This ain't no football fam

The reason he was given that much time is to make sure that his ideas were clearly introduced to the audience as well as the other debaters. This is because his ideas are still very new, and it is his ideas which are being debated

Quite simply and beautifully stated

Why is there a dialectical relationship? Why is the nature of the subject in any way contradictory to the nature of all other objects? The subject is special because it's the phenomenological access point for us as individuals, but that's just an additional property of that particular object, not anything that contradicts the nature of the object or requires a dialectical relationship. To me this relates to the difference between communism and political theories of anarchism/mutual aid. Communism and Zizek see us as individuals engaged in a struggle to relate to each other, nature, and technological change, with the nature of that relationship itself needing to be subject to dialectical critique at all times. In this way communism and Zizek continue the classic western philosophical tradition of putting the individual in a position of needing to constantly be anxious about their identity. OOO in contrast says that there's no point in thinking of it as a struggle to figure out how to relate. You're never going to figure out what the thing in itself is, or what you in yourself are, so you are therefore freed to just BE yourself and naturally find out more about who you are through your life and experiences. When Harmon talks about the importance of animal philosophy I think he is on point, because when you start talking about how animals actually think and behave, you have to throw out the overly individualist Darwinian competitive mentality. Most all animals with significant brains spend lots of time playing, relaxing, and showing mutual aid type behaviors. Harmon also talks later in the lecture about the importance of symbiosis. So we need to stop seeing ourselves through this Darwinian lens where we're supposed to be like animals in this way, but animals aren't actually like that in the first place. Once we can make that collective shift, we can start on an authentic journey of self learning and discovery, as a society and as individual subjects, where we're able to learn who we really are and how we could restructure our environment and society to make the world a better place.

@@Ballosopheraptor My position is not that the Subject is contradictory “to all other objects” but that it is the contradiction generated “through all other objects”. The dialectical relationship is constituted through the generation/regeneration of the Subject.

This is exactly what I've been saying and thinking for a while as well. It was originally going to be the basis of PhD project but unfortunately one must move where the funding lies and there was not much money in this direction. I hope to still explore it regardless once I get the money tho lol

Y'all need to read some Adorno. Nigga played that game and didn't beat it, still nigga who played it best

Ist ein 🍎(O) Teil von mir (S) durch das Betrachten ?

oh, i have mixed name and surname. sorry, mr. harman.

Civilization and Capitalism, 15th-18th Century by Braudel

@@cerealbloodx thanks!

The Idiot Akira Kurosawa

But the understanding…. Hmmm, you know I was going to say that there’s already a pretty established sense of understanding about this, but I found myself stuck 😅

And?

@@walterramirezt it's called a "meme marker", thank me later

Absolutely. But despite or maybe because of being a Balkan slob he, both in his writing and ordinary thinking, has this associative creative ability and perception. He's a total contrast to Harman who I also love- Harman is a methodical institutional guy who has read and understood a huge amount of philosophy in a clear and thorough way. They make a great pair.

I feel the complete opposite haha he is the one that makes complete sense to me

(copied comment from another one) Absolutely. But despite or maybe because of being a Balkan slob he, both in his writing and ordinary thinking, has this associative creative ability and perception. He's a total contrast to Harman who I also love- Harman is a methodical institutional guy who has read and understood a huge amount of philosophy in a clear and thorough way. They make a great pair.

Te he visto en algún que otro vídeo de Adictos a la filosofía jajaja. ¿Qué opinión te trae el realismo especulativo?

@@xangarabana Es una tendencia filosófica honesta y de buenas intenciones: (1) Buscan una superación de la absurda divisón analítico // continental, (2) ensayan alternativas al subjetivismo post-kantiano (como sugiere Harman con su ucronía de un "realismo alemán"), (3) quieren reavivar la ontología clásica en un tiempo atravezado por el giro lingüístico tanto de Wittgenstein como de Lacan. Comparto todas sus metas, pero no sus medios. Creo que Harman no entendió la metáfora detrás de la crítica que le hicieron al acusarlo de "fetichismo de la mercancía" (es claro que es un uso metafórico, nadie sensato piensa que la intención de Harman es hacer crítica de la economía política), ni tampoco se quedó a gusto con la respuesta de los lacanianos y hegelianos más cercanos a la escuela de Ljubljana. Llegado ese punto, creo que la razón por la cual el realismo especulativo podría aferrarse a algo como la OOO es por un mero afán reactivo o algún criterio puramente intuicionista (este carácter de "no puede ser que el sujeto ocupe el 50% de la ontología"). Habló de muchas concepciones del sujeto, pero nunca lo oí dar en el clavo con lo que Hegel entiende por sujeto (pues para él, subjetividad y objetividad son dos estados o texturas que cualquier ser puede asumir, no son exclusivas al ser humano). Respecto a la jugada hegeliana para salir del subjetivismo, di una ponencia en mi universidad precisamente aplicando términos de Harman para hacer más fácil la exposición.

@@alejandromatos7860 para entender un poco mejor tu postura (dentro de lo poco que entiendo ya de filosofía), ¿tú cómo te definirías filosóficamente o con quién encuentras más afinidades?

@@xangarabana Me identifico más con las soluciones que Hegel da a esos problemas.

this part is a veritable tour de force

no

You’re distracted by an associative resemblance

​@@Lmaoh5150 You are not impressing me with pretentious big words. These kinds of theories have no ground, factually or historically. The fatal flaw Harman made -- by fiat - was to flatten ontology.This move has been done before: Freud, Marx, the Protestant Reformers. Once you flatten history, there is no ground to stand on and you will grasp for something, often times corrupting. Grounding an ontology on objects is defacto worship.

@@Chandleresque We might not disagree actually. Do you mean by paganism in its original meaning as in “anything that’s not Judaic?” Because then it’s trivially true that OOO is “paganism”, because it isn’t Jewish, and I would agree

It's quite the opposite.

and also, when Objects for us last -however long- how could this occur given that one's mind forgets etc. So what is the strategy for remembering ; obvious that a fast talker like GH here must have a view on this ; if not then a viewer? I ask because I am Aiming an starting to put-into-critical words just why & how this occurs ; ontologically of course for real.

Least senile popper fan