I click thinking it was like a playlist or something but i stay cause i love podcast and music , so i suscribe to this channel , great content !

What do you call a musician without a girl friend? Homeless

Refreshing. Love you man. ❤ everything is simple

✌️

I hope that isn't Little Walter playing right at the start, because that had beginner marked all over it. Walter was good back in the day at that simplistic stuff but in 2024 it is very very average in fact basic.

Weird. I always thought of 2nd position (cross harp) as up a 4th rather than down a 5th. It's hard to find a 5th down, but easy to find that major 4th by going up the major scale. At least for me. I can't go down from 1st to 5th, but I can go up from 5th to 1st. Natural interval for Latin trumpet music. Survival harp pack: (Cross-Harp 2nd position version) Key of A - D harp Key of E - A harp Key of C - F harp Key of G - C harp Always good to have an E-flat harp, because the key of B-flat is open tuning for trumpet and tenor sax. I've used B-flat harp quite a bit in the key of C minor. 3rd-position version: Key of Dm - C harp Key of Cm - Bb harp Dm is the key in which I did the most chromatic harp, because the chromatic C harp is laid out a lot like 3rd-position on a regular diatonic harp. Of course, real masters can just play in any key with a chromatic.

Alan wilson?????

Hard times..

These videos are awesome. Thank you, professor.

This is excellent

At 33:28 you label Graeber as leaning towards state socialism despite the fact that he explicitly makes the case that state is a meaningless term. Make it make sense.

Again at 26:43 you claim that Wengrow & Graeber are arguing that liberalism is created by indigenous peoples as a critique; but that’s not what they argue at all; they simply show that it was those indigenous critiques that forced European thinkers like Rousseau and Hobbes and Diedrot to start asking new questions and formulating new answers. Those indigenous thinkers influenced the trajectory of the Enlightenment but were not its architects. Subtle but important difference.

Again at 26:43 you claim that Wengrow & Graeber are arguing that liberalism is created by indigenous peoples as a critique; but that’s not what they argue at all; they simply show that it was those indigenous critiques that forced European thinkers like Rousseau and Hobbes and Diedrot to start asking new questions and formulating new answers. Those indigenous thinkers influenced the trajectory of the Enlightenment but were not its architects. Subtle but important difference.

This seems like a very superficial critique; at 15:46 you mistakenly think he’s ridiculing Occupy Wall Street and his earlier positions, but this is just a lack of imagination on your part. To attack this brilliant man after his death on such spurious grounds says more about you than it does David.

Thank you!

Damn Good!you are a genius too!

"Anyone who says they don't like country music is either lying or doesn't know what they're talking about." -- Eleni Mandell.

Was Graeber ill during the writing of The Dawn of Everything, and is it possible this changed his outlook or reflections? I read Debt and intend to reread it but recall not being entirely convinced by all of his arguments. He seemed to de-emphasise developments in European states from the early Middle Ages through the Reformation and the point when many of those states became imperial powers. Life would remain nasty, brutish and short for most people with those entities, but no state could compete with increasingly technological, bureaucratic and mercantilist enemies unless it adopted those same techniques. States can “progress” in certain ways without being progressive.

3:13 bookmark

A few thoughts from someone who took your Philosophy Of Art class (and your Intro To David Allan Coe) at UVa: I wonder whether "good" (read: "effective") political art, like "bad" art, delivers a single, transparent message, requiring no interpretive work from the viewer. The remarkable thing about the Trump photo is the speed of implementation. The transition from PowerPoint presentation to James Brown encore was complete less than 90 seconds after its conception. The whole "Republicans are weird" thing seems like a great example of a political text that functions on the aesthetic level. It's designed to cause the listener/reader to get the "ick". There's no rational response to the statement. I do find it odd that "journalists", who conceive of their purpose as standing up for the downtrodden, are now unironically taking a pro-bullying stance. And I wonder how far this discourse will trickle down in our society. As the school year gets underway, will third-graders now have to face playground insults like "your mama thinks Israel has the right to exist", or "your daddy favors cancelling the electric-vehicle mandate"?

Beautiful

Appreciate the review, thanks man!

I am a newtonian post accelerationist decision theorist on organic chemistry & cosmological chemistry. We are free we are egalitarian bacteria perceptual vectors there are microbes that are even more lethal than all the lethal idiots that surround us that take us out make us vaporize in an instant at any time our lives are really short it is important to have perspective broadcasting must keep overthrowing 'Hollywood movies tv & porn podcasts & philosophy' so that the newtonian can keep being observed we are all living to work to find where the observer is located the observer has full immunity immune systems are defense systems everything is defective & everything inherited the space time defect in unique interacting strange metal molecular robotic formats Our skin is our largest organ our bodies replace themselves every 7-10 years if you were alone on earth with a computer your life would be pretty meaningless & you would have a very hard time conjuring everyone on the internet & be unable to physically be around them water is older than the sun there are qm effects in the sun we do not fully understand yet the earth is a solar powered plasma computer saplosky is lethal & is wrong about both Picasso a shitty painter who could not understand basic physics & who could not cover old paintings in his poor blue period that are clearly visible today & he is wrong about transsexuals with is a Surkov psyop weapon since to date not a single transperson has convicted a single crime against a baby or a woman & they are all women who play the biological card & he is wrong about free will everything has free will in order to space travel you will have to recreate all your 'enemies' & every single snowflake ever experienced or not experienced or on mars it is important to focus on managing all the power one does have & kill the philosophical nihilistic Hollywood neurotic melodrama point of view Subjective distortion & the point of view of the white man is useless & dead & has been over done for a long time & it is killing us all white men have NOTHING to say about NOTHING only when we listen *IN GENERAL* can we surveil & prove what is happening american law enforcement is as close to progressive post accelerationism as you can get we have brilliant diverse novel police who use brilliant methods for peacemaking & you are not able to cherry pick each individual & pick them apart this is what you want when you are late in the park they have tiny silver eyes that make Charlie Brown noises to get you to leave, they can use menacing voice mechanics while having better intentions towards you than most other people & *prove it* you want to be a white man who says fuck white men & wears masks & works with other makes fact based AI professionals to be a unit in Newtonian mathematics & quantum science & your free will your dangerous powerful free will more freedom not less permission systems with mutual accountability mutually assured destruction post womb reproduction keeping others ALIVE

Always dangerous to comment before I finish watching the video (I've seen the first 25 minutes so far), but the paper is interesting and I have thoughts that I don't want to forget. I can think of an argument for why moral responsibility requires some form of free will -- I'm not sure if it's a great argument, but it's good enough that I'll share it for the sake of discussion. A liberal could argue that the reason responsibility is tied to free will is that it's fundamentally unfair to treat people differently based on things they can't control. In essence, our equal capacity for rational decision-making demands that everyone be afforded a certain degree of equal respect, and it follows from this that only a person's choices justify breaking that default respect and punishing them. So if a person is punished for a reason that doesn't stem from their choices, they're essentially being punished arbitrarily -- since they can't control the thing that causes them to be punished, it's wrong to break the default respect that all humans are owed (e.g. it's wrong to violate people's rights). So on the one hand, there are big problems with this liberal line of reasoning. It's not clear that all humans are equally capable of rational decision-making (this line of thinking has the dangerous implication that children or mentally disabled adults are morally worth less than others), and this argument also more or less imagines all humans in a context-less vacuum, devoid of things like their history and their different abilities and places in society. On the other hand, this is a very common articulation of why bigotry is wrong, since bigotry also punishes people for things they can't control, and that example might demonstrate why some find it a dangerous idea to say that you can be morally responsible for something out of your control. But regardless, in my opinion, the reason that morality is tied to free will so commonly is that it follows very clearly from liberal ideas that have been dominant in western philosophy for centuries. Perhaps that is obvious, and perhaps you even say that in the parts of your video I haven't watched yet, but I just wanted to articulate this before I forgot.

In regards to being rational, I think it’s important that philosophers bring up the fact that game theory is involved when it comes to topics such as law and economics. Also, legal fictions such as businesses use the social sciences, which isn’t based on reality as it’s not the natural sciences, it has no intellectual virtue and worth

Has your position changed now that there are regions such as rojava where a chunk of a country has been functioning as an anarchist region for many years.

Thanks for the conceptual analysis, Prof. Sartwell

This video was amazeballs !

Interesting and though I have yet to read his books, having only found out about him last year, I find these passages odd....where the decolonial shift reminds me of someone's critique of "equality" I heard this week, that I could def be on board with, it's from a rev rad pan-african liberation pov....by Diallo Kenyatta. I'll need to revisit that and come back to this. My linguistics background also has me quite aware the problems of english where it breaks up into futility in some ways. But like you said, an in-depth explanation is warranted... Cool, thanks for this insightful reflections.

From Wikipedia..."The Goldbach Conjecture is a yet unproven conjecture .... The conjecture has been tested up to 400,000,000,000,000. Goldbach's conjecture is one of the oldest unsolved problems in number theory and in all of mathematics"

Thanks for this video! It’s hard to find critiques of this book that feel balanced and committed to understanding the material. As a younger anarchist reading this with all David’s other books in mind, I don’t think I really got that sense of liberalism or prescriptivism that’s making you nervous. Like I think I actually valued the opportunity to take a closer look at what I mean by the State ™ so that when I say I’m “anti-statist” I say it with all the conviction and room for nuance that I need. Especially going into various multi cultural institutions where words have different meanings, histories, and implications; there’s value in not being trapped by a definition. In knowing when to make room for the semantics of the situation. In that way I think it was a further evolution of how he’s thought and written in the past, which, is part and parcel of anarchism. (This is the first of Wengrow’s work I’ve read and I’m less familiar with him and his politics but given they wrote this together I didn’t expect this book to be as entirely a reflection of Graeber as his other work). We need to be able to adapt as we come to understand new histories and new realities; we have to allow new knowledge to change us. Same goes with Equality. I haven’t stopped using equality as an organising concept in discourse by any means, but I am now more aware that there’s more to freedom than just “equality” because equality as a term is not quite enough. At least in other cultures or languages there may be better words that encapsulate what we want “equality” to mean. My point is that I think making us rethink just these two words should make us better and more grounded anarchists. Avoid throwing a stone unless you know what it’s made of.. kind of thing. I mean this discourse happens with so many other words. We’re still undecided on whether we think anarchists should embrace “democracy” or do away with it. Depending on how useful you think it is we may never quite come to agreement, but the discourse at least sharpens our thinking collectively and ensures we don’t fall into the sentimental traps of the word. As for the three freedoms; I didn’t really feel they were prescriptive. (Maybe I need to reread the part about it being scientific though 😂). The sense I got was that these were three of the strongest patterns observed over various cultures and other research **thus far** and they hoped more might unfold as their writing partnership continued. They had like 3 books planned I think so I’m at least willing to accept that they knew there’s more to say about this. Anyway, all this to say, I don’t think you need to worry that this will dilute anarchists anti-statist stance if they interact with this book. I think as anarchists we can trust each others ability to hold volatile ideas in discourse and to come to conclusions we can work with. I think if David were still alive you’d be able to have this conversation out with him in person and sus out for yourself whether or not he was watering down his anarchism (I’m sure he’d disagree, but at least he could tell you why); but since all we have is this book; the best we can do is assume the best of intentions just cut off before we could hear it completed. Isn’t that what makes anarchist organising so powerful? Giving our community members the benefit of the doubt? I think rather than encouraging new anarchists or leftists to fear the content and implications of this book, we should embrace the opportunity to have it out collectively on ideas that we have long considered central; so that we can evolve into an anarchism that’s adapted to meet the reality of the present. What differentiates anarchists from the Marxists, I believe, is that we’re less driven by increasingly purified and doctrinating theory than we are by present reality and the evidence of the time. Both work together of course but we’re more bound together by action than by word. Thanks for the review! Again, one of the better ones I’ve heard.

Beautifully said, very poignant

This sounds like a fascinating analysis of the evolution in Graeber's thinking. Maybe it would be interesting to reach out to Nika Dubrovsky? I guess she would be the best suited to give you insight into the development of his thinking the last couple of years. I'm actually really interested what she would say.

Well said. As someone who was on the 'left' and then moved to the 'right' when they became increasingly deranged I have come to the same conclusion. As you write in your essays power tends to attract power and so over time you tend to get increasing concentrations of power. What are the counter-forces that keep society from just becoming totalitarian? They come (I think) from specialised knowledge power groups, they bump up against each other but no one can get the absolute power they crave. e.g. The legal profession is powerful and dislike the politicians messing in their estate - and vice versa. There have always been these power centres, such as the medieval guilds etc acting to prevent total power accumulating in one place. Where you get totalitarianism it is due to exploiting a human psychological tendency towards cultism, enabling the cult to take over what should be self interested power centres. This means I am not a fan of overarching knowledge systems and, um philosophy, since they can become a cult.

Wow 😮, this was amazing and I can relate to it, when my husband told me his mother had Alzheimer's and didn't even recognize him I said well maybe that's a blessing? Maybe we're supposed to go back like babes, I know one thing for sure this reality is not what it seems😊

I invite you to not reduce yourself And I'll take away you are expressive.Expressive expression an authentic communication or your freedom I've choice speech and will by apologizing for referring to something or someone as a specific male or a specific female and/or hermaphrodite. It's different if you're referring to A specific category of people And or specific person that have a specification as to what they would "prefer" to be ADDRESSED as. However, it's only when referring specifically too. more often than not directly in their presence. to apologize for not referring to them. As your story was not about them, you're expressing your life.Your experiences, your thoughts, your imagination, you're truth. it's undermining to your truth And rob's you as the author of your own Expression intention creativity etc.(It's a slide of hand tactical maneuver whether people realize it or not As well as if they intentionally maneuver this way or unintentionally are aware.). Truth is, it's not for us to judge But we would perceive to be someone else's intention and/or directive. To feel the need to have to apologize for the way you choose to Express , but not being vulgar about it. In my personal opinion. and if you have not perceived this orientation of perception prior? allow yourself to just sit with it. And naturally from the experiences.I've had the mind mental processes begins to naturally unpack unfold.And then in that process, you can review observe.C know the information and then make more informed.Choosen and or purposeful pure directed peaceful Intentions. That have follow through and practical application.That doesn't reduce anyone else intentionally or undermined Your authenticity by apologizing to another who you're not even referring to 🤓🧐😎

Fascinating, but this guy really slurs his speech.

I've read a lot of reviews of Dawn of Everything by anthropologists and historians, but this is the first review I've watched from a philosophy perspective. I think you bring great insights into the critique of the book. You are spot on in shedding light on the lack of coherent definitions of concepts, as well as how the book seems to undercut Graeber's earlier commitment to an anarchist sensibility. It reminds me of how the young Marx was against the state, only to give way to the older Marx seeing the state's usefulness as a means to impose communism in the hopes it would eventually "wither away". In Graeber's case, the older Graeber seems to simply hand wave away the state as something that can't really be defined and has no origin. But hey, the state's political representatives (like Corbin) can be useful ! I think your review in the LA Review of Books should be required reading by anthropologists.. Incidentally, I heard that David Wengrow is working on a follow up to Dawn of Everything.

I knew Hurston was special. We touched on her briefly in my 20th century humanities class back in college, but I never got back to her. She doesn't come up that much, so I'm never reminded to have another look. Thanks.

That was cool. I would love to hear what you thought about Hoffman's Defense of your ideas.

This is fantastic! Makes me want to go back to the Hurston works I haven't spent time with in a number of years (lately it's mostly been Tell My Horse). This does make me want to ask you what your thoughts are on Cavell's works on Thoreau and especially on Emerson in his 1980s books.

Externalism also has influenced anthropology. I first encountered it in Gregory Bateson (Steps to an Ecology of Mind) and later in Edwin Hutchins (Cognition in the Wild). I think it's also an integral part of Enactivism and the Emobodied Mind school of consciousness studies.

a politically left wing position is one which attacks the interests of a society's ruling class on behalf of one or more class(es) under the former's rule. a politically right wing position defends the current rights and privileges of the ruling class against the leftist challenge (conservatism) or argues for either the expansion of same or a return of power to a previous ruling class (reactionism). it is a term which only has significance in the modern context of open political struggle between classes. this is why in a previous epoch of bourgeois revolution the left wing represented the political expression of the bourgeoisie and their struggle against the ruling interests of that time, whereas in the 20th century the left was identified with struggle against the bourgeoisie and their class rule. in contemporary western politics the schema falls a part because there is no organized political representative of the working class. in this context "left" and "right" comes only to signify conflict within and between particular national ruling classes.

Crispin, I miss your conversations with Daniel Kaufman.

Good topic and video Crispy. Ok, I'll try. You are right, insofar as the left/right spectrum is not coherent and difficult to define. But that's because it is a social construct and doesn't lend itself to any definition constituted by necessary and sufficient conditions. It's better to approach the left/right spectrum through prototype theory or exemplar theory in social psychology. Or as Wittgenstein would call it, family resemblances. As you know, 'left' and 'right' come to us from the French Legislative Assembly in 1791 when members who supported the monarchy and ancient regime sat on the right, and members who supported the revolution sat on the left in the legislature (moderates sat in the middle). So already, we can see that 'right' meant conservative and traditional values, while 'left' meant revolutionary republic and progressive innovation. Of course, word meanings change over time, and now 'republic' is associated with Republicans i.e. conservatives. If Jordan Peterson doesn't know whether the Nazis were left or right wing, all he has to do is look at what they did, rather than what they called themselves. You can't go by the names of political parties because it's often deceptive. The govt of North Korea calls itself the "Democratic Peoples Republic of North Korea". lol. They are neither democratic, nor a republic. When the Nazis Party called itself National Socialists, they were appealing to the working class who predominantly voted for socialist or communist parties. Nazis desperately needed votes in their early stages and fooling people with a marketing name change seemed to work in their favor. If Nazis are a paradigm example of the right, and communists are a paradigm example of the left, then it makes at least some coherent sense that the Nazis killed and imprisoned socialists and communists, and banned trade unions, etc., since they were on opposite ideological sides of the political right/left spectrum. Today, what I think the left/right spectrum can be boiled down to is the degree to which they believe in egalitarianism or not. The left tends to value equality over hierarchy while the right tends not to. Some variants on the left, like Marxists, seem to support the state (which is the ultimate hierarchy), so not everything fits the paradigm. And you may have some other counter examples. But, like I said, these are generalizations, and not hard and fast definitions made up of necessary and sufficient conditions.

In my opinion, the reason this question seems so weird to you is that you're approaching it like a philosopher, when you should be approaching it like a sociologist. Left and right are social constructs that people use to understand and predict what other people's beliefs will be, and what actions they'll take as a result. Their meanings are context-dependent and change a lot over time and place. So, I call myself a leftist because I agree on most issues with most other people I come across who call themselves leftists. For example, I oppose capitalism, I support reproductive autonomy, I oppose imperialism locally and globally -- calling myself a leftist succinctly gives others a general (albeit inexact) idea of what my beliefs are, and it helps me find and ally with others who feel the same way. The fact that I might not call myself a leftist in another time or place is a real limit on the usefulness of this conceptual tool, but it's still very useful in most situations I find myself in. Likewise, I can't rigorously prove that the Nazis were right-wing, but their positions resemble America's right much more than its left, so it's a useful way to think. A good analogy might be genres of music. You've acknowledged yourself that the definition of 'roots music' is vague and inexact, but it's still helpful that you label your podcast as being about roots music. The fact that the definition is inexact, and the fact that there are all sorts of albums that fit ambiguously within the label, doesn't mean it's unhelpful in social contexts. So, you are likewise right to say that there's no one philosophical divide that undergirds all the positions we'd call 'left' vs. 'right,' but it would be missing the point to say that the distinction is therefore unhelpful.

This some thought provoking is stuff my boy. I like to see the spectrum as a Cartesian plane moreso or even a hyperplane, political compass or even sphere. There's just too much to cover w belief alone.

Happy to conform to society and support for old regime/tradition vs socially progressive with tendency to prefer individual freedom over social authority. Best I can do.

Thanks!

I'm not happy with the current third party candidates. I would not vote for West or Stein for multiple reasons. Gaza is the only thing I agree with them on. I was going to vote for RFK, but not happy with him either after Oct. 7. Let's see what the Libertarian or Constitution party candidates have to say. Would be nice not to have to be a one issue voter, and that candidates will be both antiwar and libertarian.