Brilliant insights on " What is philosophy ? " The art of concepts Wish everybody knew it, like this . Million thanks to you and all philosophical thinkers and knowledge translators 🙏
Thank you so much for making this wonderful video! I really enjoyed. "... to provide new alternative responses to the problems ... philosophy must change with them ... create concepts for problems that necessarily change ... the value of the creative act ... a call to embrace creativity and explore new possibilities ... " :)
I’m so glad you liked it! It was actually the very first video I made and published on the channel. I’m republishing it because it never got that many views, and I’m a bit busy writing assignments and stuff, so I thought it could be a good idea to give it another chance :)
Good video, I think this video sort of reminds me of ooold school videos and such idk if that's the nice you're targetting Maybe you could start by having some sort of introduction and follow-able texts on screen? Kane B's channel might be up your alley. Overall good video though
@tactilephilosophy I am more into philosophical content rather than its presentation. I think they are well done for me. May need improvements for beginners such as great openers and life related content.
Thanks, that’s great feedback! This was actually my first ever video, it never got many views, and since I’m busy I thought I’d give it another chance, and it’s doing pretty good 😊
Great video …as someone who loves philosophy and has considered making content as well. Your narration and editing is great, but getting a better mic might help in the future. Unfortunately there’s a high pitched ringing throughout as well as a lot of noise.
If you like universal truth, that’s fine. Deleuze just offers a different approach. Personally I find that universal truths only lead to bickering about who’s perspective is to be considered universal.
@@tactilephilosophy despite Deleuze's deep wishes to the contrary, not every truth claim has a perspective that is meaningful to interrogate. Also, the idea that all truth claims have perspectives is in itself a claim to universal truth. There is no escaping the claim of universal truth to one's own knowledge, otherwise it's not knowledge and just irrelevant whims of the mind. His "different approach" is just a pretense to critique all viewpoints from afar, while protecting himself from having epistemic "skin in the game." It's a coward's approach to philosophy.
Calling Deluze a coward is an adhominum attack, the lowest form of critique. In addition I think you’re straw manning his argument. Furthermore, I never discuss any claims Deleuze made about truth, I talk about Deleuze’s meta philosophy, of seeing philosophy as the creation of concepts, so with regards to my video, comments about Deleuze’s truth claims are irrelevant.
@@tactilephilosophy reading comprehension my friend. I called the approach cowardly, specifically an approach that critiques attempts at objective truth by pointing out the inevitability of subjective perspective, while not acknowledging that that "perspectivist critique" applies to one's own critique as well. An ad hominem would be saying that Deleuze's argument is wrong because he's a coward himself. But it's the approach that's cowardly, and I've explained why. One cannot refute objectivity of truth without undermining the validity of one's own refutation. The argument only works if you hide the fact that critiquing claims to objective truth apply to oneself. It is an approach that allows one to critique everything from an ivory tower, and so long as one never puts forward any truth claims, they can posture philosophical superiority. My critique is much broader than Deleuze, not an ad hominem towards him.
I certainly agree that scientism is invalid. I find this challenging and I have never heard of this guy. Good overview but hard to follow and the speaker’s voice is hard for me to understand as well.
I think that your attention span isn't that great (as many of ours are nowadays) and the lack of music is making your mind drift. The speaker did just fine.
Ok, I do have attention span issues and my hearing was reduced by experiencing sustained loud noise. If you can understand it all, which is French philosophy, more power to you.
@tactilephilosophy see above. I do not wish to insult you or your voice but I have to use closed captions to follow it all. I only studied philosophy formally for one year. I am flattered that you replied directly to me.
Of course. I was only looking for feedback on how I could improve, if my voice was difficult to make out because I have an accent which I can’t do anything about or if there was something else. I was also wondering what specifically I could do to make the video easier to follow. Feedback is an invaluable tool on RU-vid.
"I am very anti-philosophic and I avoid philosophy because it is playing with shadows, thoughts, speculation. And you can go on playing infinitely, ad infinitum, ad nauseam; there is no end to it. One word creates another word, one theory creates another theory, and you can go on and on and on. In five thousand years much philosophy has existed in the world, and to no purpose at all. "But there are people who have the philosophic attitude. And if you are one of them, please drop it; otherwise you and your energy will be lost in a desert.” “I am not teaching philosophy here because I am teaching no-mind. And if you become a no-mind all philosophy disappears: Christian, Hindu, Mohammedan, Buddhist - all philosophies disappear; Hegelian, Kantian, Russellian - all philosophies disappear. If the mind disappears, where can the philosophy exist? Where can it grow? Mind is the breeding ground of philosophy. "Let the mind disappear. And the beauty is, when there is no mind and nobody to philosophize and nothing to philosophize about, one comes to know. Philosophy is the blind man’s effort. It is said: Philosophy is a blind man in a dark room on a dark night, searching for a black cat which is not there….” “I am not a philosopher. The philosopher thinks about things. It is a mind approach. My approach is a no-mind approach. It is just the very opposite of philosophizing. It is not thinking about things, ideas, but seeing with a clarity which comes when you put your mind aside, when you see through silence, not through logic. Seeing is not thinking. “The sun rises there; if you think about it you miss it, because while you are thinking about it, you are going away from it. In thinking you can move miles away; and thoughts go faster than anything possible. If you are seeing the sunrise then one thing has to be certain, that you are not thinking about it. Only then can you see it. “Thinking becomes a veil on the eyes. It gives its own color, its own idea to the reality. It does not allow reality to reach you, it imposes itself upon reality; it is a deviation from reality. Hence no philosopher has ever been able to know the truth. “All the philosophers have been thinking about the truth. But thinking about the truth is an impossibility. Either you know it, or you don't. If you know it, there is no need to think about it. If you don't, then how can you think about it? “A philosopher thinking about truth is just like a blind man thinking about light. If you have eyes, you don't think about light, you see it. Seeing is a totally different process; it is a byproduct of meditation. “Hence I would not like my way of life to be ever called a philosophy, because it has nothing to do with philosophy. You can call it philosia. The word ‘philo’ means love; ‘sophy’ means wisdom, knowledge - love for knowledge. In philosia, ‘philo’ means the same love, and ‘sia’ means seeing: love, not for knowledge but for being - not for wisdom, but for experiencing.” Philosophy Is the Worst Wastage of Human Intelligence that Is Possible “I am not a philosopher. The philosopher thinks about the truth. His approach is rational. Reason is his instrument, and here just the opposite is the case. I am an irrational man. And the people who have gathered around me - around the world - the appeal to them is my irrationality, because reason has failed so utterly. For three thousand years in the West, ten thousand years in the East, philosophers have been struggling to find the truth, and not a single philosopher has been able to find it. “The way of philosophy does not go with truth at all. It is just rational gymnastics. So one philosopher can argue against another philosopher, and they go on arguing for centuries, but they have not come to agreement on a single point. Philosophy is the worst wastage of human intelligence that is possible. When I say I am not a philosopher, I simply mean that my approach towards reality is not through the head, it is through the heart. “Philosophy has not reached to any conclusion and it will never reach - it is an exercise in utter futility. It is a good game if you want to play an intellectual game, an intellectual gymnastics; it is hair splitting. “But I am not interested in it at all - and I know it from the inside: I have been a student of philosophy and a professor of philosophy too. I know it as an insider that the most useless activity in the world is philosophy, the most uncreative, the most pretentious - but very ego-fulfilling, gives you great ideas of knowledgeability without making you wise at all.”
Personally I don’t agree with what he is saying in the quotes, though It should be noted that I don’t see philosophy as a path to knowledge or wisdom. To me philosophy is about opening up new possibilities for living. I used to struggle a lot with anxiety and depression, but philosophy helped me get through that. It taught me to embrace and love life, where once I had no such love.
I think where he said the man is blind, that was enough, other things were kind of redundant and philosophy will always exist, as many people as there are they will keep on introspecting and challenging other's paths. Osho is just one of them, just another speck of dust in the cosmos. We all are like that and within this little time my dear friend, learn as much as you can for there will be no time suitable than you can find now.
Deleuze is a metaphysician, not an epistemologist, and therefore does not concern himself with truth as such. The closest you would get are his various theories, but these are metaphysical theories, not claims about truth. Why are you focusing on truth? I still don’t get what you’re trying to say with your comment.
Subscribed. It always seems to me that its a very easy trap to fall into of simply trying to carve out concepts, especially philosophically tinted ones, via negation, not this and not that and so on. Whereas D & G subtly undermine and augment this demand and perhaps necessary educational method with further powers of addition and combination, and all the other flavours of the/a/any creative act. And more power to them... And by corollary, ourselves. 🧐🗣️🤾🦸🕺
I think Deleuze at least quotes Nietzsche as having said something like “philosophers tend to accept concepts as if they are given to them by some heaven.” And then something about how we should stop doing that and instead create concepts.
@@tactilephilosophy Yes. And I think D + G deliberately take pains to avoid circumscribing any particular rules for the creation of concepts. Always more Ethics than Morals. I would further suppose one aspect to their problem with the term "heaven" is that it is by definition 'above', too transcendent and immaterial, too abstract, too close to the eternal Platonic form, and thereby too hungry to subsume categories and posit hierarchies under its grasp through somewhat ironically... its lack of a circumscribed territory, zone of presence or affect.
