I have learnt more in these 8 minutes than I have in three years of college. Thank you.

The summary of the complex problem of Homo Sacer as described by Agamben is absolutely spot on. The use of animation makes the quite difficult text of Agamben's Homo Sacer come alive. The amazing thing is that Soro accomplished this in under ten-minutes. When I tried to do the same with my own graduate students it took me nearly an hour to get the point across. Bravo Tommie Soro!

You don't have the right to have rights. You're merely allowed to. Awesome.

Great summary and presentation of a philosopher who’s quite tricky to grip!

Wow you nailed it on the spot. Many thanks for your interpretation. It was great and accurate.

You deserve a Noble prize for this

Thank you so much for making this. Struggling through this book but in light of our lockdown era its thesis seems more relevant than ever.

Thank you so much for this! I was stumbling through Agamben haphazardly, and your very clear stating of the ways that sacred and sacrifice were linked but separate, made the text suddenly click together for me. Thanks for this explainer!

Thank you so much for this, I've had some trouble reading through his stuff. peace n respect

This helped me clarify my reading for class, thank you so much!

Highly detailed and explanatory. Amazing job.

thanks for clarifying the part about sacred/sacrifice. very helpful. animations were helpful and not distracting

This guy made it so much clearer! Thank you so much

Thanks, it would be brilliant to see more of these videos Tommie!

Thank you very much! I think I can include Agamben in my undergrad level courses now because of this video, just excerpts of Agamben's homo sacer. Democracy and Totalitarianism go hand in hand.

Even though I felt a had a decent grasp on the concept of bare life you do a great job of providing more context and depth here, thank you

I'm reading this book for a theory class in grad school, and your explanation is so incredibly helpful. thank you!

Solid Tommie, as always.

This is awesome! Thank you very much!

thank you so much for this video! really helpful

This helped me a LOT. Thanks.

This is great, thank you!

Very good explanation of this concept, thanks.

such an awesome video. Thanks. Will make sure to visit your other videos

But clear and very helpful for beginners, especially now. Thank you.

This has helped me a lot. Thanks

really helpful.Essay due next week this saved me ,Cheers !

This is SO helpful! Thanks!

simple but very well done

Thanks a lot for your work !!!

Thank you very much. It's very clear and helpful :)

thanks so much ! it is really descriptive :)

great great job! awesome! thank you!

brilliant thank you so much!

Wow this is incredible!!!!

Thank you!

Thank you for this video. i have used it a few times to explain, in part, Ernest Gaines' excellent short story "Three Men." Students find it a compelling connection to that work. Writing now after Trump's election to the US presidency last week, this work has more urgency. Thank you for this clarifying document. It is a very useful reference.

Great stuff! I got into Agamben this spring thanks to the jacket of The Kingdom And The Glory catching my eye at my town's main library. On the third reading I actually started to understand something and subsequent readings as well as watching his lectures on KZfaq and reading other texts on the web have really made me think he's the most important philosopher of our times. Social distancing, mandatory face masks, tracking apps on your phone... and probably mandatory vaccinations with some biometric tracking component coming up. His philosophy could not be more timely.

more relevant than ever

Thank you so much! Your explanation was very enlightening and helped me a lot. I am brazilian and I had some trouble understanding you accent, so I think that you would reach more people if you put subtitles (even in english). Nevertheless, I really thank you, it is really good!

Mindblowing

Thank you!!!!!

i really liked this. i haven't read agamben's book... i have only read about it in some of zizek's works. your video makes me want to read it even more.

Very helpful!

thanks

Much much better than those slick Philosophy KZfaqrs (you can probably guess who I mean)

Thanks

Fucking legend, thank you

U r a legend

It would have helped big if you had put subtitles. It is hard to understand some parts, specially for non-speakers, Do you have the whole thing as a text to paste it here?

Great video! Thank you! Below you may find the translation in Greek. Κεντρικό ερώτημα του κειμένου είναι γιατί οι μοντέρνες δημοκρατικές κοινωνίες μετατρέπονται σε ολοκληρωτικά κράτη. Προτού προχωρήσουμε σε αυτό, θα πρέπει πρώτα να αναφερθούμε στην κεντρική έννοια του όρου χόμο σάκερ ή αλλιώς ιερός άνθρωπος. Για να κατανοήσουμε αυτή την έννοια, θα πρέπει πρώτα να καταλάβουμε τη διαφορά μεταξύ ζωής και βίου, όπου η ζωή, ή αλλιώς γυμνή ζωή, αναφέρεται στο απλό γεγονός της ζωής στην οποία μετέχουν όλα τα έμβια όντα (ζώα, άνθρωποι ή θεοί) και το βίος στον τρόπο ζωής ενός ατόμου ή μια ομάδας, ή αλλιώς την πολιτική ζωή. Στην αρχαία Ελλάδα, κάθε πολίτης είχε αυτές τις δύο ιδιότητες ζωής, του βίου, ο οποίος καθοριζόταν από την ύπαρξη του ατόμου στην κοινωνία και της γυμνή ζωή, η οποία δινόταν από τον Θεό και έτσι θεωρούνταν ιερή και καθορίζονταν από το γεγονός ότι ο άνθρωπος είναι ένα ζώο που έπρεπε να φάει, να κοιμηθεί, κτλ. Ενδιαφέρον αποτελεί το γεγονός ότι εκείνη την εποχή η οικιακή ζωή δεν είναι πολιτική λειτουργία και θεωρούνταν ως γυμνή ζωή. Οι γυναίκες και τα παιδιά είχαν μόνο γυμνή ζωή καθώς δεν λάμβαναν μέρος στην πολιτική ζωή. Ο διαχωρισμός μεταξύ γυμνής ζωής και βίου είναι σαν το διαχωρισμό μυαλού και σώματος. Είμαι το μυαλό που ελέγχει το σώμα μου ή είμαι το σώμα μου που βιώνει το μυαλό μου. Στη Ρωμαϊκή εποχή, χόμο σάκερ ήταν κάποιος που είχε τιμωρηθεί και εξοριστεί από την κοινωνία και επιτρεπόταν να σκοτωθεί από οποιονδήποτε αλλά όχι να θυσιαστεί με την θρησκευτική έννοια. Αυτό σήμαινε ότι είχε εξοριστεί από τον κόσμο των ανθρώπων και είχε αφεθεί μόνο με την έννοια του ζώου (λάιφ άνιμαλ), της γυμνής ζωής. Εδώ θα πρέπει να σημειωθεί ότι ο χόμο σάκερ δεν είναι το ίδιο με τη γυμνή ζωή. Ο χόμο σάκερ είναι κάποιος που έχει περιοριστεί με τη βία στη γυμνή ζωή και θα πρέπει να κρατήσουμε αυτές τις δύο έννοιες χωριστά.

Be a sacred animal

This is very helpful, but did you mean declaration of independence of declaration of rights of man and citizen at 3:26?

Disagree slightly with the part about Biology but very good video. Thanks.

Tommie Soro, did you write the text yourself? I have translated it into portuguese for personal use. Thanks.

As I understand it, "bios" means qualified life. Bios politkos means political life. Homo sacer is situated "in between" - a site which is the zone of indistinction and between bios ___ and zoe. I have not read anything from Agamben which defined the function of homo sacer and the space this individual occupies as "releasing pressure" like the space in the puzzle does and don't really feel this is the point of Homo Sacer as a text. I also think that he did not mean biology is totalitarianism as you have stated. I think the idea of animation of the Homo Sacer is excellent and could prove helpful. Naturally it is challenging to illustrate with precision. At this stage, I do not think I could do what you have endeavored here.

La gente come noi non molla mai

If the stripping of rights, to leave only the Zoe, is necessary for the expulsion of a population or individual as referenced in the video, then where do the various expulsions of the Jews under various monarchs fit in with history? Specifically I’m thinking of the pogroms under the czars. Genuine question.

Badiou has this theory simpler - nation as a some arbitrary idea that polices itself to its members.

I feel like I finally understand Agamben

Still don’t get it :/

I recently saw the Film by Bresson "Au Hasard Balthazar" and Agambens book came to mind. The film is about a donkey which we see the life of bios from a zoe view basically. But it turns out that in this society people are living a life with no political intentions and throughout people are mistreated by each other because they are all equals and reduced to zoe. Its barbarism basically. What they do to the donkey they do on each other. But they do not kill the donkey because of his nature the donkey becomes kind of not sacraficable but killable without punishment. In the last scene the donkey dies in a field of sheep which they leave the corpse and in death he is excluded from the middle of the sheep. Is it possible that Bresson foretook Agambens work 1966? Or am I overinterpreting things?

excellent . It should have spanish transcrip. thank you

Thank you! Is Agamben's work only aimed at explanation or has he proposed any ideas about political change?

bear loife

Great animatic philosophy videos. I really need the English subtitle/transcript. How can I get it?

Hey, great video! Made it much easier to understand Agamben than the unstructured slides of my professor :D I have a problem understanding a specific part though: "The state of exception is simply constituted when the sovereign acts beyond the law" and "The implementation of the state of exception is a normal thing that states do" contradict in my mind. If states implement states of exception, e.g. by stripping prisoners of voting rights, then they do not go beyond the law, as this IS the law they implemented. One could argue that this is against human rights, but the civil laws that apply are made by the state itself.

Thanks a lot for this interesting video. One point is not clear to me. Around 5:53 comes the notion that biology sanctions the killing of the other, as it reduces people to bare life. But the point is also being made that biology, through excluding the abnormal, is the reason why killing people without citizenship is not sanctioned. Isn't there a contradiction here, as reducing people to bare life is, at the same time, a reason to sanction the killing of the other, and a reason not to sanction the killing of the other? What have I not understood? :)

Covid 19 anyone?

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Colossians 2:8

Hi, where can I find your scripts?

Spanish subtitles please!!

subtítulos en español por favor ...

Your explanation was very nice. Thanks But try to change your voice tone (up and down)

Can you subscribe underlines in english . .?Many people could you understand...thanks a lot anywhere

Hukuk Sosyolojisinden geldim

Plz anybody put some subtitles at least for English

The fact that so many graduate students need this video to understand Agamben demonstrates how unnecessary the book is. I found the book more relevant to European democracies than American democracies.

Why was this video just talking about bears the whole time?

So he knew about covid vaccination mandates 7 years ago?

Instead of using the word biopoltical, you're using the word Biology. Why so. Please explain.

"This is literally the definition of sovereignty." - Please quote your sources. I have never experienced this "literal definition", as you call it, and since the word etymologically comes from Latin, I can clearly see the "super" part of it, which is what the world literally means, as attested by various sources. (www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sovereign; www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sovereignty; www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/sovereign; en.wiktionary.org/wiki/soverain#Old_French). That being the "super", above the law, the ruler, the master, i.e. the sovereign, allows you to kill cannot be inferred from the inherent meaning of the word, but is rather a claim which needs to be argued, that is to say it cannot be said that it defines what being a sovereign is per definitionem.