Structuralism: how non-being shaped the modern world 

Any other channels like this?

​​​​@@rebinu Overthink podcast and Jeffery kaplan is pretty good.(no funni edit, just philosophy) At least they both have phd degrees in philosophy and know what they're talking about. It is pretty rare that you get a youtube channel that has fansy edit at an aesthetic level but also contents with actual academic integrity and depth.

@@rebinuthe yt Channel „horses“

Lets make new chartes!

its inside, its languague

Actually, it was The Structure

@@t3essays Can I change myself and the structure we all live in for better if I choose my words carefully, and if I think through my personal ideology/philosophy carefully? Or is this also the structure? 🥲

I agree that language influences thought. But I think there is a problem with saying that language is thinking. There are people that don’t have a inner voice, additionally animals without language can still process information. The relationship between thought and language is interesting but I don’t think that one can be reduced to the other.

@@Opposite271 I think a lot of the people who say "language is thought" are circularly defining thought as the expression of what we regularly consider 'thought' and since language is broadly our main means of structured communication of thoughts, it's tempting to say that language is thinking. However, it's clear that definition is potentially problematic, since it either means we are left with no words to describe a 'thought' that is not expressed through a structured medium or it means that we have to accept a strong form of whorfianism, which, as it is a material proposition, can be rejected easily through presenting available evidence regarding the relativity of language.

@@Ann-mj4xn but even there - most people had at least some type of situation when they thought something but couldn't express it by language.

@@adapienkowska2605 The thing is that if you're defining thought as purely the expression of it, then your inability to express the 'thought' by definition would make it not a thought. The problem is, well, we don't have a word to describe what that 'thought' is if we use this definition of thought, which is very problematic for human communication.

Strong Sapir-Worf has been basically debunked at this point.

Around 26:20, Vitalism and New Materialism sound very interesting to me, and I will have a long conversation with GPT-4 about these topics. Thanks.

​@@Paraselene_Tao it would be interesting🤔. don't forget gpt is just a large language model, a fancy autocomplete algorithm. I wouldn't accept much of it as truly deep insight

@@melusine826 Yeah, I always remember GPT, and its cousins are very fallible. The more I toss inputs into it, the more I see it's like a genius 3 year old toddler. It has a grasp on language-so much of human thought is language-but it's all a hallucinatory dream. You're correct it has no deep insight. It's not thinking, remembering, experiencing, or conscious: it works more like a mirror than a thoughtful person. 😇

I am really not an expert on the matter since I am an historian and have mostly read synthesis about such debates. But debates about structure are not that much different from many debates about the implication of God's omnipotence in muslim thought. Thinkers belonging to the Mu'tazila school believed the workings of the world could be rationnaly analysed (so that the structure of the universe could be decifered by the human being), the most important conclusion of that idea being that humans did have free will and were responsible of doing good or bad actions and that because God was one, then the revelation (and thus the Quran) was created and not eternal. Some thinkers then split from this school and became known as Ashari's, they objected to the Mu'tazila by interpreting God's omnipotence as negating free will, every human thought and action originates in God's plan and is thus completely tied to the structure of the world. Thus trying to understand the structure of the world is impossible since rationnal thought doesn't allow a human to encompass it, something only God is able to do. They also put forward a coneptualization of the Revelation as a part of God's infinite being that would thus be uncreated and eternal. This debate actually had a profound influence on western thought, since scholars from the mu'tazilla were the ones who began to revivify greek thought (mostly aristotelianism and neoplatonicism) by translating it into arabic and teaching it in the centers of learning where they were majoritary starting in the IXth century. From 813 to 847 the mu'tazilite creed even became the official creed of the caliphate, leading to the creation of many such centers of learning and thus spreading knowledge of greek thought that had nearly died down before that outside of a few academies (most notably Gondishapur in modern Iran). Mu'tazilite thought would thus strongly influence western scholasticism which learned greek thought through mu'tazilite commentaries (mostly those of Ibn Rushd called Averroes and Ibn Maimun called Maimonides who both lived in the XIIth and XIIIth centuries). Paradoxically the first western thinkers learned about greek philosophy because the dominican order had translated many copies of arabic theological manuscripts so that dominican theologians could refute them to provide a theoretical basis for the work of missionaries which were supposed to convert newly conquered muslim territories in Andalusia (Ibn Rushd and Ibn Maimun were both andalusian, the first was muslim and the second was jewish). These theologians (Thomas Aquinas and Albertus Magnus being the most famous) originally made similar points to Asharites and opposed the idea of free will, but with time it would be a defining concept of western philosphical debate, with people like Descartes making the idea that the human could rationaly analyse God's creation the basis of their thought, thus planting the first seeds of positivism and thus structuralism. In the muslim world Ashari thought would generally triumph after being endorsed by most sufi thinkers (most notably Al-Ghazali who wrote in the XIth century and openly condemned greek thought as superficial and too occupied with the illusions of the material world). Greek thought would somewhat disappear from the sunni world after the XIIIth century together with the Mu'tazila. In Shiia countries like Iran though greek thought and the writings of mu'tazilite thinkers are still taught untill today, greek thought and its use by the Mu'tazila did influence the ideas of Mullah Sadra in the XVIIth century who's works had a very important legacy there. Thus even if it was aked under a different framework the question of knowing if the human mind can analyse the structure of the universe because of its independence and capacity to use rationnal thought or if it cannot because it is too tied to the structure to be aware of its inner workings is quite old indeed. In fact Parmenides idea of self contained essence did often clash with an eastern monotheist outlook on metaphysics where God's essence was supposed to be contained in every being. One of the defining aspects of sufi thought for example is that God is contained in everything including the human mind, which allows humans to have a personal mystic relationship with god. The idea that there is an underlying structure that defines all beings is very reminiscent of ancient debates about God's relationship with the material world. The difference being that ancient western and muslim thinkers thought of mainly about the relationship between God and the structure and then the structure and the material world while structuralists studied the structure in itself. I think indian thought did something more similar to structuralists in that regard but I am even less knowledgeable about it than ancient muslim and western thought.

Uh.. no, just no. Capitalism is a natural outcome of the utility of trade between individuals. If I have more grain than I need, and the other guy has more iron than he needs, then it makes sense to trade iron for wheat. It does not require an empire to emerge. Rather the civilization that embraces capitalism naturally emerges as an empire. You just need to actually engage you brain for like 5 seconds to figure this out.

@@technokicksyourass So, explain why it took thousands of years after "I trade with my neighbor" for capitalism to develop? Your argument holds no water.

well that's definitely a way to think about the idea, thank you

id say "difference in amount" here is analogous to "difference in pronounciation" between the vowels "a" and "e" (30:48)

Yes, I would fund it, too.

What about a switchable semi-automatic/ automatic post modernism neo marxism with a 1.5x scope and some aftermarket suppressor?

@@aqua-bery Yes, make it work with subsonic, armor piercing, heavyweight, and environmentally-friendly caseless ammo, and you got a deal. (Sweats in suppressed G11 modified to fire 9×39mm)

@@Paraselene_Tao I'm gonna pretend that I know what that means

Did you subscribe?

STOP POSTING ABOUT AMONGUS

I watched & listened to this video 3 times, I liked everyone's comments, and I commented and replied. I need this channel to grow. Let's gooooo! It deserves a million subs.

No idea about the creator of the video, but the "thing vs relations" reminds me of Alfred Korzybski's works. Although he goes a bit wider and how your thinking/language about everything changes once you update it based on the latest (at his time of writing) fundamental understandings from science and math, which does include thinking in terms of structure and relationships and not things (things are a limited set of abstractions insufficient to explain the universe, useful to some degree) and a few other concepts, but all tying together. I would go with his book called "Science and Sanity" . It's a heavy read tho, I got stuck on the chapters where he explains differential equations (most of the book is not math, so it's fine, even though it's still a tough read since the concepts are extremely alien to most, and at the same time extremely obvious once you get them. I got many "Whoa! How did I not think of this? It's so obvious now that I'm aware of it" reactions. But to get them I also listened other people talk about the subject and it being applied in different contexts, and I've watched lectures that include Q&As since sometimes hearing someone ask a question getting answered that you might have, helps too. Sometimes I would get stuck on a page and read the words over and over until I get something or go on to read up on certain words and phrases on the internet. Having at least a vague knowledge of sociology, psychology, biology , physics, chemistry and few other subjects studied in science, helps out too.

Ehh... Natural Numbers in Set Theory are recursively defined as sets 0 := {}, 1 := {0}, 2 := {0, 1}, 3 := {0, 1, 2}, and so on. The standard order relation < on naturals is defined as a subset of NxN such that a

@@crosserr404 I think you're missing the point a bit. To be clear, this isn't my argument but Paul Benacerraf's argument (amongst others, eg, Awodey, Corfield, etc). Taking just the set theoretic definition of the natural numbers, the actual objects don't matter, even if we do define them "first." As you said, we can define our sets, categories and theories in a multiplicity of ways while nonetheless capturing the same concept. Likewise, we can define the ordinals in two different ways, one where we have {null}, {null, {null}}, {null, {null, {null}}} and so forth; or {null}, {{null}}, {{{null}}}, etc. The objects are not different here, they are both referents for the same things, namely the natural numbers, but what changes is the way that we structure the relationship between our objects. Our standard epsilon relationship works the same way in both cases, but something like, eg, ordinal arithmetic is going to be totally different between the two structures. So sure, the objects are defined first, but they're defined in terms of a structure. Objects sans structure don't really mean anything. Eg, the complex numbers are exactly the same objects as the real numbers really(they have the same cardinality and are indeed defined out of the latter), the only difference is the fact that the complex numbers are defined with a particular structure that the real numbers lack, namely, being Cartesian products of the reals(i forget exactly how to construct the complex numbers from the reals).

​@@crosserr404 You don't sound like you understand what the Yoneda lemma is.

It's not that you can't figure it out. It's that modern philosophy is just so much wank, because they are are not serious thinkers. All serious thinkers in the 20th century went into physics, mechanical engineering, medicine, and other such fields. When you read their stuff and compare the quality of the thinking to what you get in computer science or chemistry, or nuclear physics... well it's just a joke isn't it?

I'm not saying they don't have some points... it's just they are way over their skis with very little evidence or logical proof to support their suppositions. Psychologists carry the torch these days for theory of mind, not philosophers anymore, and psychology is barely a science.. although there is a project to make it so.

I think you've missed the point, you have decided to become llama farmer, and take a web developer job, is because of the Struuucturrrre

It's just tribalism coming from people who identify with those groups but don't have a solid grasp on these philosophies I guess.

the internal and external structure you're describing are only different insofar as the arbitrary boundary drawn in between them requires them to be. you could set this boundary anywhere you want. it could encompass everything, leading to an empty external structure. it could encompass nothing, leading to an empty internal structure. therefore, why bother with the boundary? just have one structure... and we're back at structuralism. (also "atomic individual independence" doesn't make sense, as is pointed out by the video)

@@toatrika2443 Even if it is arbitrary, if it is useful for the mind to carve up the world into parts to better conceptualize it, then the distinction may still add something conceptually useful to the thing. But it appears to me, that there are real fuzzy boundaries. Then I must say that I never found the requirement of binary clean cut boundaries, very plausible.

so true

cause pan s is a sub (or something like that idk)

I think they meant it is countreintuitive to most people, since we live in a cisnormative biologically essentialist hegemony

​@@makskauzny3794 It's here, I found a regressive left guy. I rather live "cisnormative biologically essentialist hegemony" -probably positivism- than someone who believes nothing outside of the text. Which will be accused very humancentric years later probably because it's same old human's are special bullshit. Buttler just playing with words, it will change our perception for sure but it could be used for justify anything. Believe me, it's pandora's box. Don't say we -middle roaders- warn you.

I'm not a proponent of pansychism because I do not fully understand it and its many competitors; however, it's possible that some kind of pansychism would support intelligence existing as either an emergent quality of large enough systems, or it's a fundamental characteristic of the most fundamental substance. I suppose it matters what we meant by intelligence, but yeah, some kind of pansychism or similar philosophical route would answer you with, "sure, DNA is an intelligent system because it shows these characteristics that are either fundamental to substance or emergent from large enough systems." I'm sure there are problems with what I just said, and there are other philosophical routes to explaining intelligence. I am still learning and open-minded about the topic. I hope I've helped a little bit.

No, In those episodes they actually remove de non-being barrier structure of like humanity's soul and they merge and the two episodes focus in Shinji during this process of merging a how that helps him love himself (what it takes to save weeaboos/otakus...)

-ish😉 But it's in production!

@@t3essays yay-ish!