I'm Neal Trotter, a semiprofessional philosopher providing content to encourage utilizing philosophy for a better society. I read philosophy books (primarily classics) and discuss them on RU-vid. Feel free to comment on my videos to add toward the discussion.
For a broad brush of anarchist thought I recommend Michael malice's the anarchist handbook they disagree on much historically but they all Hoist the Black Flag in reverence for freedom
The concept of a distinct Palestinian state did not exist under the Ottoman Empire. However, a Palestinian national identity emerged in the 20th century. Following World War I, the Ottoman Empire was dismantled, and its territories were divided among the victorious Allied Powers. As part of a broader international framework established to manage these former Ottoman territories, the British Mandate for Palestine (1920-1948) was created. This mandate was intended to prepare the area for eventual self-governance.
Not a social construct, men are Natural leaders & protectors Look around my friend almost Evertything made today is by Men, women even the strongest Cannot fight a normal man unless She catches him on guard & feminine men are dispised by Both genders, the patriarchy is evolution not a construct Its always existed.
So women are incapable of leading or protecting? Women don't make things? And it's because women can't fight men unless they sneak up on them? This is evolution? Yeah, I'm not following your logic.
@theblackponderer They interesting thing is they don't need too women are born with Value, you see it with men preferring women over men when it comes to trustworthiness & women get preferential Treatment a random a homeless man isn't going to get that.
It's weird to me to think of philosophy as separate from politics. But I realize a lot of people learn philosophy as abstract, impractical thought, and politics as "the world as it is" and "being realistic". If you don't understand its philosophical underpinnings, it's hard to understand the political system.
There are no "Palestinian" people. Palestine is a Roman European invention placed on the land in order to erase the indigenous Jewish people. After the romans ceased power the byzantine occupiers continued to call it Palestine meanwhile the indigenous people still referred to it as the land of Israel. The Arabs living there now are descendants of the Ghassinid Arabs who were a vassal state allied with the Byzantines that massacered and displaced the indigenous Jewish and Samaritan Israelites. Read up on the Samaritan revolt. Most "Palestinians" are just Syrians,Egyptians, Jordanians and Saudi arabs who moved to and from that land continually. Minorities in the middle east deserve a home Arabs are colonizers and stole all the land from the minorites like Kurds and Jews. Supporting a 27th Arab state is only going to bring nothing but death to minorities in the middle east.
You say there are no "Palestinian" people, yet, there are 14.3 million people in the world today that identify as Palestinian... So, those people are lying..?
@@theblackponderer Yes Yasser Arrafat the Egyptian created the "Palestinian" national identidty in the 1960's with the help of the soviets. Before that no one referred to themselves as Palestinian. People in the British mandate of Palestine referred to themselves as Arabs, Jews, Armenian etc etc That is why there are no historic "Palestinian" persons. Can you name me one "Palestinians" king, Writer, or historical person? I cant. The Palestinians claim that Jesus was Palestinian but read Matthew 2 in the new testament and he writes that he was born in Bethlehem, Judea in the land of Israel.
@@kavkazip I think your focus may be placed on the wrong issue. I believe this is called a strawman argument. I'm using the name Palestinian to refer to indigenous/native peoples who have been displaced out of their land and/or are being oppressed and exploited by the State of Israel. Whatever the history, what is true now is that Israel exists as a state power by the displacement and exploitation of people. Maintaining power by exploiting, displacing and oppressing people is wrong. It vastly contributes to the cycle of violence that has existed in the Middle East throughout the decades.
This is a poor way to frame this issue; I’d recommend reading Rashid Khalidi’s book on the emergence of the Palestinian national identity. Nationality as we understand it today is a creation of the moderns; so of course there would be no Palestinian identity under the Ottomans, per se, but there’s substantial evidence of an emerging national consciousness in the late 19th century and early 20th centuries among Arabs living in present-day Palestine. Certainly early Palestinian nationalism was wrapped up in larger Pan-Arab movements, and was forged mostly in response to colonialism, but none of this discounts its validity as a national identity, nor does it erase the fact that many thousands of Arabs located in present day Palestine, who possessed close cultural and institutional ties to one another, were displaced or killed, with these previous institutional ties being destroyed in the process. The existence of a clearly defined Palestinian nation or explicitly Palestinian culture doesn’t erase the fact of Palestinian displacement, nor does it invalidate the later developments of Palestinian national consciousness.
One of the most overestimated writers of all time. Really? What can one say about Aliosa's theological discussions with a 13 year old boy? What can one think about the ending of Brothers Karamazov, where Aliosa together with some pre-adolescent children (!) are happy and celebrate the coming of Last Judgement Day!... Seriously? Is this suppose to be good literature? In Dostoevsky there is always the following concept: All "good" guys get to be rewarded and all "bad" guys either commit suicide or go to prison or get crazy. Ivan Karamazov, the one that could have saved Dmitri's, his brother's, life, gets crazy one day before the court! And why? Because he is the "atheist" of the novel! Excuse me, but is there anything more p r e d i c t a b l e in whole literature? Do you want your literature to be predictable in that silly way? How can a healthy human mind accept this forced and totally disgusting solution? This is the most horrible, boring and kitsch author out there. Not even his language has anything to offer! Please, read him anew; don't let yourself repeating "what the world is saying". Fortunately, there are at last some critical voices on Dostoevsky on YT. One can find them.
Patriarchies make for better warriors. We are formed by necessity into our roles. What is confusing? We like to kill each other when we rage. Egos and resources drive this BS. The frills about this make for useless careers and endless meaningless discussions.
Don't you think the world would be better if we didn't kill each other when we rage? We don't have to be slaves to our egos. We can manage resources in such a way that everyone has what they need. Don't you have a desire to do and be better?
@@elongatedmanforever1252 But the way patriarchy works is one gender flourishing by preventing other genders from flourishing. Patriarchy functions by one gender dominating over other genders, where all others are subordinated by a dominate one. The very definition of patriarchy prevents equal flourishing.
@@theblackponderer The interesting thing about It, is that only a tiny portion Of men rule above women and most men are incapable Of doing certain things at all & are poor.
@@theblackponderer That's really not what it is at all Because most men are prevented From flourishing and only a few On the top get great outcomes & That can be taken away from Easily by other men.
If only I didn't work, I would have been present for this live. I agree in reading disagreeable books because it forces us to not quickly hate people and understand the root causes of why characters or real-life people become the way they are. I enjoy reading them.
I don't know, the People's Republic of China's economy is the world's largest economy by GDP at purchasing power parity, the second-largest economy by nominal GDP, and the second-wealthiest country, albeit ranking poorly in measures of democracy, human rights and religious freedom. I mean, one could argue that human rights and democracy in America is suffering too, so kinda the same...
Thank you for this interesting bookreview/discussion. For personally working on non violence, you might be interested in non violent communication. I hope I will find a translation of this book in my own language because the small parts you read from it sounded quite difficult. But also fascinating. Thanks for your great video's, I see I missed one on Wildes book about socialism, so I will watch that this weekend :D.
I've been a fan of years for a couple of years or maybe even more. You inspired me to delve into philosophy. Although I wouldn't say I'm as well versed as you I'm going to tackle Hegel after I read Schelling as I think his ideas are cool from what I'm read in secondary sources such as Pinkard. I'm a pacifist, and there is societal pressure to be violent even on the small scale. Such as being tough and fighting. You're a really humble guy and a good role model, if I have read Hegel and the more difficult philosophers I'd be so pompous and pretentious ahahahhahhaha Anyways thanks man!
I've always loved political philosophy but you really have helped me always find new things to read. As soon as I finish a book I just look at your channel for another book to read. I know if you've made a video on it, it'll be a good time to read
Enjoyed the stream. It was interesting what you said about trigger warnings. I find when they're very specific it can sort of be a spoiler, it can give you an event that you expect and can sometimes guess what characters/plot points it's going to affect. I'd prefer if they were general, but maybe had some external website/publication for specific trigger warnings? Obviously it is different for trauma, but having a shocking scene appear suddenly is sometimes ideal for film, it's supposed to reflect trauma and recreate jarring experiences.
I'm a hobbiest philosopher and professional physicists so I have been thinking through the implications of relativity for a long time. Whats interesting is if you look at relativity historically many of the implications and results of the theory were already worked out and known. Time and length dilation/contraction has been hypothesized since Maxwell's equations. Even a rudimentary theory of relativity has been around for several hundred years (Galilean relativity). However, what a lot of modern people nowadays miss when looking at Einstein's theories was what specifically Einstein did. Einstein did not come up with the ideas of length dilation and contraction or relative time (He wasn't even the first person to write down E=mc^2). What Einstein did was in fact a triumph of the union of metaphysics with physics. Einstein derived all of these observed phenomena and tied them all together by demanding one simple axiom: the speed of light is constant for all observers, no matter how they are moving. By carefully following the logic of this through he found all of these found phenomena and generated the modern physical view of spacetime as a complete geometric space (this space is hyperbolic in time). This was his special relativity. This alone was a philosophical and physical triumph. However, he decided to do it all over again by adding one additional axiom: an observer in free fall can not tell whether they are in a gravitational field. By again carefully following through the logical implications he created his theory of general relativity and all it entails. This included a mechanism for the creation and perpetuation of gravitational fields, only by demanding these two axioms. Einstein of course is one of the most successful and important physicists of all time. However, I feel not enough people give him the credit he deserves as a philosopher. He is as much a philosopher as a physicist.
@@emmyfreudenrich4646 Interestingly, light itself experiences no time as it moves, according to Einstein's equations. So when light moves from one point to another, its experience is an instantaneous change in space. So when considering light itself as an observer, observing itself, its speed is not constant relative to other observers not moving at its speed.
@@theblackponderer Its an interesting limit to analyze. There has been a lot of talk in physics about how to think about this, and the general perspective among who I talk to is to not consider light or anything moving at the speed of light as a valid reference frame. This sounds like an ad-hoc justification (and it somewhat is) but it has reasonable mathematical backing. There is something lost in translation from math to human interpretation that makes it difficult to think about light as we would ourselves. The math is extremely well formulated and is proven to be extremely accurate in its predictions. While light doesn't experience what we call "proper time" we can track an analog variable called an "affine parameter" that is useful in calculations, but difficult to interpret. The difficulty in interpreting relativity (and also quantum mechanics) in comparison to the extremely well formulated mathematical theory has led to a "shut up and calculate" culture in physics when people bring up interpretations. This mindset certainly has served its use and is still extremely fruitful. In day-to-day physics and in creating useful devices we don't care about the metaphysics of what is happening; the math predicts the outcome and that's all we need. In my daily life at work I don't think about the philosophy, I am more worried about whether the vacuum pump on my glovebox is working or whether I coded a simulation correctly. However, as Einstein himself showed, when given deep thought metaphysics can lead to revolutions in physics. However, this is outrageously difficult to do. The difficulty in creating metaphysical theories that are useful for creating physical theories has made me personally somewhat frustrated with metaphysics. The metaphysics that doesn't have to deal with physics just doesn't interest me, and the metaphysics of physics (kind of a silly phrase) is so outrageously hard you need a literal Einstein to make sense of it. This is why I usually stick to more political philosophy, and feminist and queer theory in my personal reading.
@@emmyfreudenrich4646 I'm actually of the opinion that there is a clear line between physics and metaphysics. Physics is a science, so it needs to be verified by experimental data. Theoretical physics that cannot be experientially verified is metaphysics in my opinion. So subjects like string theory and theoretical physics related to higher dimensions of space, a lot of that stuff seems to be metaphysics to me. Unless an experiment can be designed to check the validity of the theory, to me that's metaphysics, which is philosophy. I do however think metaphysics has value, for sure, but I also think it's important to make that distinction. When we consider light as an observer, I do think that is more of a philosophical consideration than a physics based one. So I do think from a physics point of view, it is valid to discount light as an observer. But philosophically, what does it mean for a particle to experience no time, what are the implications of considering particles as observers? Does this infer any significant conclusions about reality? These are interesting questions that may have more metaphysical meaning than physical.
Amazing review and I expected nothing less, this channel is definitely the best consistent book review channel I have come across. My favorite quote in the book is when raskolnikov says, "Man is vile... and he who points that out is vile as well." and when he says later in the same chapter, "If one were to be condemned to an island surrounded by water, it would be better to stand on it for a thousand years than to die at once!" I may be paraphrasing them a little, but they really help showcase the early beginnings of raskolnikov understanding that this Napoleonic, fantastical philosophy he has been exploring may be an awry conclusion on life. The last best quote comes when he is talking to porfiry and porfiry explains that suffering is necessary and that one must choose their suffering. This channel always does a great job of analyzing the book thoroughly without giving any spoilers so it broadens the range of his audience to people who have read the book and those who may be interested in reading it. Overall awesome review on an awesome book, BRAVO!
Awesome Review!!!!! Just finished reading it and your video really helped in wrapping up the ideas presented in the book. Also its impressive how you were able to do it without droning on or spoiling it. Easily one of the best book reviews ive seen and definitley the best one ive seen regarding the stranger. Well done good sir! Absolutely great book and wishing u many blessings and good luck on your endeavors.
One day we will pay women who choose to stay home and raise a family because it is a job. In fact the existance of our race depends on women not getting fed up of doing this job for free😂
I'm male, and this book actually helped me unpack a lot of the "masculine mystique" as Friedan dubs it. It was pretty good for my mental health in that regard. Definitely recommend men pick up this book as well - Angela Davis talks about learning about all struggles because you learn how they're your struggles too and I've found that to be truer the more I've read.
Bruh, I volunteer as a Planned Parenthood patient escort. My daughter received life saving medicine from Planned Parenthood. Sanger's eugenics no longer guide Planned Parenthood. Don't get it twisted. Associations can change over time. And some associations don't actually exist. For example, Social Darwinism is a misinterpretation and co-optation of Darwin's scientific research. You got to work on your distinctions.