Wow, Shawn - I really could not have asked for more with this review. When you work on something for over a year, all you want is for people to engage with it generously and thoughtfully, and that’s what you did here. I love that you enjoyed the essays, especially the Emerson one (I think that’s my favorite, too). And your criticisms are smart and well taken. In fact, what you said about conviction has helped me think through some stuff. “When Experts Disagree” is the expression of an insecurity, something I think I needed to articulate so I could start building my politics, which can be a long process. At the time of writing the book, I was only confident enough to express the insecurity, but as you picked up from fragments in the other essays, I imagine our politics overlap in many places. Again, thank you so much for reading and engaging with EIM. As I say in the friendship essay, I wrote the book, but I don’t make it. The reader and writer make it together. Cheers for that :)
Hey Evan, you have no idea how much your message means to me. It really moved me (my partner can testify). After further reflection, When Experts Disagree, though I disagreed with it, was one of the essays that had me the most engaged. It forced me to revisit my thoughts and question myself: What are convictions? How can I affirm my position on a policy without misleading or without giving myself a semblance of authority on the subject? I think one of the strengths of your book is that you make yourself vulnerable in many essays and one of the ways you do that is through articulating your insecurities. The more I think of it, the more When Experts Disagree is becoming my favorite essay. Seeing it, not as the conclusion of a political journey, but as its beginning makes me appreciate it a lot more. There's a sense of urgency in my politics (the effects of capitalism on climate change, on people's mental health and wellbeing...) and I believe this sense of urgency is justified, but I can't blame anyone for being responsible and not going head first in major reforms (or revolutions). If anything, if someone can feel this urgency and act on it after careful considerations, after facing their own insecurity on the topic and after examining the consequences and the risks of their positions, these positions won't only be more clear, but better understood, not as certainties, but as convictions. I might be rambling at this point. Thank you so much for writing this book and thank you even more for giving such an amazing answer to my review!
Wow. I listened to a talking head-- and an anarchist to boot-- for almost 15 minutes. No music., no artful images, just great exposition. Thanks for this.
Personally, discussions about minimal wage always exposes two things about people: their class and their privilege. For the minimum wage earner does not have the luxury to debate. They need the wage.
I'm too got my interdiction into Video Essays through Evan's Nerdwritter, i actually wanted to be a Video Essayist but as an artist i found myself drown towards printed and written words than spoken and absolutely making my points through abstraction but yeah i have a lot of learning to do. Also one cute little thing, a short while after the book's announcement video i subscribed to Audible only to pre-order the book so i can listen to is in his voice, which unfortunately couldn't after around 2 years of owning it already. I'll get to it as soon as i could.
Your channel and your work is come to me at a time if change in my life You inspired me to do something similar but with music and motivational message Please keep this channel going for ever. This is a form of art is maxing a breakthrough
conviction is risk assessment is one of the best statements i’ve heard in a youtube video probably ever. great video (and critique) of a great book from a great (and growing) writer.
ooh. i hope to see a video where you (and Evan) expand on anarchism. i learned about it for the first time on your video on Paul Signac's In the Time of Harmony, and it was eye opening (specially as someone who only knew of anarchy as '80s punk). But I do have a question? couldn't Anarchy be considered naïve? i mean if the ideal is for no one to be in power, doesn't that leave the door open for any one to come and take that power? Thanks again for all your videos. I'm learning so much!
Hey there! That's a really good question and, usually, the answer is that the power isn't necessarily gone and up for grabs, but distributed (or decentralized) among a community. For the same reason we don't fear the return of the monarchy today (because most people don't adhere to that idea anymore), people living in anarchy might not want to return to the elective aristocracy we live in now. Also, if material needs can be provided to everybody in an anarchist society, which I don't see how it couldn't considering how technologically advanced we are in terms of production, then the there would be more incentive for a population to keep anarchy, and less incentive for someone to want to grab power. If you want more information on the subject or have more questions, An Anarchist FAQ is freely accessible online and is filled with common answers to these questions. Thank you for your interest :)
Big Thanks for your Great video! i'm deeply moving by how passioning when you're speaking on your passion... in a way make me feel your spirit/soul is dancing & so alive when you're talking about it!
I'm reminded of the story of Ignaz Semmelweis, who proves that sometimes even proving that you're right in science can cost you. If anything, what is more ignorant or dishonest is not to assess the risks associated with a position thoroughly and communicate empathetically. As long has honestly appraised all the evidence and come to a conclusion, so that the risks are known and any amelioration actions considered, then you can take your position in debates and express it with respect and with the proviso that is to the best of your knowledge. One should never fall in love with one's ideas, and giving them the status of belief or principle should never be done lightly, or unconditionally. Uncertainty is always with us, and should be admitted upfront. Not knowing is as important as knowing. Both require action to mean anything. However, it must be said that politics, sex, and religion are topics that attract zealotry, because people over identify with ideas in these areas, because to them they are not simply ideas, but claims in which they are invested. So, you have to choose your audience, especially as no-one is immune to to folly. And history - now and in the past - shows how infectious and persistent bad ideas can be in the right circumstances. So hold your ideas lightly, and be open to new information. Take the time to gently and respectfully interrogate them as and when new insights happen. And agreeing to disagree is almost always an option. With ideas, it nice to be right, but it's not necessary to die on every hill. Choose your battles wisely. And if you really want the cherry on top of the cake, practise Active Listening. It's skill Society sorely needs, because it's is, to the best of my knowledge, a key communication skill for everyone.
This was written so nicely, ive been having a dilemma about whether or not i should take a stance for my political and or religious ideas, because i was sure that i was lacking much needed textual information to be able to fight for them. After reading your text, i realize that i should definitely be sure in myself and be openminded at the same time. Thank you
Another great video, man! I would like very much to know your thoughts about some essays from David F. Wallace, such like “Ticket to the fair”, “Shipping out”, “Some remarks on Kafka’s funninnes...” and “Consider the lobster”, for example. I have really apreciated all your work here, the choices and, above all, the honest and dedicated way how you approach your subjects. Congrats and thanks again!
It would be cool if you could do an essay on a thriving, long lasting, anarchist community that lived together in harmony. I know of none, but I could be wrong on that.
This is the first "The Canvas" video that I am watching. Definitely Nerdwriter style (the intonation of the words, the emphasis of the words etc.) What I noticed, or maybe my eyes are glitching, is that the video is microseconds ahead of the audio. Glad that I found this channel, nonetheless.
One of the title essay's closing thoughts quotes Tolkien and Christianity. I also agree with Mr. Puschak in his disagreement "to reject (the tale of Christianity) leads to either sadness or to wrath." After I left the Christian religion is when I found a great happiness and peace. I now believe that the stories in their Bible are merely parables. But there are contradictions and shortcomings in it that it's followers choose to either overlook or decide to ignore.
Certainly, but that’s not Christianity’s problem, it’s problem is that it assumes the truth is “Christianity’s tale” not that it’s just one of many ways/languages of telling the truth.
I'dk how, but if I'ii find a way to translate your videos for my native language (Português - Brasileiro ) i do. If you wish and know one way, please answer me! I love you work, i wish everyone in my country had acess to your videos, to study art. (Please see this coment!!!!!!!)
@@TheCanvasArtHistory strongly reccomend it!! Or at least the books, the films have some pretty shitty elements in them that arent in the source material. Tolkien himself described as an anarchist, and was highly critical of imperialism and captialism, and his book presents an extremely interesting perspective on war and such that I think you would appreciate given your interest in these specific areas
Aesthetic preferences seem to prevent him from critiquing to your liking. An essayist who reads literary novels instead of Batman or whatever would probably have the effect, but such a thing doesn’t interest me as much as just reading literature, not philosophy
The $15 experts miss one important experience (no matter which side of the argument) - they're not bloody poor! They're almost all enjoying considerably higher wages. So, folks, as an ex homeless disabled person - shut the f#ck up and stand aside, make room for those who are actually impacted. There is nothing to see here but your own privilege and sense of entitlement.
i do not get why you labeled nerdwriter as politicaly castrated. There is no need to be offensive, but yeah i feel that the therm suits your vocabulary and content. Maybe you did have to
i know the imagery can seem violent but i believe it to be the perfect encapsulation of what's going on with a lot of people now days that are afraid to open their mouth and create a kerfuffle. as Kevin Cozner said, 'No moment calls for a kerfuffle". I guess you could also say "politically constipated"? but it doesn't pack quite the same punch 😂😂
I think your expectation for an pro-anarchistic/anti-capitalist are a bit ridiculous; especially in a book of essays by a RU-vidr writing about benches and Superman
Many of his essays aren't political whatsoever (the one on Tolkien for example isn't) and that's great! I'm not criticizing Nerdwriter for not making his essays anti-capitalist. It would be ridiculous to expect an anti-capitalist critique in a book about benches and Superman, I agree. I didn't have that expectation. In the essay about benches, for example, there's a great deal of time focused on the fact that our economic system shaped our cities, how different profit-incentives made it so the car would be prioritized in our blocks, how the pressures by corporations make it so even city councillors can't do much about it. That's extremely political and the essay keeps pointing to these issues, which I love, but fails to connect all these issues up to make a systemic critique. And that's where, I believe, it reveals a weakness.
