott, is heavily based on Hermes. Hermes, as we all know, was a messenger between men and gods. The world can also connote a sense of fortune or good luck as well. Let's think for a moment that most people have rarely, if ever, been exposed to philosophical or literary discourse. The humanities has unfortunately degraded into a joke of a career. I once knew a faculty member who told the following joke: "what's the difference between a pizza and a philosophy Ph.D.? The pizza can feed a family of 4!" So ironically enough, people do not really have much formal learning in the areas of philosophy, literary theory, or any of the other core liberal arts. This means that they are much more focused on derivative aspects of discourse and thinking. They are more impressionable to social media and the Zeitgeist of political dialogue. Suspicion, in and of itself, focuses on external situations and happenings. As a result, the modern day human rarely reflects inward. To be with oneself is extreme boredom that cannot be reasonably explained without understanding the nature of ennui. And so, people always keep themselves busy by engaging in mostly meaningless social interactions, travel, and work. They remain suspicious of everything. I know my recommendation may be a bit controversial, but I really enjoyed reading Camille Paglia's books. The queer community, a community I am somewhat a part of, would say that she is transphobic, though this is again a kind of suspicion. Sexual Personae weaves a clear account of how media influences culture. The idolation of Nefertiti, for example, shows how the ideal feminine is desexualized, becoming a shell of masculinity. Emily Dickinson can be read as an intense sadist. Helene Cixous, albeit dated at this point, makes an interesting psychoanalytic analysis of woman as the Medusa who is smiling. The hidden inner nuances of humanity are no longer taken seriously by the modern individual. Perhaps this has to do with the nature of social media, which again abstracts away the elements of true interaction, thinking, and friendship. A society of suspicion has no need of the liberal arts. The old liberal arts forces people to turn inward and reflect deeply upon themselves. Few have the courage to do so now. The few that do typically encounter a lot of anxiety, dread, isolation, and mental perturbation. Everything, as a result, becomes a one-to-one and inflexible mapping of external events and groupthink heuristics. Which completes the full circle of my point - modern society has no need of hermeneutics as much as they have a need of heuristics. Heuristics focus on only what is external to oneself. As a result, heuristic thinking is far more practical and less upsetting in modern society.
I could appreciate Mr. Walden’s point later on in the video where he speaks of the convergence bound to befall us because of our rising internet participation, namely, how the day will come when we all sound the same even though we may be saying completely different things. This is a theme I have been pursuing for a long time because it is, in my opinion, everywhere evident that we are in fact beginning not only to sound the same but also to act the same, everything from Twidiot -speak locutions to our stenciled body language and perpetual hand gesticulating. In other words, our internet-administered fate is a stifling convergence and not like true diversity of thought or felicity of expression.
You know what, the fact that my first reaction to this video was to critique it and provide an alternative prospective tells me that you're onto something
@@aqup_ i think that's just us coping. Our patience is low and we think the internet is like a conversation because of the comments section. Like if he was in front of you talking to you, you would interrupt and say what you need to say or question it. But i think its more like a ted talk or a speech. But having the ability to comment is a shit show for hearing somebody out. I was just on another video, commented that i disagreed with the 1st point of a 20 minute video and just moved on from it. Didn't even care to watch the whole thing because if I really think about it, im not interested to know a strangers thoughts on a topic that he felt he needed to make a video on. I just clicked on it cuz I'm coping with being bored at work and dont know what to do with myself by myself
For those who are interested: Zygmunt Bauman wrote about this stuff in "Liquid Modernity". He shows how society has become so self-reflected that we are constantly aware of everything and now tend to deconstruct all of it. Because of that we recognise the flaws of pretty much everything, so we end up criticizing everything all the time. And ironically this overly-critical way of operating keeps us from changing things to the better. The constant critique has become useless and only causes us to feel bad. It's very negative and not very hope inducing but still a fascinating sociologial analysis.
Great topic! I endlessly think of this myself. There is an art to enjoying things, it feels often too easy to be critical of everything. Including things that don't ask to be looked at in a critical way. And instead of making the critique the result of our thoughts, we could create a more meaningful response, write our own novels, paint our own pictures, film our own movies, instead of just listing the faults and leaving nothing in it's place.
i heard someone say that everyone is comic book guy from the simpsons now. you put it in way better words but ever since i heard that ive been seeing it non stop. especially in how i think about new information.
I'm middle age now. I had this "phase" for around 25 years... Way, way too long. I got out of it through a combination of having children, exhaustion from that irritable mood, and just boredom of hearing myself. Everything feels much better now. Listen, understand, trust. I can pull out the knives when it seems prudent, and it makes those moments far more effective in using my voice for good.
Ahh, the neverending method wars. I like the idea that you pose at the end here, toward a middle ground between critique and response (or attunement or liking or whatever else we want to call it). I've always looked at them as two sides of the same coin, or as different tools in our tool kits. We can, and should, take the time to appreciate and enjoy things. And we can, and should, take the time to understand how the things that we enjoy work within a larger social and cultural context.
I definitely noticed the ‘Paranoid Reading’ in myself. I expected negative comments under vids, clips, articles, etc., so much even that when I watched sm I liked, I’d become hesitant to ‘fully’ like it. The impact of all the criticism & cancellations online on my general mood wasn’t good. Deleting a lot of social med apps & not reading comments when I did enter an app helped me from this weird addiction to finding a negative way of interpreting anything and everything. My conclusion to my experience is that there’s a difference between critical thinking (emphasis on thinking) and whatever this online version is. (actually the same thing happing with journalism. the thing ab whether you can believe sm to be true or not should be based on research, proofreading, fact checking and more.) Being critical is a good thing, however most of what circulates on social media should be dismissed instead of being attempted to be critiqued. In this way we would not be giving the people with the agenda of spreading bullshit online more power. The fact that it’s mostly children (let’s say under 21) on these platforms… Well, lets just say it’s not helping us, the non-extremely wealthy us.
I think most critics shift restlessly from a lack of identity beyond being a critic and broadly lack a strong internal foundation/structure (or their structure itself is "destructuralist") and since no structure can be without blame or can be one size fits all, they attach moral superiority to their state of lack and take pleasure in pecking away another person's "foundations"; as a result find anyone who's not as restless or even happy to be committing a microaggression against their state of being. Wrt your last few minutes, I remember ContraPoints talking about what you call 'amorous reading' as the thin line to walk between Aesthetics and Morality. Interestingly it was apparently also going to be her PhD thesis before she dropped out lol. Great video
I have a theory which kind of goes against a “return” to “pure” enjoyment of art: The truest, most radical love is always in SPITE of reason. To love a work, therefore, one must resign the work, picking it apart mercilessly. Here it is possible to lose the work entirely. I might turn my back on it and revile myself for once having liked it. But it is only when the work is torn apart, so that everything the movie says is made clear, is it possible for the true lover of the work to say “I dislike everything this film is saying, yet it moves me in the most profound ways.” It is a scary thought to lose a work of art that I love, but that is why I am not a knight of faith, and why Abraham was. We cannot go back. There is no backwards, and i find nostalgic rhetoric like that to be worrying. Instead, I believe that critique culture has it right, but it doesn’t take the final step: we must be able to receive the work back, as Abraham receives Isaac.
It’s a delicate balance for sure, and I completely agree with your theory. Pure enjoyment runs the risk of just turning into sentimental platitudes, so ideally we would, like you said, still have the ability to critically analyze something while maintaining our initial attachment to it.
A true knight of faith is the rarest person in the world. I think you are being way too idealistic and a culture based on your theory would quickly devolve into nihilism. To approach this from another angle, is this what you do with loved ones? Are you saying that you can't "truly" love a spouse until you pick them apart piece by piece with every flaw and dark corner of their being revealed to you? I dare you to try and live this way. You will end up alone.
@@john_g_henderson Two points: 1) I've certainly softened up on the "only way" bit. love may take many forms, and a critical love is only one. It is a valid form nevertheless. 2) The lover's critical outlook is not clinical but experiential. Over the course of continuous interaction, new situations and tensions reveal new sides of the beloved, some wonderful, some almost intolerable. Each new bad side provokes thought and mental cataloguing in the lover's mind; and they are presented with several options. If they want to continue the relationship, ignoring the issue leads to festering. Only by adressing it and looking it in the face can the lover and beloved be united once more, this time deeper. But this adressing is nothing peaceful or easy. It requires a relinquishing of the relationship, putting it in the beloved’s hands. If the lover adresses an issue, they risk the beloved breaking things off. In this way, the lover requires the bravery to be critical, relinquishing their right to the relationship, but having faith that the beloved will work through the issue with them. Even great or mature love can have an irrational strain of hatred which rears its head once in a while. In Much Ado about Nothing, Beatrice and Benedick, who hate each other to their cores, are therefore able to love each other deeply and maturely; whereas Hero and Claudio’s love, which is naive, blows up with one problem. They can only love each other maturely after Claudio relinquishes the relationship by agreeing to marry Hero’s cousin, and then accepting the relationship back when Hero forgives him. All this is to say that it is possible or even necessary that the lover be critical of the beloved.
A few weeks ago I went to see a film at the cinema. A third way through I thought it was trash, pointed to myself fifteen things that went wrong with the production, and was thinking of leaving right away. But then I said to myself, so what if it was trash? Well, I wouldn't enjoy it as much. But then so what if I don't enjoy it as much? Well, I would've wasted my time. But so what if I wasted my time? ... I kept asking the same question and ended up realizing nothing matters that much anymore!-and I ended up watching the film till the end, got out of the cinema, and continued about my life as if nothing happened. (And surprise surprise, that was how it ended up anyway when I saw Oppenheimer-that is, it might be a masterpiece, but at the end of the day I went out of the cinema and went about my life as if nothing happened anyway.) Now that doesn't solve the critique culture at societal level, but for individual purposes, I find not taking things so seriously to be quite helpful to step out of the chaos for a little bit. But (I think) of course, all that heavily depends on what our "highest value" is; if one were to take "artistic perfection" as its supreme principle, then critiquing (and improving) all the way to achieve perfection might well be the "true joy" for him/her. So it's important for us to first ask ourselves what our philosophy is behind our critiquing behaviors, and even to first define what is even "enjoying" and "critiquing" *for us*? And once you do that I think you'll agree that tackling this critique culture on a societal level would be maddeningly complicated, for at least it'll be some kind of manifestation of the sheer amount of varying motives and philosophies residing in each member of the community. Fascinatingly maddening, maddeningly fascinating. Anyhow, great video as always, Robin; looking forward to read your thesis and whatnot :)
The most freeing thing for me was leaving a uptown theatre during the interval. "You just don't do that", yet we did it anyway. There is now a limit to how long l will engage, that takes into consideration others needs too, but keeping integrity. I currently live with a chatty person who is easily bored. It's an interesting conundrum, fully engaging for short bursts, but ringfencing thinking time. We share core ethics, but have very different outlooks, it has been surprising how the shared ethical ideals only increase a sense of security when we are so opposite. Counterintuitive.
Oh my god... You have described me to the atom! I always pick things apart from an outsider perspective instead of experiencing them, all from a feeling of superiority. This is the reason I can't feel happiness, but an indifferent sensation most of the time... Thank you, you have opened my eyes.
One thing I have noticed, is how much internet critics not only state their opinion, but also propagandize to everyone that they should agree. They try to argue for objectivity, and to do this they review bomb on Rotten Tomatoes or something, to make it seem like there is an objective truth to how audiences feel about a piece of media.
Great video. One thingvi discover is that discussing on social media is losing time. I know we all have this desire to have reason on twitter or others. But when you read a book, you can disagree, you can check the sources, all this with containing this desire to have reason. And the desire to be superior to others in arguments its all ego, doesnt acomplish nothing
Thank you for this great video. It brings to my mind how the internet has slowly transformed into an echo chamber filled with trolls. On a positive note, I decided to leave social media and start a book club, viewing reading as a way to expand my mind without feeling the need (and having the means) to share my opinions with others.
I really appreciated your discussion of Paul Ricoeur and his discussion of the ",masters of suspicion", in reference to the big names of both the Modern and (early?) PostModern eras like Marx and Freud. I really loved your video essay here and makes me moved to invite you onto my own podcast - if you are so inclined.
That was some quality insight. I think it is hard to perfect or improve things by telling 'it' how good it already is. And that is because I think intellectual people (those who critique) have a natural tendency to want progression or improvement. That is versus those whose primary focus is inwards and do not concern themselves with society at large. We who possess a macro viewpoint, and are therefore critical, have an idea of how we think things should be, and for that belief to manifest itself in real life, we critique to steer things to that end. So what Gen Z must want, and I think others share this desire, is the need for change.
To me, this sounds like the hypervigilance of the traumatized. Which is absolutely valid. And is at the same time robbing us of the enjoyment of the moment. There is no rest. We all probably need more hugs. I caught myself immediately barrating myself for being a nit picker after realising that I have this tendency too. It's wild...
Love this video and the concept of finding that middle ground. I tend to think that enjoying a book and then also tearing into it critically is a time honored practice...just not with books so much as with baseball (Yankees fans love a good game and still crap on some guy's bad fielding, etc.). Also, a request: I would appreciate if you could post the names of the people you reference in the show notes or something so they're easier to find. Thanks!
could we still think of critique as a form of enjoyment and find beauty in it? i feel like it’s impossible to be a passive enjoyer and just take the object at face value, there is always a need to think and engage with it which what critique is about
Thank you. You make a great analysis and it helped me understand that I was not an isolated case of echo chamber and negative thinking. Your video is of public utility
The more intelligent you are, the more deep your thoughts, the unhappier you are. You see less and less reasons to be happy. You must practice gratitude, because there's load to be happy about. We have been trained to point out everything that's wrong in everything.
Certain fragments of what you discussed in this essay reminds me of Keat's theory of ''Negative Capability''. I am not sure to what extent this relates to what you talked about but it makes sense to consider that the lack of intellectual empathy towards mysteries and uncertainties paired with the urge to employ acquired knowledge to structure and solve these mysteries is triggering an intolerant attitude. Sense of indulgence and joy is replaced with a want to center one's intellectual grip as an attack or a tool to feel bigger than the media that is being ambushed. We care less about enjoying media and literature, more about how we look if we were to associate with these media or literary pieces. Always on a lookout for the next best thing that we can use as a template to draw our personalities around.
“Negative Capability” is essential and this is what Byung-Chul Han called “being able not to be able”. Only through respecting the radical Other can we start to understand what we’re viewing on a deeper level.
Loving your channel and reflections. I use a white noise machine as well and love it. Long walks in nature help me let go of some of the angst and dread of modern living too.
I think it's big problem that we're made to feel guilty about enjoying anything, There's an addiction to being offended and finding things "problematic" because it gives someone a sense of moral superiority and meaning in a time of dissolution. Art is will expressed and like nature it does not care who is offended or oppressed or any form of moral high grounds.
The flipside: my way of enjoying a creation is very much about critiquing it. I'll pick apart and analyze every aspect of a thing I like. I'm extremely aware of every fault in a work that I love. I might even admit it's bad, because I reserve the right to indulge in bad taste. But it's my belief that a lot of things that are made with love and passion are doomed to small budgets, so seeing the limits of the resources that were available to make something I can then love, I just feel even more pampered by the creator, who went all the way just to bring me their weird idea. I'm in love, and I have critical distance. A set on a tv-show looks like cardboard, when it's meant to be ice in the Arctic; I'm even more drawn in to the impeccable performance by the actors. Every work cotains hits and misses, but when I love something, every miss just focuses me on how hard the hits strike. If i don't like something, I just walk away. I have nothing to say about things I don't like. "It was bland and formulaic and I quit halfway" isn't a critique, it's a dismissal. It's not specific to the thing I'm talking about. Because I don't care enough to pick the thing apart.
I used to work for papers and magazines. The general principle back then was that if you really didn't like something you didn't review it. In a sense, no news was bad news. Where there were more reviewers you all covered as much as you could - some liked some things, some liked others. Then there were the holy cows - some things that a senior reviewer was expected to write on. We were honest but didn't totally shred anything. Generally 2/5 meant awful and 3/5 meant mediocre. Mind you I'm British, so "it's alright" can mean anything from dreadful to stunning - the context tells you which. If you were complimentary you were careful not to gush - the only reason they courted you is to get quotes for marketing.
This is one of the tensions me and my ex-friend had when we streamed games to eachother. I firstly engage with things emotionally (immersing myself into the game, feeling what the haracters feel), while they engaged intelectually. So they are constantly pointing out flaws which takes me out of my immersion and thus ruining my enjoyment of the game. I kinda go around it with the games that I stream as I tend to play them solo before streaming them. Thing is that my ex-friend got frustrated by it and saying they want to see my first reactions to stuff. Thing is their commentaries ruin my "pure" experience of the thing. They also got annoyed when I answer their question of "how was that thing for you" with "ok/I liked it/I didn't like it" as they want an analysis of why I felt the way I felt, while I haven't even digested what I have felt. Also, having everything criticised felt very draining and like I wasn't allowed to enjoy things. So it kinda was ruining my mood and enjoyment. Heck, it went to such degree that the world started t olose it's colours. So I had to end the friendship for the sake of my own mental health. I'm slowly recovering and the colours are slowly comming back. Oh and fun fact, now my inner critic is talking in their voice.
As a former dog walker, there is something wrong with me. You caught me. That said, Byronic unhappiness is supposed to be something divine and aristocratic in its discontent. Without that, it's merely Nietzschean ressentiment. Also, many girlfriends think their boyfriends are assholes, especially when right. :)
The article on consciousness and free will is bassin, especially the debate between determinism and our sense of choice. It’s like wondering if we’re making decisions or if the universe is just playing a game with us. The idea that free will and determinism can coexist is interesting, but does it really solve the problem? If our actions are determined by factors beyond our control, does blaming and punishing people still make sense? Should we rethink our justice system, or just start saying, "Sorry, I forgot to clean my room because my brain was on vacation!"
Is there even a problem to begin with? If the choices we make are just an illusion, then why wouldn't it extend also to our identities themselves? If we're putting in check our subjective experience of choosing, then there's no reason we should't extend that to our whole subjective experience. Doing that allow us to do away with this sense of identity that keeps hanging weirdly when the boundaries between I -my and otherness-beyond-mine me is already murky. And yes we should rethink our justice system, but I don't think grounding in any sort of ontology is where the money is.
I am not sure if this is related but this video got me thinking about how the critique culture on social media made a lot people think it’s acceptable to things in my opinion are not critique-able, people will leave body shaming comments on people just posting days in their life’s video like that’s something they are entitled to do, they have a mindset that if a video is public on the internet, that means I can comment a projection of my hate that I interpret as “the truth”
My main critique of your analysis is that the observation "People are mad in internet comments" isn't new and it feels arbitrary to declare that this exact moment is the time when it's getting worse, as opposed to five years ago or ten years ago. If anything I feel like the tipping point is that internet comments sections are becoming ghost towns, with people leaving facebook and twitter in droves.
I'm looking forward to the impact of Amorous Reading! I do think that people can still like things, not in the sense of "should anybody be allowed to still like things" but in the sense of liking an aspect of a thing so much that they will construct arguments in favor of the thing. The counterargument in favor of enjoyment is not always going to be as puerile as "well I like it and you can't make me not so have this tongue emoji 😛" - I still believe in people being in such rapturous enjoyment that they can articulate and analyze why the thing had such an impact. Of course there's at least equal risk of somebody liking something so much that arguments in favor of it don't hold up but get twisted and full of fallacies and then apply harmfully...as there is somebody in a bad mood thinks they're being a critic when really they're just being an arse. So I think some standard of candor and applicability can be held to both the raves and the rants, and in that form avenues for criticism that's actually constructive. I like the idea of Reparative Readings, I think Eve Sedgwick wrote on those? And on the film theory side I've read Mulvey's theory of visual pleasure (the patriarchal Male Gaze in cinematic works) and an addition by Steve Neale that agreed with Mulvey that there's patriarchy while also analyzing the visual pleasure of "Masculinity as Spectacle" so that it's possible even in a patriarchy that has film studios to film masculinity in such a way that there is an objectifying amorousness, and in that the potential for reparative readings. It wasn't a contradiction of Mulvey's theory nor was it dismissal; it was additional information. I just think that's neat. I definitely believe it's possible to make a sophisticated, elaborate analysis from a place of enjoyment that applies honestly and constructively... And recently I even found a sort of "takedown of the takedowns". I began to get curious about A Little Life by Hanya Yanagihara that was very popular commercial fiction back in 2015, so I read it (because I didn't want to say "The movie Permanent Green Light should have been the influential cultural thing to start discussions about suicide, not 13 Reasons Why or A Little Life" when I have not read A Little Life and only resented its popularity...I still think Permanent Green Light handled that social issue more coherently, but I am currently very keen about thematically coding the potential intertextuality of A Little Life with The George Miles Cycle) and here it is: "A Little Life Is Not Your Father" by Brandon Taylor, a blog post that offers a lukewarm defense of A Little Life but also an utterly scathing criticism of the criticism and speculating on a sort of Oedipal impulse in the collective subconscious to "kill the father" of any media representation...because critics that are arses about it, are not usually creators; the hostile criticism, I think Taylor concludes in that essay, comes from a misguided idea that we should not or cannot CREATE what we want, so that manifests as hating-ahem, "criticizing"-actual creative creators' creations. Hopefully such scathing criticisms of bad-faith criticisms will make it more acceptable to check in with oneself about whether too much emotional reasoning is at play, and then to like things.
And yet we haven’t been critical enough. Good critique is often a robust and gracious engagement with another’s work and not necessarily ridden with bad feelings. I don’t think we’ve ever been reparative readers, which is also unfortunate-Sedgwick’s rendering being far more compelling than today’s extension in Felski’s+ work-but this is a time when criticality needs a boost. If interested, I largely agree with Robert Tally’s response to post-critique in For A Ruthless Critique of All That Exists. I’d personally like to see more of the joy of good criticism. Whatever it is now is sorely de-toothed when it could really use some sharp, generous teeth!
Go Enjoy Something FUN! Makes our head spin. Thorough of course, as always you are. Maybe if we can be more aware of the present, not taking anything for granted, and not being so concerned about what others may think or feel, especially or specifically so about our enjoyment (or maybe even our lack thereof), of things, THEN maybe we'll all "come around". Postscript: Where do I purchase your fleece insulated tan and white shirt jacket? (Asking for a Friend.)
The critics are right and so are the romanticists. Arguments are fallacious. Every argument has one or more fallacies nested inside it. How then is there any knowledge or truth? Sacrifice. Things like enjoyment, laughter, understanding, are harder to express because they go beyond predication. It's easy to predicate about ignorance. Even predicating at all is ignorant. It's even easier to look mystery in the face, to leave assumptions at the door, to take and eat what has been offered and become full.
Being seen as being able to critique things is to be grown up. There's so much rush to appear mature and grown up, the critic has lost the childlike wonder of just enjoying something whether it be bad or good
Perhaps we should embrace aesthetics; shift away from the centrality of critical judgements. Yes, thought and action needs to be clearly understood, delineated, and written materials/audio-visual objects must be assessed. These critical analyses would benefit from depersonalization The path to identify and clarify ambiguity benefits from patience and forbearance. Perhaps an over-focus on critical theory and power relations impoverishes the spirit more than it facilitates change. Cultivating an enriched spirit is a better way to positive and sustainable cultural influence.
Oh right, and critiquing with dread music horrifying everyone without giving helpful solutions/suggestions. "Boohoo!", my weak criticism skills critiques my own ideas. It's irrational as heck. -says my logic personified.
Hi Robin, I appreciate your fashion choices, do you know where you got that brown corduroy jacket in your short "social media discourages critical thinking"
Many literary critics wanted to be authors when they were young, but as they failed in that area they revolted against the very idea of the profession and tried to place themselves above in the only way they could. They then spent decades using the full force of their bitter intellect to push their nihilism out into the rest of society. It's almost kind of funny that a large part of why modern culture is so miserable can be traced back to the niche academic work of people who by most measures were complete losers in life. Not to draw a dramatically overused connection, but I don't think it's a coincidence that the most evil man of the 20th century was also a failed artist. Something about not being able to achieve the dreams of youth can turn a man against life itself. I say all of this as someone who largely exists in the critical/bitter mode of life. I'm trying desperately to heal myself from it.
Increasingly fast sound bites and "multi-tasking" are killing the concentration of people. Media is fine-tuning (to) each individual's tastes, so people's interactions are becoming less frequent and more superficial (that is technology at work with: internet, on-demand streaming, work from home, covid). Recently, from newspapers, to radio, to TV, to internet news feeds, to ticktock....
"How do we know when to enjoy something?" must be the saddest question I've ever heard. For me the joy (not meant as hedonistic pleasure, but more like a peaceful, quiet state of content) is what drives good outcomes and affection towards others. It's like a fuel that let us keep our emotion in control so we can embrace our suffering so it doesn't spill on others through our anger. Taking joy out of things and replacing it with guilt destroys this barrier and makes us resentful and destructive.
The suspicion gen z has of everything is certainly well earned, and not unlike what Boomers went through with regards to the Vietnam war, the Nixon era, and the violent institutional resistance to people fighting for civil rights. Ironically, though, critique was still institutionalized to a degree, and in terms of broader public awareness mostly still only open to white men. We're in the opposite mode now where anyone with a device can access the channels to become a cultural critic. But then we have the added complication of mistrust on that front, as well, where you have people gaining followings as "cultural critics" but then they try to sell you something, and you realize oh, they're an influencer. The extremely nebulous boundaries between critic and influencer only increase the mood of suspicion, and for good reason. I think that's why gen z largely identifies as anti-capitalist. Even if they don't mean that in every classic sense of the phrase, there's the whiff of SELLING around everything that is Very Online and it makes it harder and harder to trust any idea on its face.
Criticizing criticism? There's something self defeating here. Furthermore, is the opposite of criticism, perhaps optimism, contentment, naivete, etc., what society needs right now? If we don't criticize, then we leave ourselves blind to the very problems you mention.
I’m still under that stupid academic integrity conduct so I can’t publicly display any of my academic works, however I’m meeting with my supervisor to see if I could get it published and release it to the public that way.
Definitely ask your supervisor about this before you do it but if memory serves, you can comment on your own work which would allow you to Site data from it as well as your own thoughts. It’s kind of a weird workaround, but it’s usually considered acceptable. Hope this helps. And for the record, if you are able to, I would be very interested in reading it. Also, this was a very good video. You had a lot of great insights. I remember a few years ago I was hanging out with one of my family members was about I think 13 at the time and they were trying to get me interested in a CZcams video and I don’t remember much the video a critique of beauty and the beast 2. This was a low rent movie that barely made any money in fact I believe it was a straight to VHS movie. what I thought was odd was that this guy spent probably an hour talking about everything that was wrong with the movie. It just felt like a little too much work to be putting into such a minor movie, but I realised that that was his whole channel. I remember telling my family member that I didn’t think it was healthy to be overly critical. I remember as a child, my mom explaining the concept of willing suspension of disbelief. She said it was a necessary component to enjoy fiction and liability to listen to fictional stories was a way of learning and understanding the world that you couldn’t get from just learning facts.
@@RCWaldun Thanks so much for your response! I'm very interested in reading your thesis! But do take your time. I'm sure you'll notify us when you publish it (whether online or in an academic journal like JSTOR).
Academia is often run by (leftist, Jewish) ideologies and is an ivory tower -- having little to do with reality, something one only discovers by getting out of academia. I liked your critique -- about mood and about the differences between a critical mood and being an asshole,and it was wholly salient. The thing I did not hear you mention was the difference between critical thinking (which is not mood) and literary criticism or literary analysis. Universities do not promote critical thinking at all. Questioning is a product of the intellect, not of mood. Not taking things for granted is simply the byproduct of learning, experience and growing into an adult. It is not "negative." And the philosophy of pessmism has a lot more reality behind it psychologically than the so-called reality of optimism. I know you've found a passionate subject and I hope it only lasts so long as you remain in a university setting. I see it as a "mood" and more critical thinking will allow you see that too -- IMHO.
There's a time and place for everything. There are times when it is absolutely necessary to critique, e.g., today's genocide, WWIII, etc. Anyone not thinking and speaking critically (and constructively) for the sake of enjoyment is being selfish and irresponsible. Speaking truth does not make one an ass.
“I was able to use these concepts to justify all the faults that I picked with everything” “Elevate yourself above happy people” These aren’t what critics do, and no this is not normal. Critics can separate their critical concepts from their daily lives. Only narcissists do this. But then, philosophers are at dangerous risk of having narcissistic tendencies, which is why no one actually likes philosophers in real life and just pretends to put up with them because it makes them feel smart Also good philosophers have something to say about P*lestine
I think it’s fair to say, as a society, we are all emotionally sleep deprived and irritable.
It's a kind of tired that sleep can't fix.
couldn't have said it better👌
Touch-deprived
We live in our heads now more than ever.
We sleep deprived because of interest rate.
"Elevate yourself above happy people" is such a great way to describe some critics.
I recently read "The Abolition of Man" by C.S. Lewis and this is exactly what he discusses. A lot of people (especially academics) think that their critiquing (criticizing) everything makes them intellectual and wise, where Lewis sees that this does more harm than good to the larger social fabric. Thanks for another insightful video Robin!
The past year or two I’ve noticed more and more how I seem to be surrounded by negativity, both online and in the workplace. Every conversation I hear seems to start as a complaint. It’s made me really appreciate instances where something or someone is celebrated. And I try to stay out of comments sections.
The problem, in my view, does not lie in the bitterness that drives the feeling of guilt when enjoying anything. The problem is that it all comes down to consumption. You are constantly repeating it, consuming this, consuming that, content. Many people, I mean, many, are becoming too comfortable with being defined by their consumptions. For some people it's everything, so the only notion of enjoyment comes from it. You can always create. In a way, I think we are all creators. When you connect with another human being face to face, when you spend time playing, fooling around, creating a memory of a great afternoon or night with a friend, a lover, our families, then we are creators. We feel more fulfilled, more alive, more human. And the bitterness recedes on its own. Creation is the antidote to a passive vicarious life and the only thing that is needed for this is a connection, with others, with life itself, with the impulse to transform the emotions that we capture around us in the alchemy of art, creativity. Living life outside the media and passive consumption. You definitely cannot live a full life by passively only consuming “content.” That's the trick. You cannot find a cure for the symptoms without attacking the root of the problem. And please stop referring to music, movies, art, or anything you enjoy as "content." Yes, most of what the media apparatus spits out today qualifies as content, committe-defined entertainment that is pre-digested, but we are getting too comfortable calling everything content and we apply it indiscriminately without taking into account each work of art, be it music. , paintings, movies, books, poems and it feels ugly
Your comment gets to the root of the problems in current society. Kudos. I'm a visual artist and a poet, so I'm happy to read an insightful, observant person's refreshing thoughts about creativity as alchemy versus passive consumption of "content." It's alchemy for the creator as well as for the person experiencing the creation. I think I'm probably older (65) than this video's demographic, but I think what you wrote about creating memories is spot on, because it costs literally nothing to goof off with friends, surrender to gravity as you roll down a grassy hill, scream with hilarity and terror at "seances" we had at pajama parties. You give me hope for the future.
@@elainealibrandi6364 I don´t have to much hope myself but it makes me sad to see we are hooked by the drugs of distraction and consumption and we are losing touch with the source of our humanity. A couple of days ago taking the trash I dropped accidentaly a potato chip and latter on I saw it was covered in ants and my first thought was to step on them but then it hit me; they are on the patio, they are gonna take that potato chip bit by bit cleaning in the process so what is the problem? we are programmed to be like this to mesure value by what bothers us and don´t look around in child like wonder and be gentler with nature and ourselves. Its all about convenience, consumption, don´t take the time, don´t give second chances, everything is disposable, everything is liminal, and it feels sad and hopeless
@@user-ho4ps9ts1k But you are not hooked by the drugs of distraction and consumption, and neither am I. We are not the only ones. All of my friends feel the way we do. I fought against my programming, and you are, too! Try to find other enlightened people. I know it can be lonely and isolating. And overwhelming. I didn't start finding them until later in life, but they're out there. Don't let the mindless zombies affect your joy. Watch them as if they're aliens, maybe pity them, but be grateful you're not one of them. We have to walk through our lives with them, but we don't have to be them. Our minds are limitless and free.
I accept that this comment will be highly ironic, but this is exactly the problem with critical theory.
It's all well and good pulling something apart to see how it works and how to improve it, but if you never put it back together again you can never improve anything. It is just broken at that point, and it will remain broken until it is fixed.
Critical theory is great for criticising, but it is highly dangerous when it is the only thing a culture is focused on.
Is it any wonder that it feels like everything is broken when we aren't taught to be engineers, only destroyers?
Too many know what they are against but can’t explain what they are for and what it would look like and how we would know it’s been attained. Western culture has been self-cannibalizing for centuries in the name of progress and reform but it when does it end? It’s radical critique of meta-narratives undoes it’s own claims and values and cannot unify the the multitude who are naturally skeptical.
Something something C. S. Lewis window quote.
Wtf thanks dude, I actually need this
The issue is critique is always uttered by individuals. Solutions need to be collective. So you don't actually come closer to solving that which you are criticising by reducing the amount of criticism.
@@zeltzamer4010 I'd somehow never come across the window quote before! But yes, that.
thank god this video is not sponsored by better help cuz I got scared when he said he spoke with a therapist and the segway would be BETTER HELP 💀 anyway, nice commentary as always!
The point in culture when not only free speech is related to as if it is an UXB but being listened too is an almost unaffordable pipe dream, you could purchase in 50 minutes packages.
Commodification is a batch.
I also went through a similar realisation a little while ago and it suddenly made me so aware of how much negativity I was consuming in all forms of media (music, movies, video essays, even news to an extent) everything that would come into the mainstream media would end up getting called out for being 'toxic' or 'cringe' just in a matter of a few weeks. But then this realisation sort of made me look forward to things like 'hopecore' or just uplifting things in general. I also removed myself from the whole negative and loathing crowd to start enjoying things like watching my neighbour play with his dog or simply the evening wind. Sometimes I honestly just prefer the vain wants for aesthetic beauty which don't seek to undermine every single institution or paradigm out there.
It's not in vain, l grew up in a heavily, industrialised area, l spent a lot of time mentally"squinting" like a film director making a frame with their hands but less obviously gestural haha.
I would surreptitiously scour for beauty in amongst the invasive ugliness, (sulphur smell too) once it was railings reflecting as wavy in a wind blown puddle, often the complex shifting spectrum of fuel spilled in a puddle, or above the chaos, crossing jetsteams puffing up and then dispersing in the sky.
Inconsequential beauty, kept me sane and still does.
I deeply understand the classic Japanese aesthetic now, simplicity and stark beauty, it's life saving.
I think my main critique, is the criticism. We don't have to be skeptical all the time. We can take on faith an author, without having to pick them apart. Sometimes, just understanding them is enough, and making sure you understand them right. You don't argue with an artist. You understand them. That's something many people don't realize, is they use Postmodernism as a way to deconstruct, not as a way to understand. You can remove parts of the thesis you don't like, and grasp the outlying meaning. My main mode of literary theory is finding agreement and embracing the author's intentions, and finding where it's true. That helps you understand the author, rather than dismiss them.
Because generally, a person can't be wrong about everything. You know? Even in the authors I'm not very certain of, I find points where I understand them, and empathize with them. That's really all we need to do.
I have stuff online, mainly audio-books, ebooks, etc. and something I find fascinating is that people will think nothing about reacting negatively to something that isn't for them. If I didn't like fantasy or romance novels, it would be wrong of me to rate a fantasy novel or romance manga, especially if I'm not trying to set aside my feelings. But somehow, it's still ok and accessible for me to leave a one star review. It's a bit like disagreeing with a conversation you're not interest in but you still listen in on. It's an uneven power dynamic between creator and audience; that somehow we have to be psychic and no you hate posts on Wednesday, or that you're not in the mood for the colour red. To be honest, I think audiences are spoilt; there's endless entertainment, many of it for free, spanning all of human existence, but how dare anyone post a painting they made you didn't like.
Maybe it's because formerly people would go to the theatre restaurant library cinema ... Now it's impudently invaded their personal space, their intimate space even, it's on their phone, which is now part of their body map.
Uneasiness, it's a proximal thing.
@@veronica_._._._ I'm a writer. I wrote a fantasy romance and received a one-star review for my novel due to the main characters not being destined right from the very beginning, aka 'the one', instead they are each other's 'second chance mates'. Anyway, this is a wolf shifter novel so basically readers are aware of the concept of soulmates so is the characters.
To quote the reviewer: "The hero laments losing his "soulmate" to another male because he made the mistake of rejecting her, and then when he gets an opportunity for a "second chance mate" (the heroine), he has the gall to tell her that the first girl was his soulmate?? You would think the heroine would be a little deflated over hearing this as a soulmate is supposed to be "it" for a person, but nope! She tells him her college boyfriend that passed away 7 years ago was her soulmate. They made the word soulmate seem trite, which is never good for a romance novel."
The story explores the theme of second chances in life. The scene she specifically tackled in this is just a casual conversation of two 'not quite couples yet but are attracted to each other' about their previous lovers. It was a scene to show that both main characters had previous relationships they lost, mistakes they committed and acknowledgement of their own fault as to why the previous relationship ended. The keyword here is 'was.' It seems like the reviewer believes in the idea of 'the one'-that a person should have only one true love, which is very common 'cliche' in fiction. I get that. I hope she only holds that view in fiction because, in reality, expecting 'one true love' in today’s dating world is a recipe for disappointment. Since then, I learned to place those as trigger warnings to my books to make sure readers know exactly what they're going into before they read it.
I often am insomnic, and I use the time I'm not able to sleep to read. I slow down a lot because my brain starts to deteriate after being awake for 16+ hours, BUT the joy of reading increases. It just hits harder then. Makes me immune to byronic unhappiness because I've had a beautifully short night.
Hermeneutics, as we can read on page 581 of Liddell & Scott, is heavily based on Hermes. Hermes, as we all know, was a messenger between men and gods. The world can also connote a sense of fortune or good luck as well. Let's think for a moment that most people have rarely, if ever, been exposed to philosophical or literary discourse. The humanities has unfortunately degraded into a joke of a career. I once knew a faculty member who told the following joke: "what's the difference between a pizza and a philosophy Ph.D.? The pizza can feed a family of 4!"
So ironically enough, people do not really have much formal learning in the areas of philosophy, literary theory, or any of the other core liberal arts. This means that they are much more focused on derivative aspects of discourse and thinking. They are more impressionable to social media and the Zeitgeist of political dialogue. Suspicion, in and of itself, focuses on external situations and happenings. As a result, the modern day human rarely reflects inward. To be with oneself is extreme boredom that cannot be reasonably explained without understanding the nature of ennui. And so, people always keep themselves busy by engaging in mostly meaningless social interactions, travel, and work. They remain suspicious of everything.
I know my recommendation may be a bit controversial, but I really enjoyed reading Camille Paglia's books. The queer community, a community I am somewhat a part of, would say that she is transphobic, though this is again a kind of suspicion. Sexual Personae weaves a clear account of how media influences culture. The idolation of Nefertiti, for example, shows how the ideal feminine is desexualized, becoming a shell of masculinity. Emily Dickinson can be read as an intense sadist. Helene Cixous, albeit dated at this point, makes an interesting psychoanalytic analysis of woman as the Medusa who is smiling. The hidden inner nuances of humanity are no longer taken seriously by the modern individual.
Perhaps this has to do with the nature of social media, which again abstracts away the elements of true interaction, thinking, and friendship. A society of suspicion has no need of the liberal arts. The old liberal arts forces people to turn inward and reflect deeply upon themselves. Few have the courage to do so now. The few that do typically encounter a lot of anxiety, dread, isolation, and mental perturbation. Everything, as a result, becomes a one-to-one and inflexible mapping of external events and groupthink heuristics. Which completes the full circle of my point - modern society has no need of hermeneutics as much as they have a need of heuristics. Heuristics focus on only what is external to oneself. As a result, heuristic thinking is far more practical and less upsetting in modern society.
@@rubsr4176Did you read the book or did you just watch her videos on CZcams? Sounds like the latter to me.
This was a good read. Thank you, I'll definitely try to learn more about this in my free time!
I could appreciate Mr. Walden’s point later on in the video where he speaks of the convergence bound to befall us because of our rising internet participation, namely, how the day will come when we all sound the same even though we may be saying completely different things.
This is a theme I have been pursuing for a long time because it is, in my opinion, everywhere evident that we are in fact beginning not only to sound the same but also to act the same, everything from Twidiot -speak locutions to our stenciled body language and perpetual hand gesticulating.
In other words, our internet-administered fate is a stifling convergence and not like true diversity of thought or felicity of expression.
You put into words EXACTLY what tf is going on right now. It makes SOOOOOO MUCH sense!
You know what, the fact that my first reaction to this video was to critique it and provide an alternative prospective tells me that you're onto something
Welcome to the age of critique!
No. He is talking about an idea and a feeling from observing people. Questioning it is the right way to go
@@akshayde true but I was referring how critiquing it was my FIRST reaction, before even hearing Robin out.
@@aqup_ i think that's just us coping. Our patience is low and we think the internet is like a conversation because of the comments section. Like if he was in front of you talking to you, you would interrupt and say what you need to say or question it.
But i think its more like a ted talk or a speech. But having the ability to comment is a shit show for hearing somebody out.
I was just on another video, commented that i disagreed with the 1st point of a 20 minute video and just moved on from it. Didn't even care to watch the whole thing because if I really think about it, im not interested to know a strangers thoughts on a topic that he felt he needed to make a video on.
I just clicked on it cuz I'm coping with being bored at work and dont know what to do with myself by myself
@@akshayde fair enough. I am personally convinced by Robin's point more but yours definitely has some merit behind it.
For those who are interested: Zygmunt Bauman wrote about this stuff in "Liquid Modernity". He shows how society has become so self-reflected that we are constantly aware of everything and now tend to deconstruct all of it. Because of that we recognise the flaws of pretty much everything, so we end up criticizing everything all the time. And ironically this overly-critical way of operating keeps us from changing things to the better. The constant critique has become useless and only causes us to feel bad.
It's very negative and not very hope inducing but still a fascinating sociologial analysis.
Great topic! I endlessly think of this myself. There is an art to enjoying things, it feels often too easy to be critical of everything. Including things that don't ask to be looked at in a critical way. And instead of making the critique the result of our thoughts, we could create a more meaningful response, write our own novels, paint our own pictures, film our own movies, instead of just listing the faults and leaving nothing in it's place.
i heard someone say that everyone is comic book guy from the simpsons now. you put it in way better words but ever since i heard that ive been seeing it non stop. especially in how i think about new information.
I'm middle age now. I had this "phase" for around 25 years... Way, way too long. I got out of it through a combination of having children, exhaustion from that irritable mood, and just boredom of hearing myself.
Everything feels much better now. Listen, understand, trust. I can pull out the knives when it seems prudent, and it makes those moments far more effective in using my voice for good.
Ahh, the neverending method wars. I like the idea that you pose at the end here, toward a middle ground between critique and response (or attunement or liking or whatever else we want to call it). I've always looked at them as two sides of the same coin, or as different tools in our tool kits. We can, and should, take the time to appreciate and enjoy things. And we can, and should, take the time to understand how the things that we enjoy work within a larger social and cultural context.
This really reminds me of Peter Sloterdijks book "Critique of Cynical Reason" where he argues that the enlightenment brings about this suspicion
I definitely noticed the ‘Paranoid Reading’ in myself. I expected negative comments under vids, clips, articles, etc., so much even that when I watched sm I liked, I’d become hesitant to ‘fully’ like it. The impact of all the criticism & cancellations online on my general mood wasn’t good. Deleting a lot of social med apps & not reading comments when I did enter an app helped me from this weird addiction to finding a negative way of interpreting anything and everything. My conclusion to my experience is that there’s a difference between critical thinking (emphasis on thinking) and whatever this online version is. (actually the same thing happing with journalism. the thing ab whether you can believe sm to be true or not should be based on research, proofreading, fact checking and more.) Being critical is a good thing, however most of what circulates on social media should be dismissed instead of being attempted to be critiqued. In this way we would not be giving the people with the agenda of spreading bullshit online more power. The fact that it’s mostly children (let’s say under 21) on these platforms… Well, lets just say it’s not helping us, the non-extremely wealthy us.
I think most critics shift restlessly from a lack of identity beyond being a critic and broadly lack a strong internal foundation/structure (or their structure itself is "destructuralist") and since no structure can be without blame or can be one size fits all, they attach moral superiority to their state of lack and take pleasure in pecking away another person's "foundations"; as a result find anyone who's not as restless or even happy to be committing a microaggression against their state of being. Wrt your last few minutes, I remember ContraPoints talking about what you call 'amorous reading' as the thin line to walk between Aesthetics and Morality. Interestingly it was apparently also going to be her PhD thesis before she dropped out lol. Great video
I could listen to you talk for hours
I have a theory which kind of goes against a “return” to “pure” enjoyment of art:
The truest, most radical love is always in SPITE of reason. To love a work, therefore, one must resign the work, picking it apart mercilessly. Here it is possible to lose the work entirely. I might turn my back on it and revile myself for once having liked it. But it is only when the work is torn apart, so that everything the movie says is made clear, is it possible for the true lover of the work to say “I dislike everything this film is saying, yet it moves me in the most profound ways.”
It is a scary thought to lose a work of art that I love, but that is why I am not a knight of faith, and why Abraham was.
We cannot go back. There is no backwards, and i find nostalgic rhetoric like that to be worrying. Instead, I believe that critique culture has it right, but it doesn’t take the final step: we must be able to receive the work back, as Abraham receives Isaac.
It’s a delicate balance for sure, and I completely agree with your theory. Pure enjoyment runs the risk of just turning into sentimental platitudes, so ideally we would, like you said, still have the ability to critically analyze something while maintaining our initial attachment to it.
A true knight of faith is the rarest person in the world. I think you are being way too idealistic and a culture based on your theory would quickly devolve into nihilism.
To approach this from another angle, is this what you do with loved ones? Are you saying that you can't "truly" love a spouse until you pick them apart piece by piece with every flaw and dark corner of their being revealed to you? I dare you to try and live this way. You will end up alone.
@@john_g_henderson Two points:
1) I've certainly softened up on the "only way" bit. love may take many forms, and a critical love is only one. It is a valid form nevertheless.
2) The lover's critical outlook is not clinical but experiential. Over the course of continuous interaction, new situations and tensions reveal new sides of the beloved, some wonderful, some almost intolerable. Each new bad side provokes thought and mental cataloguing in the lover's mind; and they are presented with several options. If they want to continue the relationship, ignoring the issue leads to festering. Only by adressing it and looking it in the face can the lover and beloved be united once more, this time deeper. But this adressing is nothing peaceful or easy. It requires a relinquishing of the relationship, putting it in the beloved’s hands. If the lover adresses an issue, they risk the beloved breaking things off. In this way, the lover requires the bravery to be critical, relinquishing their right to the relationship, but having faith that the beloved will work through the issue with them.
Even great or mature love can have an irrational strain of hatred which rears its head once in a while. In Much Ado about Nothing, Beatrice and Benedick, who hate each other to their cores, are therefore able to love each other deeply and maturely; whereas Hero and Claudio’s love, which is naive, blows up with one problem. They can only love each other maturely after Claudio relinquishes the relationship by agreeing to marry Hero’s cousin, and then accepting the relationship back when Hero forgives him.
All this is to say that it is possible or even necessary that the lover be critical of the beloved.
A few weeks ago I went to see a film at the cinema. A third way through I thought it was trash, pointed to myself fifteen things that went wrong with the production, and was thinking of leaving right away. But then I said to myself, so what if it was trash? Well, I wouldn't enjoy it as much. But then so what if I don't enjoy it as much? Well, I would've wasted my time. But so what if I wasted my time? ... I kept asking the same question and ended up realizing nothing matters that much anymore!-and I ended up watching the film till the end, got out of the cinema, and continued about my life as if nothing happened. (And surprise surprise, that was how it ended up anyway when I saw Oppenheimer-that is, it might be a masterpiece, but at the end of the day I went out of the cinema and went about my life as if nothing happened anyway.) Now that doesn't solve the critique culture at societal level, but for individual purposes, I find not taking things so seriously to be quite helpful to step out of the chaos for a little bit.
But (I think) of course, all that heavily depends on what our "highest value" is; if one were to take "artistic perfection" as its supreme principle, then critiquing (and improving) all the way to achieve perfection might well be the "true joy" for him/her. So it's important for us to first ask ourselves what our philosophy is behind our critiquing behaviors, and even to first define what is even "enjoying" and "critiquing" *for us*? And once you do that I think you'll agree that tackling this critique culture on a societal level would be maddeningly complicated, for at least it'll be some kind of manifestation of the sheer amount of varying motives and philosophies residing in each member of the community. Fascinatingly maddening, maddeningly fascinating.
Anyhow, great video as always, Robin; looking forward to read your thesis and whatnot :)
The most freeing thing for me was leaving a uptown theatre during the interval. "You just don't do that", yet we did it anyway.
There is now a limit to how long l will engage, that takes into consideration others needs too, but keeping integrity.
I currently live with a chatty person who is easily bored. It's an interesting conundrum, fully engaging for short bursts, but ringfencing thinking time.
We share core ethics, but have very different outlooks, it has been surprising how the shared ethical ideals only increase a sense of security when we are so opposite. Counterintuitive.
Excellently put. One of the best videos I have seen in quite some time. Keep up the good work Robin!
Oh my god... You have described me to the atom! I always pick things apart from an outsider perspective instead of experiencing them, all from a feeling of superiority. This is the reason I can't feel happiness, but an indifferent sensation most of the time... Thank you, you have opened my eyes.
One thing I have noticed, is how much internet critics not only state their opinion, but also propagandize to everyone that they should agree. They try to argue for objectivity, and to do this they review bomb on Rotten Tomatoes or something, to make it seem like there is an objective truth to how audiences feel about a piece of media.
Great video. One thingvi discover is that discussing on social media is losing time. I know we all have this desire to have reason on twitter or others. But when you read a book, you can disagree, you can check the sources, all this with containing this desire to have reason.
And the desire to be superior to others in arguments its all ego, doesnt acomplish nothing
This video made me an instant subscriber. Keep up the great work!
Thank you for this great video. It brings to my mind how the internet has slowly transformed into an echo chamber filled with trolls. On a positive note, I decided to leave social media and start a book club, viewing reading as a way to expand my mind without feeling the need (and having the means) to share my opinions with others.
I really appreciated your discussion of Paul Ricoeur and his discussion of the ",masters of suspicion", in reference to the big names of both the Modern and (early?) PostModern eras like Marx and Freud. I really loved your video essay here and makes me moved to invite you onto my own podcast - if you are so inclined.
I love your content. I've been following you for years and I believe your channel is so underrated. Thanks for your content.
That was some quality insight. I think it is hard to perfect or improve things by telling 'it' how good it already is. And that is because I think intellectual people (those who critique) have a natural tendency to want progression or improvement. That is versus those whose primary focus is inwards and do not concern themselves with society at large. We who possess a macro viewpoint, and are therefore critical, have an idea of how we think things should be, and for that belief to manifest itself in real life, we critique to steer things to that end. So what Gen Z must want, and I think others share this desire, is the need for change.
To me, this sounds like the hypervigilance of the traumatized. Which is absolutely valid. And is at the same time robbing us of the enjoyment of the moment. There is no rest.
We all probably need more hugs. I caught myself immediately barrating myself for being a nit picker after realising that I have this tendency too. It's wild...
Love this video and the concept of finding that middle ground. I tend to think that enjoying a book and then also tearing into it critically is a time honored practice...just not with books so much as with baseball (Yankees fans love a good game and still crap on some guy's bad fielding, etc.). Also, a request: I would appreciate if you could post the names of the people you reference in the show notes or something so they're easier to find. Thanks!
"This constant lying is not aimed at making the people believe a lie, but at ensuring that no one believes anything anymore." -- Hannah Arendt
This is such a refreshing thesis! Thanks :)
could we still think of critique as a form of enjoyment and find beauty in it? i feel like it’s impossible to be a passive enjoyer and just take the object at face value, there is always a need to think and engage with it which what critique is about
seconding this! if you love something you gotta recognize the faults in it
Thank you.
You make a great analysis and it helped me understand that I was not an isolated case of echo chamber and negative thinking.
Your video is of public utility
The more intelligent you are, the more deep your thoughts, the unhappier you are. You see less and less reasons to be happy. You must practice gratitude, because there's load to be happy about. We have been trained to point out everything that's wrong in everything.
Is this a critique of critiquing 😆. Classy video as always.
Certain fragments of what you discussed in this essay reminds me of Keat's theory of ''Negative Capability''. I am not sure to what extent this relates to what you talked about but it makes sense to consider that the lack of intellectual empathy towards mysteries and uncertainties paired with the urge to employ acquired knowledge to structure and solve these mysteries is triggering an intolerant attitude. Sense of indulgence and joy is replaced with a want to center one's intellectual grip as an attack or a tool to feel bigger than the media that is being ambushed. We care less about enjoying media and literature, more about how we look if we were to associate with these media or literary pieces. Always on a lookout for the next best thing that we can use as a template to draw our personalities around.
“Negative Capability” is essential and this is what Byung-Chul Han called “being able not to be able”. Only through respecting the radical Other can we start to understand what we’re viewing on a deeper level.
Loving your channel and reflections. I use a white noise machine as well and love it. Long walks in nature help me let go of some of the angst and dread of modern living too.
Love when you talk to yourself so genuinely that you think people are actually understanding each and every thing you say 😊
I think it's big problem that we're made to feel guilty about enjoying anything, There's an addiction to being offended and finding things "problematic" because it gives someone a sense of moral superiority and meaning in a time of dissolution. Art is will expressed and like nature it does not care who is offended or oppressed or any form of moral high grounds.
The flipside: my way of enjoying a creation is very much about critiquing it. I'll pick apart and analyze every aspect of a thing I like. I'm extremely aware of every fault in a work that I love. I might even admit it's bad, because I reserve the right to indulge in bad taste. But it's my belief that a lot of things that are made with love and passion are doomed to small budgets, so seeing the limits of the resources that were available to make something I can then love, I just feel even more pampered by the creator, who went all the way just to bring me their weird idea. I'm in love, and I have critical distance. A set on a tv-show looks like cardboard, when it's meant to be ice in the Arctic; I'm even more drawn in to the impeccable performance by the actors. Every work cotains hits and misses, but when I love something, every miss just focuses me on how hard the hits strike.
If i don't like something, I just walk away. I have nothing to say about things I don't like. "It was bland and formulaic and I quit halfway" isn't a critique, it's a dismissal. It's not specific to the thing I'm talking about. Because I don't care enough to pick the thing apart.
I used to work for papers and magazines. The general principle back then was that if you really didn't like something you didn't review it. In a sense, no news was bad news.
Where there were more reviewers you all covered as much as you could - some liked some things, some liked others. Then there were the holy cows - some things that a senior reviewer was expected to write on. We were honest but didn't totally shred anything. Generally 2/5 meant awful and 3/5 meant mediocre. Mind you I'm British, so "it's alright" can mean anything from dreadful to stunning - the context tells you which. If you were complimentary you were careful not to gush - the only reason they courted you is to get quotes for marketing.
This is one of the tensions me and my ex-friend had when we streamed games to eachother. I firstly engage with things emotionally (immersing myself into the game, feeling what the haracters feel), while they engaged intelectually.
So they are constantly pointing out flaws which takes me out of my immersion and thus ruining my enjoyment of the game. I kinda go around it with the games that I stream as I tend to play them solo before streaming them. Thing is that my ex-friend got frustrated by it and saying they want to see my first reactions to stuff. Thing is their commentaries ruin my "pure" experience of the thing.
They also got annoyed when I answer their question of "how was that thing for you" with "ok/I liked it/I didn't like it" as they want an analysis of why I felt the way I felt, while I haven't even digested what I have felt.
Also, having everything criticised felt very draining and like I wasn't allowed to enjoy things. So it kinda was ruining my mood and enjoyment. Heck, it went to such degree that the world started t olose it's colours. So I had to end the friendship for the sake of my own mental health. I'm slowly recovering and the colours are slowly comming back.
Oh and fun fact, now my inner critic is talking in their voice.
As a former dog walker, there is something wrong with me. You caught me. That said, Byronic unhappiness is supposed to be something divine and aristocratic in its discontent. Without that, it's merely Nietzschean ressentiment. Also, many girlfriends think their boyfriends are assholes, especially when right. :)
The critic of criticism restoring order to the internet
The article on consciousness and free will is bassin, especially the debate between determinism and our sense of choice. It’s like wondering if we’re making decisions or if the universe is just playing a game with us. The idea that free will and determinism can coexist is interesting, but does it really solve the problem? If our actions are determined by factors beyond our control, does blaming and punishing people still make sense? Should we rethink our justice system, or just start saying, "Sorry, I forgot to clean my room because my brain was on vacation!"
Is there even a problem to begin with? If the choices we make are just an illusion, then why wouldn't it extend also to our identities themselves? If we're putting in check our subjective experience of choosing, then there's no reason we should't extend that to our whole subjective experience. Doing that allow us to do away with this sense of identity that keeps hanging weirdly when the boundaries between I -my and otherness-beyond-mine me is already murky. And yes we should rethink our justice system, but I don't think grounding in any sort of ontology is where the money is.
I am not sure if this is related but this video got me thinking about how the critique culture on social media made a lot people think it’s acceptable to things in my opinion are not critique-able, people will leave body shaming comments on people just posting days in their life’s video like that’s something they are entitled to do, they have a mindset that if a video is public on the internet, that means I can comment a projection of my hate that I interpret as “the truth”
This is exactly what I tried to articulate but you said it better!
My main critique of your analysis is that the observation "People are mad in internet comments" isn't new and it feels arbitrary to declare that this exact moment is the time when it's getting worse, as opposed to five years ago or ten years ago. If anything I feel like the tipping point is that internet comments sections are becoming ghost towns, with people leaving facebook and twitter in droves.
I'm looking forward to the impact of Amorous Reading!
I do think that people can still like things, not in the sense of "should anybody be allowed to still like things" but in the sense of liking an aspect of a thing so much that they will construct arguments in favor of the thing.
The counterargument in favor of enjoyment is not always going to be as puerile as "well I like it and you can't make me not so have this tongue emoji 😛" - I still believe in people being in such rapturous enjoyment that they can articulate and analyze why the thing had such an impact.
Of course there's at least equal risk of somebody liking something so much that arguments in favor of it don't hold up but get twisted and full of fallacies and then apply harmfully...as there is somebody in a bad mood thinks they're being a critic when really they're just being an arse.
So I think some standard of candor and applicability can be held to both the raves and the rants, and in that form avenues for criticism that's actually constructive.
I like the idea of Reparative Readings, I think Eve Sedgwick wrote on those? And on the film theory side I've read Mulvey's theory of visual pleasure (the patriarchal Male Gaze in cinematic works) and an addition by Steve Neale that agreed with Mulvey that there's patriarchy while also analyzing the visual pleasure of "Masculinity as Spectacle" so that it's possible even in a patriarchy that has film studios to film masculinity in such a way that there is an objectifying amorousness, and in that the potential for reparative readings. It wasn't a contradiction of Mulvey's theory nor was it dismissal; it was additional information. I just think that's neat.
I definitely believe it's possible to make a sophisticated, elaborate analysis from a place of enjoyment that applies honestly and constructively...
And recently I even found a sort of "takedown of the takedowns". I began to get curious about A Little Life by Hanya Yanagihara that was very popular commercial fiction back in 2015, so I read it (because I didn't want to say "The movie Permanent Green Light should have been the influential cultural thing to start discussions about suicide, not 13 Reasons Why or A Little Life" when I have not read A Little Life and only resented its popularity...I still think Permanent Green Light handled that social issue more coherently, but I am currently very keen about thematically coding the potential intertextuality of A Little Life with The George Miles Cycle) and here it is: "A Little Life Is Not Your Father" by Brandon Taylor, a blog post that offers a lukewarm defense of A Little Life but also an utterly scathing criticism of the criticism and speculating on a sort of Oedipal impulse in the collective subconscious to "kill the father" of any media representation...because critics that are arses about it, are not usually creators; the hostile criticism, I think Taylor concludes in that essay, comes from a misguided idea that we should not or cannot CREATE what we want, so that manifests as hating-ahem, "criticizing"-actual creative creators' creations.
Hopefully such scathing criticisms of bad-faith criticisms will make it more acceptable to check in with oneself about whether too much emotional reasoning is at play, and then to like things.
It’s a holiday whenever you drop a video 🎉
And yet we haven’t been critical enough. Good critique is often a robust and gracious engagement with another’s work and not necessarily ridden with bad feelings. I don’t think we’ve ever been reparative readers, which is also unfortunate-Sedgwick’s rendering being far more compelling than today’s extension in Felski’s+ work-but this is a time when criticality needs a boost. If interested, I largely agree with Robert Tally’s response to post-critique in For A Ruthless Critique of All That Exists. I’d personally like to see more of the joy of good criticism. Whatever it is now is sorely de-toothed when it could really use some sharp, generous teeth!
“Romanticism has never been properly judged. Who was there to judge it? The critics!” - Arthur Rimbaud
i think it is worth a watch
Go Enjoy Something FUN! Makes our head spin. Thorough of course, as always you are. Maybe if we can be more aware of the present, not taking anything for granted, and not being so concerned about what others may think or feel, especially or specifically so about our enjoyment (or maybe even our lack thereof), of things, THEN maybe we'll all "come around".
Postscript: Where do I purchase your fleece insulated tan and white shirt jacket? (Asking for a Friend.)
Great vid Robin, thank you
This is a good critique of critiques
First time watcher here, hello, lovely video thanks for sharing. Just wanted to say your voice reminds of Richard Nixon, lol.
🤣🤣
Definitely looking forward to the other videos exploring this topic ❤
I love you, I’m felt like a book that was read
So I was being an asshole recently. Thanks, Robin, for making me realize that. Great video.
Therapy and Critical Theory what a hell of a combination uh well I discuss CT with my Therapist much of the time too.
Well said. Social media is pretty much this.
The critics are right and so are the romanticists.
Arguments are fallacious. Every argument has one or more fallacies nested inside it.
How then is there any knowledge or truth? Sacrifice. Things like enjoyment, laughter, understanding, are harder to express because they go beyond predication.
It's easy to predicate about ignorance. Even predicating at all is ignorant.
It's even easier to look mystery in the face, to leave assumptions at the door, to take and eat what has been offered and become full.
Being seen as being able to critique things is to be grown up. There's so much rush to appear mature and grown up, the critic has lost the childlike wonder of just enjoying something whether it be bad or good
You gave me so much to think about..........
Perhaps we should embrace aesthetics; shift away from the centrality of critical judgements. Yes, thought and action needs to be clearly understood, delineated, and written materials/audio-visual objects must be assessed. These critical analyses would benefit from depersonalization The path to identify and clarify ambiguity benefits from patience and forbearance. Perhaps an over-focus on critical theory and power relations impoverishes the spirit more than it facilitates change. Cultivating an enriched spirit is a better way to positive and sustainable cultural influence.
Being a huge fan of Taylor Swift in 2023 definitely made me think a lot about this topic.
sounds a lot like my psychoanalytic cohort!!!
Great video! 🙏
this reminds me to the essay "why has critique run out of stream" by Bruno Latour
Brilliant essay. 👌🏻
Is isolation the bad solution for enjoying things?
Nice😊
Aah the sensitive poet, John Keats and ptsd's side effects... this is a college student's struggle.
"Gosh dangit!", says my insecurity personified.
And yes the mood to not be deluded by anyone and I forget that in the process I am deluding myself.
Damnit that was a scary experience.
Oh right, and critiquing with dread music horrifying everyone without giving helpful solutions/suggestions.
"Boohoo!", my weak criticism skills critiques my own ideas. It's irrational as heck.
-says my logic personified.
The objective academic writing skills go brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr 💀
Hi Robin, I appreciate your fashion choices, do you know where you got that brown corduroy jacket in your short "social media discourages critical thinking"
It’s from this Australian brand called M.J. BALE but I think it’s from two seasons ago. Have a look on their website.
Many literary critics wanted to be authors when they were young, but as they failed in that area they revolted against the very idea of the profession and tried to place themselves above in the only way they could. They then spent decades using the full force of their bitter intellect to push their nihilism out into the rest of society. It's almost kind of funny that a large part of why modern culture is so miserable can be traced back to the niche academic work of people who by most measures were complete losers in life. Not to draw a dramatically overused connection, but I don't think it's a coincidence that the most evil man of the 20th century was also a failed artist. Something about not being able to achieve the dreams of youth can turn a man against life itself.
I say all of this as someone who largely exists in the critical/bitter mode of life. I'm trying desperately to heal myself from it.
Increasingly fast sound bites and "multi-tasking" are killing the concentration of people.
Media is fine-tuning (to) each individual's tastes, so people's interactions are becoming less frequent and more superficial (that is technology at work with: internet, on-demand streaming, work from home, covid). Recently, from newspapers, to radio, to TV, to internet news feeds, to ticktock....
"How do we know when to enjoy something?" must be the saddest question I've ever heard.
For me the joy (not meant as hedonistic pleasure, but more like a peaceful, quiet state of content) is what drives good outcomes and affection towards others. It's like a fuel that let us keep our emotion in control so we can embrace our suffering so it doesn't spill on others through our anger.
Taking joy out of things and replacing it with guilt destroys this barrier and makes us resentful and destructive.
When is the second part of the Euro trip coming?
It’s in the works already!
The suspicion gen z has of everything is certainly well earned, and not unlike what Boomers went through with regards to the Vietnam war, the Nixon era, and the violent institutional resistance to people fighting for civil rights. Ironically, though, critique was still institutionalized to a degree, and in terms of broader public awareness mostly still only open to white men. We're in the opposite mode now where anyone with a device can access the channels to become a cultural critic. But then we have the added complication of mistrust on that front, as well, where you have people gaining followings as "cultural critics" but then they try to sell you something, and you realize oh, they're an influencer. The extremely nebulous boundaries between critic and influencer only increase the mood of suspicion, and for good reason. I think that's why gen z largely identifies as anti-capitalist. Even if they don't mean that in every classic sense of the phrase, there's the whiff of SELLING around everything that is Very Online and it makes it harder and harder to trust any idea on its face.
Criticizing criticism? There's something self defeating here. Furthermore, is the opposite of criticism, perhaps optimism, contentment, naivete, etc., what society needs right now? If we don't criticize, then we leave ourselves blind to the very problems you mention.
Letting the exceptions define the rules leads to having no sensible rules.
Damn, you’re smart!
Will you post your thesis online? Interesting video essay.
I’m still under that stupid academic integrity conduct so I can’t publicly display any of my academic works, however I’m meeting with my supervisor to see if I could get it published and release it to the public that way.
Definitely ask your supervisor about this before you do it but if memory serves, you can comment on your own work which would allow you to Site data from it as well as your own thoughts. It’s kind of a weird workaround, but it’s usually considered acceptable. Hope this helps. And for the record, if you are able to, I would be very interested in reading it.
Also, this was a very good video. You had a lot of great insights. I remember a few years ago I was hanging out with one of my family members was about I think 13 at the time and they were trying to get me interested in a CZcams video and I don’t remember much the video a critique of beauty and the beast 2. This was a low rent movie that barely made any money in fact I believe it was a straight to VHS movie. what I thought was odd was that this guy spent probably an hour talking about everything that was wrong with the movie. It just felt like a little too much work to be putting into such a minor movie, but I realised that that was his whole channel. I remember telling my family member that I didn’t think it was healthy to be overly critical. I remember as a child, my mom explaining the concept of willing suspension of disbelief. She said it was a necessary component to enjoy fiction and liability to listen to fictional stories was a way of learning and understanding the world that you couldn’t get from just learning facts.
@@RCWaldun Thanks so much for your response! I'm very interested in reading your thesis! But do take your time. I'm sure you'll notify us when you publish it (whether online or in an academic journal like JSTOR).
Academia is often run by (leftist, Jewish) ideologies and is an ivory tower -- having little to do with reality, something one only discovers by getting out of academia. I liked your critique -- about mood and about the differences between a critical mood and being an asshole,and it was wholly salient. The thing I did not hear you mention was the difference between critical thinking (which is not mood) and literary criticism or literary analysis. Universities do not promote critical thinking at all. Questioning is a product of the intellect, not of mood. Not taking things for granted is simply the byproduct of learning, experience and growing into an adult. It is not "negative." And the philosophy of pessmism has a lot more reality behind it psychologically than the so-called reality of optimism. I know you've found a passionate subject and I hope it only lasts so long as you remain in a university setting. I see it as a "mood" and more critical thinking will allow you see that too -- IMHO.
some how his theory is on to something of social media deconstructing thougth with defeact(critics).
I'm watching a critic criticize criticizing
Postcritique in a nutshell.
There's a time and place for everything. There are times when it is absolutely necessary to critique, e.g., today's genocide, WWIII, etc. Anyone not thinking and speaking critically (and constructively) for the sake of enjoyment is being selfish and irresponsible. Speaking truth does not make one an ass.
I don't consider you an asshole (except for the fact that everyone has one) I consider you what is known as an "armchair critic"
lovely
It's critical theory. It was basically the cesspool Twitter before Twitter was a thing.
Lol just realized that this is a critique of the critque culture
“I was able to use these concepts to justify all the faults that I picked with everything”
“Elevate yourself above happy people”
These aren’t what critics do, and no this is not normal. Critics can separate their critical concepts from their daily lives. Only narcissists do this. But then, philosophers are at dangerous risk of having narcissistic tendencies, which is why no one actually likes philosophers in real life and just pretends to put up with them because it makes them feel smart
Also good philosophers have something to say about P*lestine
So, Your Phd thesis was Critique of Critique ;)
Honors thesis* but yes! My PhD will be an expansion of this theory.