Structuralism: how non-being shaped the modern world
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 07. 2024
- If postmodernism is the answer, then what was the question?
📜Subscribe: bit.ly/3tapuza | 💖Support us: bit.ly/3PWNHmc
🧉Tip us a yerba mate: ko-fi.com/t3essays
💖Support on CZcams: / @t3essays
📣Follow us on Twitter: / t3essays
🦣and on Mastodon: kolektiva.social/@t3essays
🇵🇱Kanał po polsku: / myslecglebiej
✉Get in touch: t3essays@gmail.com
🎬Structuralism by Tom Nicholas: • Structuralism and Semi...
In today's crunchy, nutritious, theory-laden video, we discuss the basic problem that many people have with postmodernism and so on - namely, that it approaches the existence of things in a completely different way. The late 20th century shattered the view that was dominant for 25 centuries, since the philosopher Parmenides: that things simply exist. We follow Ferdinand de Saussure and Claude Levi-Strauss on their path from figuring out language to figuring out society to trying to figure out everything, how it finally failed, and why it was replaced by post-structuralism.
Chapters:
00:00 Introduction
3:08 I Being vs non-being: an easy victory
9:08 II Essentialism: things inside themselves
11:24 III The non-being of language
20:02 IV The non-being of everything
25:01 V The big question of structuralism
31:11 V The downfall of structuralism
35:30 VII What's in it for us
The quality of this content is off the charts.
Any other channels like this?
@@rebinu Overthink podcast and Jeffery kaplan is pretty good.(no funni edit, just philosophy)
At least they both have phd degrees in philosophy and know what they're talking about. It is pretty rare that you get a youtube channel that has fansy edit at an aesthetic level but also contents with actual academic integrity and depth.
@@rebinuthe yt Channel „horses“
Lets make new chartes!
its inside, its languague
As a Frenchman that spends lots of time watching french leftist content where structuralism is lurking behind and is being brought up with most subjects, am surprised to learn that it isn't as pervasive as I assumed it would be in other countries! Thank you guys for your work, thank you very much.
Great video! I loved the part when you first thought of differences between words in their formation and I thought “but what about meaning, like how mug and cup and cupboard?” and then you talked about it right after 😂. The video read my mind
Actually, it was The Structure
@@t3essays
Can I change myself and the structure we all live in for better if I choose my words carefully, and if I think through my personal ideology/philosophy carefully? Or is this also the structure? 🥲
Hey! As a person who grew up in Hungary with British friends in childhood, learning spanish later, moving to the netherlands with german speaking relatives, in my experience, language *is* thinking, ie. different languages do change how you think; it doesn't just change *how* you express but also, more importantly *what* you express. And although these languages in europe are all relatively close in terms of linguistics, the differences can still be noticed. I cannot help but feel that people speaking a certain language show a behavior that doesn't come from the related culture.
I agree that language influences thought. But I think there is a problem with saying that language is thinking.
There are people that don’t have a inner voice, additionally animals without language can still process information.
The relationship between thought and language is interesting but I don’t think that one can be reduced to the other.
@@Opposite271 I think a lot of the people who say "language is thought" are circularly defining thought as the expression of what we regularly consider 'thought' and since language is broadly our main means of structured communication of thoughts, it's tempting to say that language is thinking.
However, it's clear that definition is potentially problematic, since it either means we are left with no words to describe a 'thought' that is not expressed through a structured medium or it means that we have to accept a strong form of whorfianism, which, as it is a material proposition, can be rejected easily through presenting available evidence regarding the relativity of language.
@@Ann-mj4xn but even there - most people had at least some type of situation when they thought something but couldn't express it by language.
@@adapienkowska2605 The thing is that if you're defining thought as purely the expression of it, then your inability to express the 'thought' by definition would make it not a thought. The problem is, well, we don't have a word to describe what that 'thought' is if we use this definition of thought, which is very problematic for human communication.
Strong Sapir-Worf has been basically debunked at this point.
Nice. The first time I took structuralism versus post-structuralism seriously was only this past March. I made GPT-3.5 teach me in Socratic style about structuralism and post-structuralism. I certainly don't know all about it. I'm so glad you two are making these videos, and I want MORE T³ videos!
Around 26:20, Vitalism and New Materialism sound very interesting to me, and I will have a long conversation with GPT-4 about these topics. Thanks.
@@Paraselene_Tao it would be interesting🤔. don't forget gpt is just a large language model, a fancy autocomplete algorithm. I wouldn't accept much of it as truly deep insight
@@melusine826
Yeah, I always remember GPT, and its cousins are very fallible. The more I toss inputs into it, the more I see it's like a genius 3 year old toddler. It has a grasp on language-so much of human thought is language-but it's all a hallucinatory dream. You're correct it has no deep insight. It's not thinking, remembering, experiencing, or conscious: it works more like a mirror than a thoughtful person. 😇
I feel like the way that the words (and concepts of) "exists," "being," and "is" change in how it/they s used throughout the video.
But also, this is the first time I "understood" anyone try to explain de Saussure without being confused within the first two seconds, so I obviously have a lot of thinking to do . . .
Very nice. I never looked into the relationship of philosophy and linguistics, although I saw mentions of it, here and there but this video provides proper motivation to do so. Looking forward to the video on hegemony.
I'd love to see how different language/culture would deal with this
I am really not an expert on the matter since I am an historian and have mostly read synthesis about such debates. But debates about structure are not that much different from many debates about the implication of God's omnipotence in muslim thought. Thinkers belonging to the Mu'tazila school believed the workings of the world could be rationnaly analysed (so that the structure of the universe could be decifered by the human being), the most important conclusion of that idea being that humans did have free will and were responsible of doing good or bad actions and that because God was one, then the revelation (and thus the Quran) was created and not eternal. Some thinkers then split from this school and became known as Ashari's, they objected to the Mu'tazila by interpreting God's omnipotence as negating free will, every human thought and action originates in God's plan and is thus completely tied to the structure of the world. Thus trying to understand the structure of the world is impossible since rationnal thought doesn't allow a human to encompass it, something only God is able to do. They also put forward a coneptualization of the Revelation as a part of God's infinite being that would thus be uncreated and eternal.
This debate actually had a profound influence on western thought, since scholars from the mu'tazilla were the ones who began to revivify greek thought (mostly aristotelianism and neoplatonicism) by translating it into arabic and teaching it in the centers of learning where they were majoritary starting in the IXth century. From 813 to 847 the mu'tazilite creed even became the official creed of the caliphate, leading to the creation of many such centers of learning and thus spreading knowledge of greek thought that had nearly died down before that outside of a few academies (most notably Gondishapur in modern Iran). Mu'tazilite thought would thus strongly influence western scholasticism which learned greek thought through mu'tazilite commentaries (mostly those of Ibn Rushd called Averroes and Ibn Maimun called Maimonides who both lived in the XIIth and XIIIth centuries).
Paradoxically the first western thinkers learned about greek philosophy because the dominican order had translated many copies of arabic theological manuscripts so that dominican theologians could refute them to provide a theoretical basis for the work of missionaries which were supposed to convert newly conquered muslim territories in Andalusia (Ibn Rushd and Ibn Maimun were both andalusian, the first was muslim and the second was jewish). These theologians (Thomas Aquinas and Albertus Magnus being the most famous) originally made similar points to Asharites and opposed the idea of free will, but with time it would be a defining concept of western philosphical debate, with people like Descartes making the idea that the human could rationaly analyse God's creation the basis of their thought, thus planting the first seeds of positivism and thus structuralism.
In the muslim world Ashari thought would generally triumph after being endorsed by most sufi thinkers (most notably Al-Ghazali who wrote in the XIth century and openly condemned greek thought as superficial and too occupied with the illusions of the material world). Greek thought would somewhat disappear from the sunni world after the XIIIth century together with the Mu'tazila. In Shiia countries like Iran though greek thought and the writings of mu'tazilite thinkers are still taught untill today, greek thought and its use by the Mu'tazila did influence the ideas of Mullah Sadra in the XVIIth century who's works had a very important legacy there.
Thus even if it was aked under a different framework the question of knowing if the human mind can analyse the structure of the universe because of its independence and capacity to use rationnal thought or if it cannot because it is too tied to the structure to be aware of its inner workings is quite old indeed. In fact Parmenides idea of self contained essence did often clash with an eastern monotheist outlook on metaphysics where God's essence was supposed to be contained in every being. One of the defining aspects of sufi thought for example is that God is contained in everything including the human mind, which allows humans to have a personal mystic relationship with god. The idea that there is an underlying structure that defines all beings is very reminiscent of ancient debates about God's relationship with the material world. The difference being that ancient western and muslim thinkers thought of mainly about the relationship between God and the structure and then the structure and the material world while structuralists studied the structure in itself. I think indian thought did something more similar to structuralists in that regard but I am even less knowledgeable about it than ancient muslim and western thought.
Ooooohhhh. It's a Venn diagram that is defined by how it DOESNT overlap
well that's definitely a way to think about the idea, thank you
I love your video-essays as always!
I was doing ok until you started talking about linguistics. I may need to rewatch this video a second time to absorb it all. As always quite spectacular stuff. Keep up the good work.
I knew being a language nerd would have come in handy eventually. Overall very good video (as I've come to expect from you two), but I think it was a loss to bring up Saussure and talk about how nonbeing can carry impact/meaning, without mentioning Linguistic Zeroes (where the lack of sounds or symbols in an utterance carries meaning)
Just subscribed like a week ago. Honestly I was really skeptical (as you should be with content on CZcams). But I want to thank you for this great philosophical intro into a tricky topic while maintaining a good sense of honesty about it. It's the kind of thing I was looking for (and sometimes contemplated making myself). Great stuff, I'll be following along :D
I absolutely love your videos, keep up the good work!
Reminds me of the aesthetics wiki, and how it tries to put a word on anything.
You probably should have a lot more subs. Videos like this make CZcams better
my brain is melting help
Just a reminder for watchers that capitalism didn't just come out of nowhere and was a direct result and continuation and "best pal" of colonialism and imperialism.
Without understanding colonialism, imperialism and the earlier mode of production feudalism we can't even begin to deconstruct capitalism.
If it seems odd to you that capitalism comes hand in hand with imperialism, think about infinite growth, at some point, a country will have to exploit another country to sustain it's endless growth, and no country wants to willigly be exploited so the perpetrator uses force on the victim.
The imperialist sometimes builds colonies because cultural erasure helps establish superiority and erase collective identity, therefore creating what we know as "indigenous" people. The victims of colonialism are indigenous people and that's the definition of the word.
Uh.. no, just no. Capitalism is a natural outcome of the utility of trade between individuals. If I have more grain than I need, and the other guy has more iron than he needs, then it makes sense to trade iron for wheat. It does not require an empire to emerge. Rather the civilization that embraces capitalism naturally emerges as an empire. You just need to actually engage you brain for like 5 seconds to figure this out.
@@technokicksyourass So, explain why it took thousands of years after "I trade with my neighbor" for capitalism to develop? Your argument holds no water.
This video is incredibly interesting. It's a pity it doesn't have more views.
real nice video-essay you got there
Was expecting polish jokes that didn't translate to english well, like yall said. But instead I got a mug that's defined by not being a buttplug.
But... are you sure?
A tier list of philosophical frameworks would be interesting! 👀
Excellent video! this confirms me why I like so much Balibar, Althusser and Poulantzas: they combined structuralism with marxism
You mentioned new materialism in a segment If I remember correctly, will you make a video about it?
The end is great and very important; this is just a part of a history of a particular mode of thought. In this day and age discussions like this cannot be had seriously without a heavy contextual dose of non-western philosophy. For understanding structuralism in a new (and better) way I highly recommend getting deep into Madhyamaka Buddhist philosophy
yea this is fire i’m gonna watch it 20 more times
Jesus what a terrific video. Can you make one about the phenomenology of spirit? This I would love so much. I myself am in my idealism arc rn and I love Hegel, but I also like people like Nietzsche and other folks rejecting systems like Hegels. But your POV is really abstract and refreshing, which I like a lot.
There is way too sparse Hegel stuff on CZcams anyways, it would be a fantastic challenge!
Cheers m8. This channel is the best philosophy channel on CZcams, not fearing abstract and exact philosophy.
I hope you two (still 2, right?) keep making these!
I loved at least 97% of this video. It was amazing.
Bro, I've been waiting (what feels like) forever for y'all to make a new video and fuckin' CZcams didn't even recommend me it after I literally watched and liked all your other videos. Bullshit. I'm glad I thought to look and am only 2 weeks late to the party. Excited to see it.
Did you subscribe?
Question from the local STEM lord :
Can the notion "everything is everything just in different amounts"
For example : a glass bottle is also a club and a flute , not optimized for either purposes , but it can work like that .
Would this framework be described as essentialism or structuralism ?
Since i am saying "everything is"
The bottle is a hammer
But i am also saying that the bottle is a bottle because it's not a good hammer , or a good flute ...
But it's better than the flute or the hammer at being a bottle ...
Ok , i think this because the laws of phisics are everywhere , there isn't an object that doesn't follow them ...
And i doubt there is a "more phisics" object ...
id say "difference in amount" here is analogous to "difference in pronounciation" between the vowels "a" and "e" (30:48)
I'm glad that I speak Polish, so I can understand the main channel.
Great video! Already listened to it a couple times. Can I ask for further reading recommendations and sources?
No idea about the creator of the video, but the "thing vs relations" reminds me of Alfred Korzybski's works. Although he goes a bit wider and how your thinking/language about everything changes once you update it based on the latest (at his time of writing) fundamental understandings from science and math, which does include thinking in terms of structure and relationships and not things (things are a limited set of abstractions insufficient to explain the universe, useful to some degree) and a few other concepts, but all tying together.
I would go with his book called "Science and Sanity" . It's a heavy read tho, I got stuck on the chapters where he explains differential equations (most of the book is not math, so it's fine, even though it's still a tough read since the concepts are extremely alien to most, and at the same time extremely obvious once you get them. I got many "Whoa! How did I not think of this? It's so obvious now that I'm aware of it" reactions. But to get them I also listened other people talk about the subject and it being applied in different contexts, and I've watched lectures that include Q&As since sometimes hearing someone ask a question getting answered that you might have, helps too. Sometimes I would get stuck on a page and read the words over and over until I get something or go on to read up on certain words and phrases on the internet.
Having at least a vague knowledge of sociology, psychology, biology , physics, chemistry and few other subjects studied in science, helps out too.
This video was great! I'm very much looking forward to your guys' post-structuralism video on Gramsci, Laclau and Mouffe. Unfortunately I had the displeasure of having read their texts (prison notebooks and Hegemony) for my thesis about a month ago. They were so difficult to get through and I know your guys' video on it would've helped me tremendously as there are relatively little videos on Laclau&Mouffe. Im 100% sure that the video will be a blessing for the next lunatic silly enough to have hegemony as their thesis subject :)
Another great video from my Polish Pals.
Love love love! One note on the end, give the middle ages or dark ages more credit! According to Graeber in Debt, it was a pretty great time to be a commoner, and the previous and subsequent ages (classic philosophy age and renaissance) although great for philosophy were pretty terrible for the masses.
you guys are the best no cap
Heck yeah! New vid ❤
Those charts near the end that show the historical timeline of philosophical thought where did you get theme?!
Love this channel
Great video! There is however a structure of a structures. Its in the Kabbalistic Tree of Life - a meta-structure and universal model for all primary domains - i mean a particular model for some domains ;) But to validate this claim will take significant and prolonged efforts.
32:04 - I am an amateur existentialist, and I *do* have full-blown existential crises, like, ALL THE TIME. Are there people who don't?! 🤯😫 (For the record, I always wanted to be a rhea farmer in Argentina, not a llama farmer in the Andes, but that's still a pretty attractive idea.)
Fully automated post modernisem neo marxisem sounds nice we want more of that
Yes, I would fund it, too.
What about a switchable semi-automatic/ automatic post modernism neo marxism with a 1.5x scope and some aftermarket suppressor?
@@aqua-bery
Yes, make it work with subsonic, armor piercing, heavyweight, and environmentally-friendly caseless ammo, and you got a deal. (Sweats in suppressed G11 modified to fire 9×39mm)
@@Paraselene_Tao I'm gonna pretend that I know what that means
i can't really think in words or text, i usually think in terms of images, scenes and such, but i cant really imagine the voice in your head kinda thing
insanely good content
shows you, rene descartes saying cogito ergo sum does to effect how i live. i drove that vehicle all the way to the abbey of thelema, which upon realizing my own godhood gave me the impetus to engage in activism
I am a storyteller. My medium is my life. My body is my vessel.
Oh wow, the part about levi-strauss having the idea to treat everything as a kind of language so people in different disciplines can use the same tools is very interesting, because that is almost exactly what caused the AI boom we're experiencing right now. Until a few years ago, all the different fields in AI (like computer vision, text comprehension, image generation, robotics etc) had their own tools and textbooks and methods and so on. if you worked in computer vision for example, there was no way you could understand papers released in other fields of AI research, or use the same software. this changed when some scientists/engineers realized that you can basically treat everything as a language (for example images: use a value for the color of each pixel) and feed it into a type of artificial neural network called a transformer. Turns out these transformers are pretty good at finding underlying structures in gigantic amounts of data. This then had the effect that almost every development in one field of AI research also benefited the other fields and vice versa, because everyone started using and improving these transformer models.
I know, pretty off-topic, but i found those similarities extremely fascinating, almost creepyly so.
Another question :
Essentialism sounds favourable to deontological ethics , since actions are inerently themselves , be they good or bad ...
Structuralism on the other hand seems to refer to prefer consenquentialism/utilitarianist ethics on the other hand ...
I think it's harder to criss cross them at least ...
Okay, I haven't read many structuralist philosophers, so maybe I'm talking about my ass bere, but this emphasis on "non-being" seems to purposefully frame things in counterintuitive terms. If you want to say that an object is defined by not being a bunch of other things which it has some relationship to, why not just say that things are defined in terms their relations within network or web of other things? There is no need to bring up the concept of "non-being." It feels like some philosophers like to try and express things in terms that are deliberately difficult to wrap your head around, but not because the idea is so abstract and nuanced that it requires new terminology, but because that apparent complexity is the aesthetic of philosophy.
2:42 fitter, happier, and more productive...
I was playing persona 4 golden with this on my second screen when 25:58 flashed by and I jumped in my seat
14:19 time is neither a straight line nor a flat circle! It's a fkn spiral, man! 😵💫😵💫😵💫
I think a lot of issue with ‘post modernism’ is we see it as ‘modernity’
Now the left does a lot of word game and so does the right; both are politics on the values of tradition and equality.
There is a third wheel of those values called freedom but they don’t really need politics all that much or wordplay because they don’t get their power that way.
But it reminds me of how corporatism is basically just special interest groups/democracy and is a word play for the conservatives to criticize it without actually saying anything
Great stuff, doing great for two white polish guys. (Also, got any tips again?)
17:23 I am confused here.
Why do you put bug, mug, and mud here?
Hope to see new videos from you in the future.
3:51 no fucking way
czekamy na nowe filmy
Thx for the thoughtful work and effort, guys!
Despite neglect many people from STEM have towards philosophy, I had one of the first sparks of interest studying a textbook on philosophy of science while doing my PhD.
For political philosophy a systematic view on western thought one can take from Bertrand Russel's book, but it ends at the beginning of 20th century.
And once you try to comprehend what was going on later, it just makes no sense. Because there is Foucault with his studies on norm and psychiatry, then there is Baudrillard with his simoulacres and at this point you're just: "fuck it, I'm never gonna figure out what was going on, and I'll just stand here feeling like a prehistoric Sponge, until somebody explains something eventually 😂
It's not that you can't figure it out. It's that modern philosophy is just so much wank, because they are are not serious thinkers. All serious thinkers in the 20th century went into physics, mechanical engineering, medicine, and other such fields. When you read their stuff and compare the quality of the thinking to what you get in computer science or chemistry, or nuclear physics... well it's just a joke isn't it?
I'm not saying they don't have some points... it's just they are way over their skis with very little evidence or logical proof to support their suppositions. Psychologists carry the torch these days for theory of mind, not philosophers anymore, and psychology is barely a science.. although there is a project to make it so.
By the way, I actually have a problem with linguistic relativity which has a sneaky cameo in this video. I often see it mentioned like something that's, like, scientifically known and proven, but my impression is that it actually isn't? Am i wrong? Is it just an axiom we accept and base some school of thought on?
Personally I take the Zizek route, Fock Being, Fook Non Being, Un Being is where its at!
The infinite judgement!
Hi guys. Fellow philosophy undergrad here. I really appreciate the video, but please note that the image you used to represent Kant is actually not Kant, but Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi. The picture you used, for some reason frequently gets misconstrued to be Kant (perhaps because it is a more attractive and well kempt representation of divine enlightenment rationality than Kant's disgusting forehead could ever stand in to represent)
Structure is a Spook, I shall encounter reality directly as pure Being. Nihilistic Monism is king, baby! All I need is Is!
You guys are the only creators whose videos I have to slow down rather than speed up 🫠
42:25 is that true?
Boost this bitch!!! ❤🎉🎉
I watched & listened to this video 3 times, I liked everyone's comments, and I commented and replied. I need this channel to grow. Let's gooooo! It deserves a million subs.
Today philosophers primarily understand "structuralism" as the view that what primarily matters is the relation between objects as opposed to the objects themselves, and is primarily a view in the philosophy of mathematics. Eg, the natural numbers as objects are nothing but referents for an order relation, namely the '
Ehh... Natural Numbers in Set Theory are recursively defined as sets 0 := {}, 1 := {0}, 2 := {0, 1}, 3 := {0, 1, 2}, and so on.
The standard order relation < on naturals is defined as a subset of NxN such that a
@@crosserr404 I think you're missing the point a bit. To be clear, this isn't my argument but Paul Benacerraf's argument (amongst others, eg, Awodey, Corfield, etc). Taking just the set theoretic definition of the natural numbers, the actual objects don't matter, even if we do define them "first." As you said, we can define our sets, categories and theories in a multiplicity of ways while nonetheless capturing the same concept. Likewise, we can define the ordinals in two different ways, one where we have {null}, {null, {null}}, {null, {null, {null}}} and so forth; or {null}, {{null}}, {{{null}}}, etc. The objects are not different here, they are both referents for the same things, namely the natural numbers, but what changes is the way that we structure the relationship between our objects. Our standard epsilon relationship works the same way in both cases, but something like, eg, ordinal arithmetic is going to be totally different between the two structures. So sure, the objects are defined first, but they're defined in terms of a structure. Objects sans structure don't really mean anything. Eg, the complex numbers are exactly the same objects as the real numbers really(they have the same cardinality and are indeed defined out of the latter), the only difference is the fact that the complex numbers are defined with a particular structure that the real numbers lack, namely, being Cartesian products of the reals(i forget exactly how to construct the complex numbers from the reals).
@@crosserr404 You don't sound like you understand what the Yoneda lemma is.
I see more both as correct. Everything is but a sum of the forces on it, but it has force with in. While it's not everything else it is what it is becuse of what it is. The individual is the product of the outside, but what the forces applied on it create are deterimined by who they are. You can take two pepole and put them trough the same things, and both will react and bahave diffrently, yet you cannot just assume everything is becuse of indfiduval, the individual is still a sum of forces. You can blame the individual how they react to the force. Yet you have to acknowlage the force.
The system pushes indivuduals to do things, yet it's the indivduals who commit it. You have to either fix the system or the individuals, but one is more temporary than the other. Fixing the system is pernament, fixing the indivudals is temporary. Leading to a cycle, if you only concentrate on individuals the system will be still there, no matter how many times you fix it it alawys will go back to the start.
While fixing the system makes sure there is no more force, The structure and the thing itself. One is part of the other. Fixing the structure fixes it's parts. fixing a part doesn't fix a structure.
That F.D. Signifier though:'DD
A mug
A mug
A mug
Amug
Amug
Amog
Amogus
STOP POSTING ABOUT AMONGUS
Byłoby bardzo fajnie, gdybyś mógł zrobić film o strukturalizmie dla polskojęzycznego kanału.
To musi wyglądać bardzo dziwnie z ust Ukraińca. 😅
Nice
Good
Will there be it on polish channel? I know that you made one but it's shorter and I would like see a new version.
PS: don't use polish names like "pan N" or people only known for Poles - Szymon Pękala (wiem, że miał anglojęzyczny kanał ale nie zdobył miliona wyświetleń jak wy słodziaki 😊) - because english speaking are... CoNfUsEd
32:16 But.. that's just making an assumption, for no reason. That treats humans like sand in a river. I myself did the 'decide to become a llama farmer' thing, but with becoming a web developer straight out of high school. Taught myself in 2 years and got a job. Went against the river and everyone who doubted me, which was a TON of people. Don't get me wrong, I don't feel personally attacked and I'm not trying to make an argument based on an anecdote, but there are other people like me, and that disproves what you said about the structure being an all powerful magnet.
I think you've missed the point, you have decided to become llama farmer, and take a web developer job, is because of the Struuucturrrre
42
7:01 The ancient greeks invented the difference between null and undefined in programming languages.
I am just now starting to dig into this stuff due to what I am working on...
Why does this guy leave out key components of understanding this and twist what actually is into what he wants it to be?
Legitament question... there are so many holes in this.
i'd meet you halfway, were not motion utterly impossible
41:04 I wouldn't say that the Greeks "invented" science. I would only say that, for material and historical reasons, they (some of them, anyway) were the first we know of to develop science to a particular stage. The scientific method is really just another way to say, "f*ck around and find out"! Everyone does it one way or another! 🤪
I would like to replace Structuralism with causal Structuralism.
At first a thing is defined by its internal and external structure.
-A internal structure is how the things parts relate to each other.
-A external structure is how a thing relates to its environment.
This means that to understand a thing, we need to look both how it is as a atomic individual independent of it’s environment and how it is as a holistic part in the context of its environment.
How can the brain understand the world?
-It is doing that by replicating the causal structure of the world in the form of memory.
-This cognitive representation can correspond to the world by being similar to it. Since similarity comes in degrees and not in binary, this implies a fuzzy logic.
-Similarity is a mereological relationship which is composed of and can be reduced to the causal structure of two things, therefore no direct connection between those structures has to be added.
But how can a representation represent a single thing rather then a group of multiple things?
-This is possible by using oneself as a reference point, if you want to navigate a territory by using a map then you need to know where you are on the map.
-A thing has both a internal and external structure, how it relates to its environment including you is a external structure, this has to be included in one’s representation to use oneself as a reference point.
But why should the Brain replicate a causal structure?
-The replication of causal structures allows the brain to simulate possible scenarios, this helps then the brain to make the correct decision.
-This replica can be visualized but the causal structure is not in the visualization.
-It is evolutionary advantageous to find causal structures as it allows the organism to influence its environment in a way that is beneficial to the organisms survival and reproduction.
But is causality real?
-If it where not real then one could not make sense of a external world which is the source of ones sensory experience.
-Without real causality, it wouldn’t matter to your sensory experience if there is a external world or not.
-So to avoid semi-solipsism, it is therefore a necessary assumption that causality is real.
the internal and external structure you're describing are only different insofar as the arbitrary boundary drawn in between them requires them to be. you could set this boundary anywhere you want. it could encompass everything, leading to an empty external structure. it could encompass nothing, leading to an empty internal structure.
therefore, why bother with the boundary? just have one structure... and we're back at structuralism.
(also "atomic individual independence" doesn't make sense, as is pointed out by the video)
@@toatrika2443
Even if it is arbitrary, if it is useful for the mind to carve up the world into parts to better conceptualize it, then the distinction may still add something conceptually useful to the thing.
But it appears to me, that there are real fuzzy boundaries. Then I must say that I never found the requirement of binary clean cut boundaries, very plausible.
LMAO @ 33:00
ja, you know tho', i don't have to read every word ever written before i am qualified to have an opinion. socrates, for instance, never read kant
or nous, or atoms, and as for captain planet, you, much like planetina, forgot heart
Mug - bug - bum - mum?
Why is Pan N capitalized, and pan s isn't? 🤔
cause pan s is a sub (or something like that idk)
Structuralism:
*Exists*
A petition about the age of consent:
"Im about to end this mans whole career."
you really like those chad images lol
wait this is evangelion ep 25/26
No, In those episodes they actually remove de non-being barrier structure of like humanity's soul and they merge and the two episodes focus in Shinji during this process of merging a how that helps him love himself (what it takes to save weeaboos/otakus...)
my head urt
Also I have an interesting question: If one is really truthful, then post-structuralists happen to morph into essentialists lately:
They start at the structuralist/post-structuralist approach, dissecting the world into power structures, trying to transcend them etc etc, but at some point they define group dynamics with a pure essentialist pov. Let me give an example: Take intersectionalism, for example the concept of „gender“ or „race“. It started at something socially constructed, being related to power dynamics etc, but now it is more or less a „fundamental aesthetic“ or an „essence“ of the individual:
„I was born as a woman“, „the white cis man is bad because“. These are all in fact essentialist arguments.
What is the reason? How did that happen?
It's just tribalism coming from people who identify with those groups but don't have a solid grasp on these philosophies I guess.
Why structralism needs to overthrow essentialism though? Maybe essentials has structures in itself. Also we also category things with their functions too. Think about atoms, we thought they were main building block. Mug also sum of components. Also this relations to other things about our meanings, our cognition. But they exist outside of our cognition so they exist in itself too. Also main problem is it's too humancentric that language makes us capable of everything. Also it's pandora's box, it can justify anything with "language games". Also I disagree your takes of common sense, without it's not gonna be possible to make alternatives. Analyzing like there is no outside of text is helpful but believing it creates also new narrative and it's odds with science itself.
The problem with the "language is everything" theory, is it doesn't account for mathematics very well. I suspect it will soon be replaced by a deeper theory based on the brains biological computation. We are starting to see this with guys like Kahneman.
Can we say DNA as a language can carry intelligence as human language does? Just on a different level.
I'm not a proponent of pansychism because I do not fully understand it and its many competitors; however, it's possible that some kind of pansychism would support intelligence existing as either an emergent quality of large enough systems, or it's a fundamental characteristic of the most fundamental substance. I suppose it matters what we meant by intelligence, but yeah, some kind of pansychism or similar philosophical route would answer you with, "sure, DNA is an intelligent system because it shows these characteristics that are either fundamental to substance or emergent from large enough systems." I'm sure there are problems with what I just said, and there are other philosophical routes to explaining intelligence. I am still learning and open-minded about the topic. I hope I've helped a little bit.
This is Sophistry.
so true
New content soon?
-ish😉 But it's in production!
@@t3essays yay-ish!
Since this is a topic i know very well, I am using this video to decide if this channel is worth my time. And my conclusion is it is not. You rely on common but superficial explanations of structuralism. You also reuse common but inaccurate criticism of structuralism, like its ahistoricism. Levis-strauss notably is *not* the only influential structuralist, and some traits of his approach are not present or central in other works.
Just came back from my holidays in Bergen and I can confirm that Waynor exist and it is a gift shop close to the city centre. Therefore you leave me no choice but to unsub and never click that like button, as I can't believe you anymore!!
reductionist much. plato concerned himself with ethics and agreeing on terms and not of what clouds are made