Can I just say, I have been dying from a migraine all morning, unable to do much of any use, but just about able to listen to something. You would never think video essays about philosophy would be the choice in those circumstances, but honestly they have been positively soothing... Thank you as always.
3:02 Yo Olli, did you actually read Schmitt? Cause I don't get some of your ideas on him? Maybe I read it wrong? I'm not a philosophy student and I don't consider myself to be really good at it. But I just finished the same book this week. I started reading "The concept of the Political" , "The theorie of the Partisan", "The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy" and finished "Political Theology" yesterday. I'm going to do "Political Romanticism" next. I started reading that stuff, partially because of one your videos and mostly because of a new found fascination with the extreme right ideology. Which I apperently didn't understand that well, but I'm trying to get there. Schmitt all the way till 1932 really didn't go "Let's all be NAZI's about it". In 1932 he wrote a book called "Legality and Legitimacy", where he wants to ban "non-constitutional-parties" out of Weimar Parlement. Because he was afraid they would destroy "the sovereign". He finds it strange that a parlement would allow a party that in their core program want to destroy the institution that it wants to obtain power of. I had a course in Hobbes by a professor who did his doctorat on Hobbes. And I had a conversation with him once, that Hobbes has this idea that once you have a sovereign, and the contract is signed between him and the populus, the sovereign protects the people but the people in return need to give "absolute" devotion to the sovereign. I argued that this is highly problematic once a violent dictator comes into power... and now years later I actually found my case study. Schmitt is drenched in Hobbes' logic, he almost had the same traumatising background as Hobbes too. Hobbes wrote from a fear of dis-order because of wars. A fear that the ruling class didn't take care of it's people. That's why he wants to create this contract between the ruling class and those that are ruled. For protection, order and safety. People according to Hobbes are cruel and wage war against eachother. Schmitt grew up during the 1st world war and all the troubles it created for Germany. He found reason in Hobbes. During the Weimarr republic his writings are critical for progressive liberalism and socialism, because he was a conservative christian. But he still recognised the republic as being the soevereign, and because of this Hobbesian idea he needed to be totally devoted to the sate. But he still criticised the contradictions in liberalism and warned for the failure of democracy. But "warning" someone is not the same as "embracing dictatorship". In 1933 when the NAZI party obtained full power, he had no choice in his Hobbesian framework then to turn to the new Soevereign, and he devoted himself to the NAZI party (got membership). He wrote some awfull antisemitic texts not to mention a text on the "night of the long knifes" in 1934 when some of his collegues got murdered off in the cleansing of the NAZI party. He acquired high functions and got thrown out of the party in 1936 because of a critical text that he wrote on the SS. Apperently he had friends in high places (Like H. Goering), cause he survived. I've not read his idea on the NAZI party, apperently he wrote a book about it after his captivity in 1948. But I'm considering reading his entire work, it's really fascinating from a political stance. What he did, was inexcusable. But when he wrote "Political Theology" he was actually warning for extremes and the problems of liberalism. In the concept of the political he expresses that he fears that "liberalism" would lead to indiffrence (the lost of "ernst" which means "seriousnes"). He saw politics as something to be serious about, and to watch out for but liberalism tries to neutralise the political, which he found problematic. I had some problems with his view on "parliamentary democracy" but a lot of the issues in that one still hold up today and are still discussed in political science books. The Pathos of Liberalism (like he calls it) was recently expressed by a political economist called "Mark Blyth" he wrote on Lockes' idea of liberalism: "[The State]... you need it. You can’t live without it. You don’t want to pay for it.". Which is pretty much the same problem Schmitt has with it. But he doesn't just talk affordability, he talks about "political power". You need a state with power, but you need to make sure the state is unable to really use it. By the end of the book... he discusses "traditionalism" who want to conserve political frameworks from the middle ages. They believe in absolute rulers (Traditionalism, is also a political stream that influenced fascism). He discusses the problems in their thinking, because they believe in strong governement. And he finds a strangeness: that "Anarchists" and "Traditionalists"/"Descisionists" make the same evaluation of the liberal system, they point at the same problems BUT they give diffrent answers. He also discusses that it comes from a fundamental starting point in thought, which is about their idea on the nature of human beings. He ends mocking the paradox in Bakunins' ideas, who (according to schmitt) became the theologian of atheists and the dictator of anarchists. I enjoyed all Schmitts books so far... but in nothing that I read I had the interpretation that he was rooting for dictatorship. But as a Hobbesian and a realists (cause he's not really that concerned about morality, he is concerned of what is going on and what is declared law) he had to be devoted to his ruler. Which was quite a problem if the sovereign becomes the NAZI party. Schmitt also seems to be a crash course in ideas that lingered in the 20s and his negative ideas on parlement aren't that strange for that time (Most of the criticism still hold some truth today). Look at Robert Michels who developed "the iron law of oligarchy" , he got so disillusioned by parliamentary democracy that he also joined the NAZI party later on in life.
in terms of Carl Shmits' and basically Political Philosophy and how some people are included and excluded is basically like being human. in moral and Political philosophy there is usually a confusing line that exists somewhere that needs to be drawn to retain humanity or protect the countries ideals and values. the human body is controlled by a single consciousness thing and that is really similar to the idea of a king or dictator but we as humans want to identify as something, to know who we are and one of the ways to do that is to uphold some philosophy or some idea like its the final stage of Kierkegaard's moral ladder or define our self by what we are not which is much simpler, gives a lot more freedom and give you something to fight which is always fun.
I really enjoyed the music in this one. I believe it agrees with the content and the general vibe of your videos far more than that electronic stuff. :)
Sometimes, I just get distracted by your cuteness and find myself just staring at you talk instead of listening to what you're saying. Thank goodness this is RU-vid.
It varies a lot, and I do sometimes take notes yeah. I've taken to highlighting bits I like recently, and also reading two books at once - alternating when I finish a chapter. Helps me get through it faster.
As a person who is extremely interested in philosophy, has two bookshelves full of philosophy books, but is not allowed to pursue philosophy as a career, I find when I can read books it takes a long time. Although, to defend Philosophy and to make sure nobody in the field I am studying appropriates the term and field incorrectly, I am reading "What Is Philosophy?" by Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari.
Are you speaking accessible as in availability to get? Or, more likely, how easy is it to comprehend. For the latter, the comprehension part of it is not too bad, it is still Deleuze and Guattari; however, every point that Deleuze and Guattari make is supported. If I could put it in a certain way, there is a separation between science, art, and philosophy, yet that separation, the boundaries are hard to describe. The craftsmanship for this endeavor is handled masterfully by the authors at this point, and the team that translated the Columbia edition clearly worked very hard on it. They do tend to mention other philosophers: Descartes, Nietzsche, Plato, Spinoza, Leibniz, Kant, Husserl, Hume, Hegel, and more; however, the way in which they speak of the conceptual side of their philosophical systems works really well with those who do not formally have all of the systems down. If I sum up the book with its definition of philosophy which is tries to argue for, "We can at least see what philosophy is not: it is not contemplation, reflection, or communication." (Pg. 6) "More rigorously, philosophy is the discipline that involves creating concepts." (Pg. 5)
Woah, that's a distinct way to interpret Philosophy. I guess the end-goal may be to create concepts if you think about it. But the methodology tends to be contemplation, perhaps coupled with library research (to have a background of past theories and thinkers).
First of all, I want to say to say thanks for this, philosophy reading recommendations videos. Also, I have one question if you happen to see this: Imagine that a stranger (or random person) tells you that he (or she) haven't read a book in his life, but he will take your advice and read one book by your recommendation. Which book you recommend?
Have you read David Graeber's "Debt: The First five thousand years, or his "Towards an anthropological theory of value". The first book (Debt) is about the history of debt, that also talks about it's relation to ethics, philosophy, religion, money, capitalism, nation-states, imperialism, slavery etc, and it goes from all the way back to ancient Sumer to making a few predictions about the future. The second book is more about theories of structure, value, and economics in anthropology, how it's evolved over time, and he eventually takes a bunch of these different tendencies and fuses them into his own theory of value; this theory combines some feminist theory, some of marx's labour theory of value, and many others and creates a very fascinating synthesis of those ideas. I really like him, because 1. He seems to write in a way that is purposefully accessible (he doesn't use much unnecessary jargon, but still is able to talk about complex ideas), 2. He's really well read, "Debt" is basically half citations and has some very interesting quotes and anecdotes from a diverse selection of authors, and 3. He's an anarchist who very
I love that book. Has a lot of knowledgeable stuff. Much truth as well. I just don't think it achieves anything. Don't get me wrong- I am fine with books not having an applicatory purpose. But he clearly wants his to have one.
I wonder about your thoughts on the following top 10 philosophical works The top 5 list: Plato's Republic Augustine's City of God Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologiae Rene Descartes' Meditations G.W.F. Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit . The other 5 -- to make it a top 10: Aristotle's Metaphysics Blaise Pascal's Pensees Martin Heidegger's Being and Time Max Scheler's Formalism in Ethics Maurice Blondel's Action (1893)
schmitts critique of Liberalism, has to do with its indecisive character. its unwillingness to take bold action in order to protect order i think kierkegaard argues about this
Interesting to see you reading Schmitt! Would be interested in a video on this thinker. Especially the State of Exception and sovereignty - seems to be a theme that is extremely relevant for our times. Agamben picks up and develops it, and the most popular German philosopher right now (besides Habermas), Peter Sloterdijk also raised the issue with regards to the migration policy of Merkel.
Schmitt is an excellent philosopher and gets to the core of how we think of the state. When Pol says "is he /our guy", they are thinking in terms of the political as the relation to the public enemy... as schmitt writes. I think his concepts are highly explanatory. Pity is, he is widely disregarded because of his Nazi party membership, mostly because I think the leftist academics can't physically stomach reading him. Olly can, because he is charitable, but unfortunately, he almost certainly is infected with socialist thinking himself. Perhaps if he continues to read Schmitt, things may change. Either that, or he sees what is going on in the West.
I think the problem with the public enemy idea is that it cannot be taken at face value. The enemy as the figure against which politics develops. But what role does the enemy really play in this development - symptom, cause or something more complex? Psychoanalysis, or at least some mechanism of projection, needs to be added to the picture here to explain the rage and machismo discourse of /pol.
zootme The public enemy/private enemy idea is so explanatory, it feels natural and intuitive to me. I think it does lie at the heart of political discussion. I think it's the cause of political organisation. Political organisation occurs to exert force on an opposing group. It refers to the zero sum resource priortisation of mutually exclusive groups: the disabled vs. non disabled; natives vs. foreigners, workers vs. bosses, and so on. You can't be in both of these types of groups at the same time and be consistent.
what do you make of Rawls argument & intuition pump of the veil of ignorance then? (would apply even in zero sum "games") Or what about Hegel, who said that history is an unfolding of relations of mutual recognition - within politics and other domains. Groups would no longer have an antagonistic relationship, but their conflicts are mediated. Politics of this kind cannot be reduced to zero-sum resource relations.
Rawls is wrong, because the veil of ignorance is an idealistic situation. Schmitt is about down and dirty real life politics, where everyone already knows their station.
Hello Olly, could you please talk about Nietzsche. perhaps you could talk about Nietzsche's ideas regarding morality, or the Übermensch. I would greatly appreciated it.
That's a relatively surface level explanation, though, and doesn't really go into the specifics of anything, or even mention master/slave morality, etc. etc.
I can’t read Schmitt, he seems very nihilistic. Same with Sartre. Nietzsche is megalomaniacal. But the first and the third are extremely important for me to study.
Ah... House Glover!! I first heard about him during bioethics and the question of genetic enhancement of humans. That might be an interesting topic once - don't you think?
I just started reading about Schmitt as part of a research assignment for uni, there's a lot of interesting work comparing his, Foucault and Arendt's work. You might be interested to read this if you haven't already Barder, Alexander D, and Debrix, Francois. “Agonal sovereignty; Rethinking war and politics with Schmitt, Arendt and Foucault.” Philosophy and Social Criticism 37 (7): 775-793. doi: 10.1177/0191453711410030
In the case that you have in any video already answered the following question: sorry :D The question: Have you studied in St Andrews? And if so, have you joined classes held by Jens Timmermann?
Thanks for answering my question. Haha.. Nooo I'm not studying in St Andrews.. So far at least.. I am considering an application for the MPhil. But to know that Timmermann is in possession of a handpuppet is hilarious :'D
I lik philosophy but I don't understand much and then I have to go and do wiki again, it becomes tiresome, can you make a video on beginners reading list
All you can do is try to show them why they are wrong/immoral. Some people simply do not care though. So, in those instances you really are wasting your time.
I try to be patient and engage with bigoted commenters and read their stuff charitably, BUT (and here's some Fricker for you) privilege means I very much fit into traditional ideals of what a knoweldge-haver is: I'm a cishet white guy with a university degree. I also don't have any traumas or anxiety issues that might make that engagement particularly painful. So your mileage may vary with that tactic. Be safe!
That sounds logic. I thought of something "deeper" somehow, but I think one has to be practical even with books! However, thank you for answering and keep up with the amazing work, I'll be waiting for my part-time-student salary to make a donation on Patreon, I'd love to contribute to this. Have a good day :)
It's ironic that only a few minutes after noting the personal significance of Fricker's work, given the responsibility associated with his role as an educator, Olly goes on to make a series of misleading claims about Wittgenstein, the result of which is a gross mischaracterization of the latter's work. OOF!
Olly has some serious regressive tendencies, they tend to come out especially when he speaks on race and politics. I admire his vast knowledge of Marxism, but really misuses it in many cases.
At what point does the stuff I've said on the channel about race and gender stop being "regressive left rhetoric" and start being recognised as "the broad consensus of qualified experts?"
Awful misreading of Schmitt. He does not analyse the problems with the political, he describes what the political is. Those things that you see as problems is what the political is and as long as there is something political certain characteristics that are analysed are going to be present. By trying to escape all those aspects of political reality, you are being liberal. Liberalism is precisely the negation of the political, the negation of the friend-enemy distinction, the running away of any serious life or death conflicts. Liberalism is the thing that Schmitt finds problematic, not the political. You have to accept political reality in order to achieve any sort of a goal, if you ignore it and turn to liberalism then you are destined to either fail or fall to hypocrisy. Reading Schmitt in order to dismantle the political is a very bad leftist reading of Schmitt that just comes down to liberalism. A good leftist reading of Schmitt would be reading him in order to apply his theories to 1) class struggle and 2) leading a socialist state.
