Hiya Dominic. I like that... my why's and how's. Thanks for swinging by.

@@absurdbeing2219 always mate

Thanks. Really glad to hear that. And that's a great question. Unfortunately, being in neither the scientific nor the philosophical academic communities, I don't know the answer. It certainly seems to be quite popular in contemporary philosophy circles though, capturing something of the anti-humanistic zeitgeist as it does.

@@absurdbeing2219 thanks!

OOO missed the mark for me a bit, and I didn't have much positive to say about _Vibrant Matter._ The only person who could be called a speculative realist who I have really liked so far is Tristan Garcia. _Form and Object_ is the one to read there. On the Husserl front. To be honest, the more I read of him, the more I like him. However, I prefer my phenomenology without the transcendence. So, for me, it's the classics - Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty mainly, but also Sartre, and for a unique and interesting take on the Other, Levinas.

@@absurdbeing2219 Thank you for the thoughts.

Sellars actually just made it onto my radar after reading Peter Gratton's book on spec realism. Brassier (and Meillassoux) got shortlisted as well (if for no other reason than to know my opponents better). I almost read Metzinger a while ago, but slipped out of my 'there is no self' phase before I got around to it. I never actually set out to do critiques. It was just that once I read Harman and Bennett, I had to do something with all the ideas percolating randomly in my head, organise them in some way, and a video seemed a good (albeit a little time-consuming) outlet for this. Anyway, thanks for the suggestions. I think Husserl is going to keep me busy for a while, and I also have a video series on a Japanese philosopher that is long overdue. I'll definitely keep Metzinger and co. in mind though.

@@absurdbeing2219 I think that’s admirable about your channel, very consistent quality of explanation and you always finish projects you start. Some of these phenomenology series have been very useful to me but I selfishly wanna see you cover stuff I like from another perspective, in any case it’s your channel, keep doing you.

That sounds interesting. Sure, I'd be keen to give it a go. Husserl is probably going to occupy me for the next 3 months or so. I had hoped to sneak a series through in tandem with this - one which will seem totally out of left field after Harman and Bennett - Watsuji Tetsuro's _Rinrigaku,_ but I think one video a week is really all I can manage. I won't go through Watsuji in depth, but I figure about 4-5 videos for decent coverage. Don't know if you're interested in Japanese philosophy at all? Alternatively, on a (slightly) more 'local' and spec realism front, I want to do a series on Tristan Garcia's _Form and Object,_ which I really liked. Timing-wise, I was aiming after the semester finishes, so in the summer vacation for this one. Slightly longer-term, I have added Gurwitsch's _The Field of Consciousness_ and _Marginal Consciousness_ to my next book order. Surely we can arrange something there when the time comes.

@@absurdbeing2219 I’m open to all four: Gurwitch, Tetsuro, Husserl and Garcia in that order. Husserl (or Ideas I, at least) and Tetsuro are probably a tie. I’ll look into Tetsuro. 👍🏻

@@absurdbeing2219 I have the complete works of Aaron Gurwitsch in PDF if interested.

@@Haveuseenmyjetpack Thanks. However, after seeing his collected works crazily priced at over $300 on Amazon, I followed that link you suggested in another comment and picked them up myself. Perhaps we could co-ordinate this better through email. I'm at absurdbeing@gmail.com. Let's flesh out some details over the next few weeks, and perhaps aim to start something after the semester ends.

@@absurdbeing2219 sounds like a plan. I’ll email you this week.

I wouldn't, but only because I don't think the question is quite right. Metaphysics is the study of the fundamental nature of reality. An ecosystem (or anything else for that matter) can't be this. Are you perhaps asking whether an ecosystem has some kind of non-physical properties?

@@absurdbeing2219 Thanks. You answered my question. I believe you are saying an ecosystem is not a fundamental reality, as you state at about 34:35 where you define metaphysical as a fundamental reality. That's all I need to know.