Very informative. I took "English Language" at school, which in practice was just this woman's thought and that of those like her. I thought at the time it was a strangely narrow curriculum.
Thank you for this. I've often noticed and thought about the inherint flaw between the existentual ideas in queer communities and the essential ideas. Identity as a choice vs inherint part who someone is.
The thing that's compelling about this is that I was always told not to behave unmanly. If gender really exists I can't be unmanly because I define a man, but that's not how conservatives talk about it.
The word "unmanly" implies a moral dimension to being male, which is different from the ontological category of being male. No one who said that to you ever doubted that you really were a man.
In the classical platonist/realist view, a man is what one is by nature. Acting unmanly would be to foolishly act contrary to one's nature. Similar examples would be greasing your cooking pan with crude oil rather than olive oil. Or insisting your cat be vegan. Such things result in adverse effects whether immediately obvious or not.
I have to admit (confess?), I began this video with some skepticism because Dr Cooper is a Christian. I needn't have worried. This is rock solid stuff, and I've subscribed to the channel. I'm familiar with Butler and Foucault (whose style, I would have said, she imitates shamelessly, despite not managing to be any more than a pale imitation) and the strands of European thought from which they spring. It's good to have this condensed in a video by someone far better qualified than I am to tackle it, and done with integrity. While I look forward to a time without Butler's ideas knocking around, I also hope that in 20 years we're not looking back on today with any fondness, because we've careered into a world that makes our current spats about gender seem enviably quaint. Thanks for your efforts, Dr Cooper. Yours, A recovering Irish Catholic.
New Polity has a series that deals with Butler's ideas.. while they are critical they admit that Butler is closer to Christian thought than are many who attack them..
Thank you Dr. Cooper for an excellent lecture. Around 47-8 min you had a slip of the tongue and said Descartes when you meant the person you were talking about.
As Dr. Cooper stated physical traits aren't a good enough definition. If a woman has her breast remove for one reason or another, does she seize to be a woman? It is hard to define things with mathematical precision.
Can you please do some on Tillich, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Sarte. In circles that I frequent around thinkers like those have become a significant threat
Coincidence this came the same day as Philosophy Tube's video on Butler? I could play the videos in parallel and you address each point as it comes. It's freaky
Thank you Dr Cooper! You are doing a good job of clarifying ideas that are influential and yet are so esoteric that they are hard to grasp. If we don’t believe in a common human nature (the what of what man is) and no person (the who of who we are), where will it take us? History is full of awful stories of what has happened when these two truths have been denied.
Haven’t watched the video yet! But I’m excited! For many years, I had suspected that these theorists of gender didn’t really know what they meant when they said “man” or “woman” and indeed this was also an accusation leveled against them by so many right-wing or centrist people… but frustratingly, I could never really confirm this fact, what if the answer was just buried in the literature? I didn’t want to read through all of that stuff, so I was stuck only suspecting that this was the case, but never really knowing, that is, until Judith Butler was asked about the question, and Butler said something like “Well, you’d need to know how the term was used throughout history….” blah blah blah and at that point it was effectively confirmed to me that Judith didn’t actually know! Here’s why… the answer Judith provided effectively tried to answer the question from a *languistic descriptivist* lens, seeing how the term was used throughout history, but *it’s painfully clear that the question “What is a w🔴man” is asked about JUDITH BUTLER’s theory on what a woman is, not about what OTHER PEOPLE think women are* ! Additionally, it should be clear that Judith would have to answer two questions, not just one, because both genderists and non-genderists agree that transwomen are people with male bodies that identify as women, the reason why they use the term “woman” to describe such people is precisely because it gives off a certain connotation or mental image, the fact that Judith would sidestep the question of what that connotation or mental image is, and simply try to answer who qualifies as women according to certain definitions shows that Judith doesn’t actually understand the nuances of the question!
You've defined the biggest problem with Butler's gender work being popularised: nobody bothers to read it. To be fair Gender Trouble is impressively unreadable, a not unrelated problem.
@@merg-vh5sx Agreed 👍 But I’m pretty sure the book is about how our “gender” is *created* by certain repetitions (not always repeated behaviors, but even things outside of your control like how your height is the same each day) as opposed to our “gender” being a property that we each have as an inherent characteristic. “Well, doesn’t this mean that transwomen have to act like our stereotypes of what a woman is in order to be a woman?” Apparently Judith makes a distinction between conforming to society’s expectations of what a woman is, and *conforming to your own personal understanding* of what a woman is, and so this objection is, as I’ve read, null. Of course, I don’t actually know what’s in the book Gender Trouble, but what I’ve mentioned thus far is what I’ve heard about it…
Around 49:00 you talk about the connection between doing and being/becoming. The placement of existence before essence is a very Sartrian/atheistic existentialist point of view. It is rather counterintuitive to say the being of biology (boy/girl) is dictated by social behaviors (l like blue/pink). Is Buttler’s justification for the extension of action into biology a function of the assumption that biology is a physical construct produced by evolutionary action over time? Even granting evolution, it still seems a stretch to treat biological realities as subject to the same degree of flux as social realities. It seems, as Christians, we would want to say that being and essence often come together, but not always. This is a question of contingency. God’s essence is necessarily to be all good, holy, and wise, and God acts flow from his being. Human sex is a matter of biological being and is not subject to act/choice. However, we would say that Adam’s act/choice to sin changed his essential nature from innocent to sinful (without totally loosing the image of God). Would you say that essence is never subject change by action? Or would you say it depends upon the category we are speaking about-God, man, sexual identity, guilt or innocence, etc.? I’m inclined to say that we have simply confused necessary things (sexual identity) with contingent things (moral choice), and we have done so out of rebellion against a theistic essentialism (ala Sarte, etc.). Do you think this is along the right track?
Does it surprise anyone if I say not all gay people, me included agree with this insanity? All I want is a private life and nothing else, these gender politics are terrible.
so you're saying the question of "What is a woman?" did not emerge from some random phenomena of social insanity, but is actually based on ideological principles and philosophical concepts?😯 Looks like Matt Walsh was on to something, or was he?😁
Thank you for this lecture. As I have heard others talk about Butler the one key thing that you pointed out that I hadn’t heard was how she was influenced by Kant and Hegel. That leads me to believe that dialectical thinking being applied to feminism is what caused her to come to her bizarre conclusions.
The refusal to have a conversation without resorting to name-calling and labeling is very telling, and it is far closer to the "fascism" Ms. Butler claims to oppose than she is most likely willing to admit. She's very much the poster child of Frederich Nietzche's axiom that, "When fighting monsters, one must see to it that he does not become a monster."
@zhaoxiaoying9894 maybe her theory has adapted somewhat since the 90s, or perhaps she has jumped on the new ideology bandwagon for various reasons. I'm just speculating here, of course. The thing is that many of these ideologies aren't very consistent and are often quite emotionally charged/influenced, so they can become kinda unpredictable in my view.
Very informative. I took "English Language" at school, which in practice was just this woman's thought and that of those like her. I thought at the time it was a strangely narrow curriculum.
Thank you for this. I've often noticed and thought about the inherint flaw between the existentual ideas in queer communities and the essential ideas. Identity as a choice vs inherint part who someone is.
I love these discussions! Perfect for listening to while washing dishes. Keep them coming!
The thing that's compelling about this is that I was always told not to behave unmanly. If gender really exists I can't be unmanly because I define a man, but that's not how conservatives talk about it.
The word "unmanly" implies a moral dimension to being male, which is different from the ontological category of being male. No one who said that to you ever doubted that you really were a man.
In the classical platonist/realist view, a man is what one is by nature. Acting unmanly would be to foolishly act contrary to one's nature. Similar examples would be greasing your cooking pan with crude oil rather than olive oil. Or insisting your cat be vegan. Such things result in adverse effects whether immediately obvious or not.
Thanks Dr. Cooper for the lecture.
Interesting video, I'll be sure to check out the rest of this series.
I have to admit (confess?), I began this video with some skepticism because Dr Cooper is a Christian. I needn't have worried. This is rock solid stuff, and I've subscribed to the channel.
I'm familiar with Butler and Foucault (whose style, I would have said, she imitates shamelessly, despite not managing to be any more than a pale imitation) and the strands of European thought from which they spring. It's good to have this condensed in a video by someone far better qualified than I am to tackle it, and done with integrity.
While I look forward to a time without Butler's ideas knocking around, I also hope that in 20 years we're not looking back on today with any fondness, because we've careered into a world that makes our current spats about gender seem enviably quaint.
Thanks for your efforts, Dr Cooper.
Yours,
A recovering Irish Catholic.
We will look back in horror. Promise.
The normals are winning.
I may not agree with you, but this was a clear and informative talk, a rare find these days.
New Polity has a series that deals with Butler's ideas.. while they are critical they admit that Butler is closer to Christian thought than are many who attack them..
Thank you Dr. Cooper for an excellent lecture. Around 47-8 min you had a slip of the tongue and said Descartes when you meant the person you were talking about.
Bazinga!
Gender is determined by objective bodily characteristics, not subjective feelings .
As Dr. Cooper stated physical traits aren't a good enough definition. If a woman has her breast remove for one reason or another, does she seize to be a woman? It is hard to define things with mathematical precision.
Can you please do some on Tillich, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Sarte. In circles that I frequent around thinkers like those have become a significant threat
Coincidence this came the same day as Philosophy Tube's video on Butler? I could play the videos in parallel and you address each point as it comes. It's freaky
That's so weird. I saw that but it was not intentional at all. This video was recorded about 2 months ago.
Thank you Dr Cooper! You are doing a good job of clarifying ideas that are influential and yet are so esoteric that they are hard to grasp. If we don’t believe in a common human nature (the what of what man is) and no person (the who of who we are), where will it take us? History is full of awful stories of what has happened when these two truths have been denied.
Haven’t watched the video yet! But I’m excited!
For many years, I had suspected that these theorists of gender didn’t really know what they meant when they said “man” or “woman” and indeed this was also an accusation leveled against them by so many right-wing or centrist people… but frustratingly, I could never really confirm this fact, what if the answer was just buried in the literature? I didn’t want to read through all of that stuff, so I was stuck only suspecting that this was the case, but never really knowing, that is, until Judith Butler was asked about the question, and Butler said something like “Well, you’d need to know how the term was used throughout history….” blah blah blah and at that point it was effectively confirmed to me that Judith didn’t actually know!
Here’s why… the answer Judith provided effectively tried to answer the question from a *languistic descriptivist* lens, seeing how the term was used throughout history, but *it’s painfully clear that the question “What is a w🔴man” is asked about JUDITH BUTLER’s theory on what a woman is, not about what OTHER PEOPLE think women are* ! Additionally, it should be clear that Judith would have to answer two questions, not just one, because both genderists and non-genderists agree that transwomen are people with male bodies that identify as women, the reason why they use the term “woman”
to describe such people is precisely because it gives off a certain connotation or mental image, the fact that Judith would sidestep the question of what that connotation or mental image is, and simply try to answer who qualifies as women according to certain definitions shows that Judith doesn’t actually understand the nuances of the question!
You've defined the biggest problem with Butler's gender work being popularised: nobody bothers to read it.
To be fair Gender Trouble is impressively unreadable, a not unrelated problem.
@@merg-vh5sx Agreed 👍
But I’m pretty sure the book is about how our “gender” is *created* by certain repetitions (not always repeated behaviors, but even things outside of your control like how your height is the same each day) as opposed to our “gender” being a property that we each have as an inherent characteristic.
“Well, doesn’t this mean that transwomen have to act like our stereotypes of what a woman is in order to be a woman?” Apparently Judith makes a distinction between conforming to society’s expectations of what a woman is, and *conforming to your own personal understanding* of what a woman is, and so this objection is, as I’ve read, null.
Of course, I don’t actually know what’s in the book Gender Trouble, but what I’ve mentioned thus far is what I’ve heard about it…
🍞 🍷 Glory be to Jesus ✝️
Peace
This is an immensely useful video. Thank you.
With love, one hugea** TERF.
Comment
Around 49:00 you talk about the connection between doing and being/becoming. The placement of existence before essence is a very Sartrian/atheistic existentialist point of view.
It is rather counterintuitive to say the being of biology (boy/girl) is dictated by social behaviors (l like blue/pink). Is Buttler’s justification for the extension of action into biology a function of the assumption that biology is a physical construct produced by evolutionary action over time? Even granting evolution, it still seems a stretch to treat biological realities as subject to the same degree of flux as social realities.
It seems, as Christians, we would want to say that being and essence often come together, but not always. This is a question of contingency. God’s essence is necessarily to be all good, holy, and wise, and God acts flow from his being.
Human sex is a matter of biological being and is not subject to act/choice. However, we would say that Adam’s act/choice to sin changed his essential nature from innocent to sinful (without totally loosing the image of God).
Would you say that essence is never subject change by action? Or would you say it depends upon the category we are speaking about-God, man, sexual identity, guilt or innocence, etc.?
I’m inclined to say that we have simply confused necessary things (sexual identity) with contingent things (moral choice), and we have done so out of rebellion against a theistic essentialism (ala Sarte, etc.).
Do you think this is along the right track?
Does it surprise anyone if I say not all gay people, me included agree with this insanity? All I want is a private life and nothing else, these gender politics are terrible.
She is a queen version of Noam Chomsky. Incoherent amd progressive at tge same time. Jaques Rousseau all over again.
so you're saying the question of "What is a woman?" did not emerge from some random phenomena of social insanity, but is actually based on ideological principles and philosophical concepts?😯 Looks like Matt Walsh was on to something, or was he?😁
Philosophers are very dangerous critters.
The Constitution is based on ideological principles and philosophical concepts too, but that's not enough of a reason to say that it's bad.
Thank you for this lecture. As I have heard others talk about Butler the one key thing that you pointed out that I hadn’t heard was how she was influenced by Kant and Hegel. That leads me to believe that dialectical thinking being applied to feminism is what caused her to come to her bizarre conclusions.
.
The refusal to have a conversation without resorting to name-calling and labeling is very telling, and it is far closer to the "fascism" Ms. Butler claims to oppose than she is most likely willing to admit.
She's very much the poster child of Frederich Nietzche's axiom that, "When fighting monsters, one must see to it that he does not become a monster."
they actually understand Nietzsche better than most..
Incoherence
She is no longer she. She is they now. Check it out or ask them.
How is it relevant to Dr Jordan's analysis and critique though?
@@paddychamp6069 The only relevance I can think of is she literally applies her theory to herself with no much success.
@zhaoxiaoying9894 maybe her theory has adapted somewhat since the 90s, or perhaps she has jumped on the new ideology bandwagon for various reasons. I'm just speculating here, of course.
The thing is that many of these ideologies aren't very consistent and are often quite emotionally charged/influenced, so they can become kinda unpredictable in my view.
Luther is Hume's daddy. The roots of Modernism is Protestantism.
Find the Catholic/Orthodox apologist, easy mode: your comment.
What on earth is this man on about