WEBVTT 1 00:00:10.320 --> 00:00:13.119 I guess, I guess to give the audience maybe a 2 00:00:13.160 --> 00:00:15.800 little preview. I was thinking that you should call this episode. 3 00:00:16.280 --> 00:00:18.320 Eric almost quit because we made him read this. 4 00:00:19.079 --> 00:00:26.879 Yeah, I was really vociferously against this article. These three articles? 5 00:00:26.920 --> 00:00:27.719 Did you read all three? 6 00:00:27.839 --> 00:00:30.960 Guys? I read two? What's the third one? Was there? He? 7 00:00:31.000 --> 00:00:32.359 Did he make a third one? Or was there like 8 00:00:32.679 --> 00:00:34.200 a rejoinder? 9 00:00:34.359 --> 00:00:38.079 The third one is a picture of Bodriard and Boudeard's 10 00:00:38.079 --> 00:00:41.039 of course not mentioned, but it says why clarity matters? 11 00:00:41.920 --> 00:00:43.600 I think I think I read that one, so I 12 00:00:43.679 --> 00:00:45.840 must I must have not read the middle one. 13 00:00:46.240 --> 00:00:51.159 There's three. There's Derrida face, hegel face, bodyard face. 14 00:00:52.079 --> 00:00:54.320 Okay, I think I read two of the three. 15 00:00:54.840 --> 00:01:00.479 How continental philosophers argue? Is continental philosophy unclear because subject 16 00:01:00.479 --> 00:01:03.520 material is hard? And then the blue sky wave of arguing? 17 00:01:04.400 --> 00:01:06.439 Those are the three O. 18 00:01:06.599 --> 00:01:08.640 The skyway of arguing. I thought there was only two 19 00:01:08.640 --> 00:01:09.200 that was about this. 20 00:01:09.280 --> 00:01:11.599 I thought the sky one is from the seventeenth, is 21 00:01:11.599 --> 00:01:12.480 from three days ago. 22 00:01:12.560 --> 00:01:14.359 But is that one about this or is that about 23 00:01:14.400 --> 00:01:14.879 something else? 24 00:01:16.000 --> 00:01:19.319 Yeah, it's about this. It's just more Twitter reaction. He's 25 00:01:19.359 --> 00:01:22.560 just pointing out how people were being mean to him. 26 00:01:23.280 --> 00:01:26.439 Oh yes, I'm telling him we can't read. It's being 27 00:01:26.840 --> 00:01:28.120 taking snipes out him. 28 00:01:28.439 --> 00:01:30.680 And to be clear, you're missing the bodyard one though, 29 00:01:30.719 --> 00:01:34.000 because the bodyard one is November fourteenth called why Clarity Matters, 30 00:01:34.000 --> 00:01:37.840 and it's also on I have the superior the superiority 31 00:01:38.079 --> 00:01:40.760 of So you probably didn't read the Hagel one that Victor. 32 00:01:41.560 --> 00:01:43.599 Well, I read the first one. Yeah, anyway, it doesn't 33 00:01:43.640 --> 00:01:44.200 it doesn't matter. 34 00:01:44.239 --> 00:01:46.560 I think, Uh, let's explain what we're talking about, because 35 00:01:46.920 --> 00:01:50.200 not everyone's going to be on Philosophy Twitter as as 36 00:01:50.239 --> 00:01:53.439 we are. So I I will say, in hindsight, I 37 00:01:53.519 --> 00:01:54.760 regret this. 38 00:01:54.760 --> 00:01:57.319 This is substack too. This is not even Twitter, but 39 00:01:57.400 --> 00:01:58.040 it was on Twitter. 40 00:01:58.079 --> 00:02:00.400 The reactions were on Twitter spill over. 41 00:02:01.200 --> 00:02:04.159 So look, the reason recovering this is because it was 42 00:02:04.200 --> 00:02:08.319 on Philosophy Twitter, which Eric's not on. 43 00:02:08.680 --> 00:02:10.680 No, I don't understand what's happening. 44 00:02:11.000 --> 00:02:13.759 I was more interested. This is news, right, because news 45 00:02:13.800 --> 00:02:16.759 and events don't really come from Philosophy Twitter. It's only 46 00:02:16.840 --> 00:02:19.000 like once every two years or so there's a big 47 00:02:19.039 --> 00:02:24.080 blow up this. The tweet about this article got half 48 00:02:24.080 --> 00:02:28.319 a million views, So yeah, it breached containment. It was 49 00:02:28.360 --> 00:02:31.879 in the wider population and because we're a philosophy podcast, 50 00:02:31.960 --> 00:02:35.599 it would be we'd be remiss to not cover the 51 00:02:35.759 --> 00:02:38.280 one bit of news that came out of philosophy Twitter 52 00:02:38.319 --> 00:02:40.120 and philosophy sub steck And. 53 00:02:41.719 --> 00:02:44.360 Would we be remiss, Well, I think, I like, but 54 00:02:44.479 --> 00:02:46.879 to add to that, right, I think we'd be smart 55 00:02:46.960 --> 00:02:47.919 not to touch this. 56 00:02:48.639 --> 00:02:51.879 And went viral on Twitter, like not actually because it 57 00:02:51.919 --> 00:02:53.439 was good, but I would say it made it went 58 00:02:53.520 --> 00:02:56.360 viral because people were dunking on it so hard, like 59 00:02:56.400 --> 00:02:59.319 I don't know that, like after a bunch of dunks, 60 00:02:59.319 --> 00:03:01.560 and like a lot of people, even you know, even 61 00:03:01.560 --> 00:03:04.280 a lot of analytic philosophers on Twitter, we're dunking on this, right, 62 00:03:04.360 --> 00:03:06.560 So it's so it's not like it's like even analytic, 63 00:03:06.599 --> 00:03:08.719 and like one of my favorite responses was kind of 64 00:03:08.759 --> 00:03:11.560 which I don't know this. This could lead into conversations 65 00:03:11.599 --> 00:03:14.199 about like what was there even like a grain of 66 00:03:14.199 --> 00:03:15.800 truth to what he was talking about. I mean that 67 00:03:15.879 --> 00:03:17.960 maybe that'll be interesting because I think there is and 68 00:03:18.000 --> 00:03:19.840 I feel like we've all acknowledged that there is a 69 00:03:19.879 --> 00:03:21.639 grain of truth, but it's like a tiny grain and 70 00:03:21.680 --> 00:03:24.639 how bad his argument was. But I remember someone I 71 00:03:24.639 --> 00:03:26.479 think I think I shared it in the. 72 00:03:26.439 --> 00:03:33.120 Group oh, oh my god, Oh gross. 73 00:03:33.520 --> 00:03:35.919 Did you pull did you pull liquid? Did you pull 74 00:03:35.960 --> 00:03:37.000 liquid on your vape? 75 00:03:37.599 --> 00:03:39.439 No, it's not. This is a This is a w 76 00:03:39.639 --> 00:03:40.639 D forty straw. 77 00:03:40.800 --> 00:03:44.439 Holy shit, w forty in your mouth. 78 00:03:44.520 --> 00:03:47.439 That is so disgusting, dude, that shit's poisoned. 79 00:03:47.520 --> 00:03:51.159 Eh oh actually yeah, water displacement. 80 00:03:51.199 --> 00:03:53.479 You should probably rinse your mouth out because that shit's 81 00:03:53.520 --> 00:03:55.039 poison You should continue. 82 00:03:55.120 --> 00:03:56.680 I'm just gonna go. 83 00:03:58.319 --> 00:04:01.280 Okay, so so done that in the pregame. 84 00:04:01.800 --> 00:04:05.319 So I think the reactions to this, and like even 85 00:04:05.360 --> 00:04:08.039 analytic philosophers, I mean, one of my favorite responses was 86 00:04:08.039 --> 00:04:11.680 like from this guy, Enzo Rossi, who's a political theorist 87 00:04:12.240 --> 00:04:16.199 kind of analytic, but he's sort of a Marxist too, 88 00:04:16.240 --> 00:04:18.759 but like I guess, like an analytic Marxist. That's a 89 00:04:18.839 --> 00:04:22.639 kind of an aside. But he was like posting this 90 00:04:22.759 --> 00:04:25.680 article how continental philosophers argue, and he was like, how 91 00:04:25.720 --> 00:04:28.800 to go go viral? Make a basically correct and well 92 00:04:28.839 --> 00:04:32.879 known point very badly. All the holdouts invested in denying 93 00:04:32.920 --> 00:04:35.560 the almost obvious will come out of the woodwork and 94 00:04:35.639 --> 00:04:38.120 pretend that your bad argument is representative of the camp 95 00:04:38.160 --> 00:04:40.680 they oppose. So like what I think that's kind of 96 00:04:40.759 --> 00:04:42.519 like getting to which is sort of how I felt, 97 00:04:42.560 --> 00:04:47.199 is like clearly like like a lot of critical continental 98 00:04:47.279 --> 00:04:50.199 what people call continental philosophy and you know, has a 99 00:04:50.240 --> 00:04:52.279 clarity problem. We talked about it a lot when we 100 00:04:52.279 --> 00:04:52.720 were doing. 101 00:04:52.720 --> 00:04:54.199 Our arc on Lacan. 102 00:04:54.319 --> 00:04:56.319 I mean we were talking about how, like look at 103 00:04:56.360 --> 00:04:59.959 how Bruce Fink is putting these like super difficult ideas 104 00:05:00.240 --> 00:05:02.720 into like clear form. And I believe we might have 105 00:05:02.759 --> 00:05:04.800 even all agreed that Lacan might have just been a 106 00:05:04.839 --> 00:05:07.279 snobby French prick for like writing that way right, so 107 00:05:07.720 --> 00:05:10.000 like there is like an obvious grain of truth here, 108 00:05:10.600 --> 00:05:14.040 but he argued it in this article so badly that, 109 00:05:14.079 --> 00:05:16.439 as Enzo ROSSI I think is correctly pointing out here, 110 00:05:16.839 --> 00:05:19.160 it almost like allows people who want to deny that 111 00:05:19.240 --> 00:05:21.720 there is like a problem of clarity and condinal philosophy 112 00:05:22.160 --> 00:05:24.160 to be like see how stupid like the like that 113 00:05:24.519 --> 00:05:26.639 like nothing to see here, like there is no problem. 114 00:05:26.680 --> 00:05:28.639 Look at how badly this guy's arguing it. Like that's 115 00:05:28.720 --> 00:05:30.639 kind of that's sort of how I felt, because it 116 00:05:30.759 --> 00:05:33.480 was atrocious, like all the articles, and I want to 117 00:05:33.480 --> 00:05:35.759 point out that it's written by this guy, this this 118 00:05:35.839 --> 00:05:39.560 substacker who's like twenty two or twenty one, and when 119 00:05:39.560 --> 00:05:42.000 you look at his photo, I mean, I hate to 120 00:05:42.079 --> 00:05:44.720 like say it's just the ultimate stereotype, but he was 121 00:05:44.759 --> 00:05:47.319 just like I've been to I haven't been to philosophy 122 00:05:47.319 --> 00:05:49.279 conferences in a while. I mostly go to political theory 123 00:05:49.319 --> 00:05:52.240 conferences or political science ones now, but I have been 124 00:05:52.279 --> 00:05:56.680 to analytic philosophy conferences, and he just looks like right 125 00:05:56.720 --> 00:05:59.519 off that assembly line, he's like and like. 126 00:05:59.519 --> 00:06:03.040 Right, he's a gonna as shure this is effective altruism 127 00:06:03.079 --> 00:06:03.319 on it. 128 00:06:03.399 --> 00:06:06.160 Yeah, exactly, He's got effective altruism, he's like, and and 129 00:06:06.399 --> 00:06:08.360 he just like looks like one of those guys who'd 130 00:06:08.360 --> 00:06:10.319 be in the audience and be like, excuse me, I 131 00:06:10.319 --> 00:06:12.680 feel like I detect a reductio in your argument. Like 132 00:06:12.720 --> 00:06:16.199 it's just like he is like the most So I 133 00:06:16.240 --> 00:06:17.879 don't know. That was like my initial reaction. I have 134 00:06:17.959 --> 00:06:19.399 like quite a bit to say too about like his 135 00:06:19.439 --> 00:06:22.079 substantive argument, and like how silly it is and how 136 00:06:22.120 --> 00:06:24.519 I feel like he even commits some of the errors 137 00:06:24.519 --> 00:06:27.240 that he accuses continental philosophers of committing, which I thought 138 00:06:27.240 --> 00:06:27.879 was kind of funny. 139 00:06:27.920 --> 00:06:30.439 But anyway, well, now I feel like I'm just hopping 140 00:06:30.480 --> 00:06:34.959 on a dunk train. Well, he is young, this young 141 00:06:35.120 --> 00:06:39.959 kid blogger who's written these articles that it basically just rehashing, 142 00:06:40.160 --> 00:06:44.439 like a so call square type of argument about continent, 143 00:06:44.560 --> 00:06:50.439 the phibiostophors not being clear, like Judith Butler, like dary Da, 144 00:06:50.639 --> 00:06:53.839 Like we were complaining about Lacan. It's it's easy to 145 00:06:53.879 --> 00:06:56.560 read tons of LACAN and then start complaining about how 146 00:06:56.600 --> 00:07:01.480 difficult it is to read. But he's just saying how 147 00:07:01.519 --> 00:07:06.800 continental philosophers argue, argue in quotation marks. And then the 148 00:07:06.839 --> 00:07:12.319 opening line is like an analogy about dogs wearing sweaters. 149 00:07:12.519 --> 00:07:17.759 Is continental philosophers making arguments? And it's like, oh my god, Okay, 150 00:07:17.800 --> 00:07:21.040 so this is just going to be a trolling shit piece. 151 00:07:21.160 --> 00:07:26.680 This is a ship post. Its rage based, not it's 152 00:07:26.720 --> 00:07:29.839 just someone complaining. It's someone complaining. And what do you 153 00:07:29.839 --> 00:07:32.360 do when you complain about something? When a student in 154 00:07:32.399 --> 00:07:36.160 the classroom is acting out and being negative, it's because 155 00:07:36.160 --> 00:07:38.920 they want attention. That is exactly what it is. This 156 00:07:39.000 --> 00:07:41.680 is a young, twenty one year old person whose brain 157 00:07:41.759 --> 00:07:46.160 is still developing, who is wanting attention and is complaining 158 00:07:46.240 --> 00:07:46.920 about something. 159 00:07:47.519 --> 00:07:50.639 Now, look, I know you. You are a fan of 160 00:07:50.800 --> 00:07:53.959 repurposing Internet terms to mean whatever you want them to 161 00:07:54.040 --> 00:08:00.360 mean like gooning for example. Now that was repurposing going, 162 00:08:00.439 --> 00:08:03.000 and you're also repurposing rage bait because for it to 163 00:08:03.040 --> 00:08:05.800 be rage bait, there has to be self awareness up 164 00:08:06.040 --> 00:08:07.120 on the part of the poster. 165 00:08:07.639 --> 00:08:10.439 Yeah, I ship posting rage baiting. 166 00:08:10.519 --> 00:08:12.399 I didn't say, but I think he's sincere. 167 00:08:12.639 --> 00:08:16.000 I think you're ascribing intention where there's no evidence that 168 00:08:16.040 --> 00:08:18.319 the intention exists. Okay, I want to say what he's 169 00:08:18.399 --> 00:08:23.160 right about, which is that Judith Butler's a very annoying writer. Yeah, clarity. 170 00:08:23.480 --> 00:08:27.399 Clarity is not her problem though, similar with Hegel because 171 00:08:27.439 --> 00:08:30.160 he he he focuses on those two specifically, and yeah, 172 00:08:30.160 --> 00:08:33.480 they are. They are annoying writers. Always Dreda though lumped 173 00:08:33.519 --> 00:08:36.279 in there. It's just like, why is there its picture? 174 00:08:36.600 --> 00:08:38.200 It did even quote Dereda? I think he did. He 175 00:08:38.240 --> 00:08:40.960 did at one point, but also did you guys find it? Like, 176 00:08:40.960 --> 00:08:42.519 I don't know. I felt like a cup with a 177 00:08:42.519 --> 00:08:45.679 couple of the quotes, like even the Butler quotes. I 178 00:08:45.679 --> 00:08:48.080 feel like I was like I read it and I 179 00:08:48.120 --> 00:08:49.399 was like, yeah, I'm pretty sure I know what she's 180 00:08:49.399 --> 00:08:53.960 talking about. Like, yeah, I was like, understand what she's 181 00:08:53.960 --> 00:08:54.399 saying here. 182 00:08:54.679 --> 00:08:58.000 Pretty sure he's getting it completely wrong. As difficult as 183 00:08:58.000 --> 00:09:01.279 they are, he wasn't even interpreted the quotes to say 184 00:09:01.399 --> 00:09:03.840 what his criticism of them was saying. 185 00:09:04.799 --> 00:09:07.639 Well, he also picked like the easiest passage from Hegel's 186 00:09:07.720 --> 00:09:11.279 like the beginning of phenomenology of Spirit, which is, you know, 187 00:09:11.320 --> 00:09:13.639 there's there's much harder choices that you could have you 188 00:09:13.679 --> 00:09:15.159 could have made if you're going to sell Should we 189 00:09:15.159 --> 00:09:15.480 should we? 190 00:09:15.480 --> 00:09:17.879 Should we try? Like let's let's see like this first 191 00:09:17.919 --> 00:09:20.960 quote that he takes from Butler and how continental philosophers 192 00:09:21.080 --> 00:09:24.679 quote unquote argue like I thought, like I don't know, 193 00:09:24.759 --> 00:09:26.919 let's see, can we can we understand what she says here? 194 00:09:27.000 --> 00:09:30.120 She says the move from a structuralist account in which 195 00:09:30.120 --> 00:09:36.559 capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways, 196 00:09:36.639 --> 00:09:39.960 to a view of hegemony in which power relations are 197 00:09:40.000 --> 00:09:43.840 subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of 198 00:09:43.879 --> 00:09:47.480 temporality into the into the thinking of of structure, and 199 00:09:47.519 --> 00:09:50.720 marked a shift from a form of Althasurian theory that 200 00:09:50.759 --> 00:09:54.279 takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which 201 00:09:54.320 --> 00:09:57.919 the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a 202 00:09:57.960 --> 00:10:02.159 renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with contingent sites 203 00:10:02.200 --> 00:10:06.360 and strategies of the rearticulation of power. Now wordy as fuck, 204 00:10:06.480 --> 00:10:08.720 and I would even say somewhat obnoxious. 205 00:10:08.279 --> 00:10:11.000 But like that this one sentence. 206 00:10:10.840 --> 00:10:13.159 And I was pretty sure, like out of and also 207 00:10:13.279 --> 00:10:15.759 very out of context, but I was pretty sure she 208 00:10:15.840 --> 00:10:19.360 was just describing like two different ways of thinking about 209 00:10:19.799 --> 00:10:23.519 power as like either contingent or determined. Am I wrong 210 00:10:23.559 --> 00:10:23.879 about that? 211 00:10:24.039 --> 00:10:26.000 Or no? No, no, it's not hard at all. I 212 00:10:26.000 --> 00:10:27.759 shouldn't say it's not hard at all. There's a lot 213 00:10:27.759 --> 00:10:31.039 of there's a lot of words in here, but it's 214 00:10:31.480 --> 00:10:33.480 if you know the words, then you know. What she's 215 00:10:33.519 --> 00:10:36.639 saying is that we're moving from a structuralist account like 216 00:10:36.720 --> 00:10:41.399 all who's there, to something more contingent, shifting over time 217 00:10:41.679 --> 00:10:42.720 the temporal. 218 00:10:43.559 --> 00:10:48.720 The temporal part is because structuralism can't account for temporal 219 00:10:48.799 --> 00:10:53.559 change and thus contingency, because everything that happens in a 220 00:10:53.559 --> 00:10:59.360 structuralist account is already determined by its position in the structure. Yeah, hegemony, 221 00:10:59.639 --> 00:11:02.639 which I'm I'm thinking is coming from Graham, Shey Graham. 222 00:11:02.720 --> 00:11:06.080 She's the famous Italian Marxist who comes up with the 223 00:11:06.120 --> 00:11:10.240 notion of agemony. Yeah, so people are moving more to 224 00:11:10.600 --> 00:11:15.759 a Gramcian than an altha Serian account, which Althazarian is 225 00:11:15.879 --> 00:11:20.559 associated with a structuralist account. Not structuralist, I guess in 226 00:11:20.600 --> 00:11:25.759 the Sosarean sense, but structural in the sense that alphaser 227 00:11:26.320 --> 00:11:32.039 has the arguments about ideological and repressive state apparatuss. 228 00:11:31.399 --> 00:11:34.519 That's what that means. But I recognized this sense, and 229 00:11:34.559 --> 00:11:36.879 I didn't see anyone point this out, but we read 230 00:11:36.879 --> 00:11:41.279 this sense on the podcast before, oh really pre pre 231 00:11:42.440 --> 00:11:44.960 episode fifty, I want to say, but it was in 232 00:11:45.000 --> 00:11:51.440 the context of this This sentence won the Worst Sentence award. 233 00:11:51.480 --> 00:11:52.120 Do you remember that. 234 00:11:53.840 --> 00:11:54.799 Was the one I just read. 235 00:11:55.279 --> 00:12:00.240 Yeah, it was the Philosophy and Literature Journal in it 236 00:12:00.360 --> 00:12:03.480 was like late nineties, like nineties ninety eight or ninety 237 00:12:03.559 --> 00:12:07.639 nine gave this sentence the worst Sentence award of that year. 238 00:12:07.679 --> 00:12:13.000 And I think a post colonial, post colonial guy or 239 00:12:13.120 --> 00:12:16.919 girl got the second one, like Spivak. I think got 240 00:12:16.919 --> 00:12:19.000 this got surprized too, or baba or. 241 00:12:18.919 --> 00:12:22.120 Something that's so funny Homie baba, Homie baba. 242 00:12:22.200 --> 00:12:26.600 Yeah. I've found that there's a nineteen ninety nine Guardian article. 243 00:12:26.600 --> 00:12:29.559 In the Guardian about the world's worst writing. Each year, 244 00:12:30.039 --> 00:12:33.840 Philosophy and Literature, an academic journal runs a bad Writing 245 00:12:33.919 --> 00:12:39.279 contest to celebrate the most stylistically lamentable passages founded scholarly 246 00:12:39.320 --> 00:12:42.600 books and articles. The only condition is that the entries 247 00:12:42.679 --> 00:12:47.200 be non ironic. Deliberate parody cannot be allowed in a 248 00:12:47.240 --> 00:12:51.639 field where unintended self parody is So. Yeah, so Judah 249 00:12:51.639 --> 00:12:55.639 the Butler wins first prize, Homie Baba wins second, and 250 00:12:55.720 --> 00:12:59.879 someone called Steve Lozine wins third prize. I don't know 251 00:13:00.080 --> 00:13:04.200 that is, but yeah, so's he's he's pinched that sentence 252 00:13:04.240 --> 00:13:06.320 from a previous awards ceremony. 253 00:13:05.919 --> 00:13:07.399 And he claims that he just opened it up to 254 00:13:07.440 --> 00:13:09.519 a random page too, right after the quote. He's like, 255 00:13:09.600 --> 00:13:12.559 to avoid accusations of cherry picking, I opened up a 256 00:13:12.639 --> 00:13:14.559 random page from Butler's gender Trouble. 257 00:13:14.600 --> 00:13:18.360 Oh no, that's for the next one. On look on, No, 258 00:13:18.519 --> 00:13:22.759 this first one was was very carefully cherry picked, actually 259 00:13:22.840 --> 00:13:25.120 out of the Guardian. If if he's looking at the 260 00:13:25.120 --> 00:13:28.519 same thing, yeah, to fun, he probably just like googled 261 00:13:28.559 --> 00:13:32.080 like bad Judith Butler, or maybe maybe he was. He's 262 00:13:32.200 --> 00:13:35.080 using chat GPT in this, so he probably like chat 263 00:13:35.120 --> 00:13:38.480 GPT like bad Judith Butler sentence, and then it picked 264 00:13:38.559 --> 00:13:39.200 up probably just. 265 00:13:39.120 --> 00:13:41.399 Searched our typed bad Continental philosophy. 266 00:13:41.399 --> 00:13:44.320 Want to try it? You can give it a shot. 267 00:13:44.440 --> 00:13:48.159 See like you just in bad Judith Butler sentence. 268 00:13:48.919 --> 00:13:56.720 I'm gonna do. Uh what is the most unclear sentence 269 00:13:57.360 --> 00:13:59.919 from Continental? 270 00:14:00.480 --> 00:14:02.840 I got the Guardian article again when I typed that 271 00:14:03.399 --> 00:14:07.720 bad Judith Butler sentence. Second second one is world's worst 272 00:14:07.720 --> 00:14:08.720 writing Guardian. 273 00:14:09.000 --> 00:14:12.360 Oh my god, what it gives the other quote that 274 00:14:12.399 --> 00:14:15.120 he used, It gives Hegel phenomenology of spirit. 275 00:14:16.200 --> 00:14:16.759 Oh really? 276 00:14:17.240 --> 00:14:18.600 But then runner up is Hidigger. 277 00:14:19.279 --> 00:14:24.679 So this guy's right posts like most undergrads write an 278 00:14:24.799 --> 00:14:26.320 essay that's due tomorrow, it's. 279 00:14:26.200 --> 00:14:28.919 Heidigger's being in time even Okay, read me that, because 280 00:14:28.960 --> 00:14:30.480 I'll bet you I'll be able to understand what it is. 281 00:14:30.519 --> 00:14:31.879 I feel like I know that book pretty well. 282 00:14:32.120 --> 00:14:35.919 Chad Gpt didn't give much. It just says the nothing nothing's. 283 00:14:36.000 --> 00:14:37.120 Oh that's all it gave. 284 00:14:37.600 --> 00:14:41.480 And then then it gives Then it gives Lacan the 285 00:14:41.600 --> 00:14:46.200 Lizen Gaitari so all famously difficult. No he did he 286 00:14:46.320 --> 00:14:49.399 cherry picked the Worst Sentence Awards sentence and then said, 287 00:14:49.480 --> 00:14:52.600 oh look this is representative of things that make no 288 00:14:52.679 --> 00:14:53.360 sense to me. 289 00:14:54.000 --> 00:14:55.960 Which, by the way, we were able to make sense 290 00:14:56.000 --> 00:14:58.759 of that worst sentence at least somewhat. Like, I think 291 00:14:58.759 --> 00:15:00.240 we all agree it's a bad sentence, So like, I 292 00:15:00.279 --> 00:15:02.279 don't think any of us would be like, yeah, Butler 293 00:15:02.399 --> 00:15:05.480 needed to write that way in her defense, she was 294 00:15:05.600 --> 00:15:08.399 using the jargon of two different disciplines and saying these 295 00:15:08.440 --> 00:15:09.840 are what the disciplines say. 296 00:15:09.960 --> 00:15:13.639 She's not even jargoning for her own sake necessarily there. 297 00:15:14.200 --> 00:15:18.879 Mmmm, that's interesting. Yeah, yeah, so I was gonna say that. Like, 298 00:15:18.919 --> 00:15:22.039 so he basically starts the first article by just having 299 00:15:22.039 --> 00:15:25.279 a bunch of these quotes and then like doesn't really 300 00:15:25.279 --> 00:15:28.440 make like he just makes a really like stud He's like, 301 00:15:28.480 --> 00:15:31.720 I can't understand these these are just gibberish, and then he. 302 00:15:31.759 --> 00:15:34.080 Goes on, therefore they are not arguing. 303 00:15:34.320 --> 00:15:36.240 Therefore they're not arguing. And but then he goes on 304 00:15:36.320 --> 00:15:38.200 to kind of give an account of a few different 305 00:15:38.240 --> 00:15:42.559 ways in which he thinks continental philosophers tend to argue. 306 00:15:43.720 --> 00:15:47.960 And continental philosophers is Butler. He mentions Darredel once in 307 00:15:48.000 --> 00:15:50.679 the beginning, and every single quotation is Butler. 308 00:15:51.440 --> 00:15:53.600 Yeah, And I also felt like, well, he doesn't talk 309 00:15:53.600 --> 00:15:56.399 about any of the existentialist or phenomenologists who I think 310 00:15:57.399 --> 00:16:00.600 are difficult, but you know, I think fair fairly clear, 311 00:16:01.000 --> 00:16:02.720 Like I don't know, I think Mary L. Ponti is 312 00:16:02.759 --> 00:16:05.519 like fairly clear. I think I think others. I think 313 00:16:05.519 --> 00:16:08.519 Heidiger is difficult. But the funny thing about Heidegger is 314 00:16:09.159 --> 00:16:12.799 like he's he's one of these weird cases where like 315 00:16:12.919 --> 00:16:15.960 I did feel persuaded that he needed to write the 316 00:16:16.000 --> 00:16:17.679 way that he did for what he was trying to do, 317 00:16:17.759 --> 00:16:20.799 Like I understood, like it made sense to me. Maybe 318 00:16:20.840 --> 00:16:22.519 with some of the later French stuff, I don't know, 319 00:16:22.720 --> 00:16:27.200 I might be like slightly more sympathetic, but he kind 320 00:16:27.200 --> 00:16:29.960 of but then he kind of makes these broad generalizations 321 00:16:30.360 --> 00:16:33.279 about like where he'll give like the I think the 322 00:16:33.279 --> 00:16:35.600 first one he talks about is like a bit through 323 00:16:35.720 --> 00:16:37.159 is like maybe a third of the way through the 324 00:16:37.279 --> 00:16:39.799 article he says. You know, one way kanin a philosophers 325 00:16:39.919 --> 00:16:42.639 argue is by brazenly asserting that A is not B, 326 00:16:43.039 --> 00:16:45.279 where B is the obvious thing everyone would expect it 327 00:16:45.320 --> 00:16:48.519 to be, but instead C, where C is some random 328 00:16:48.559 --> 00:16:51.000 thing that makes no sense. They act as if they've 329 00:16:51.080 --> 00:16:54.519 established by this that A is C and anyone who 330 00:16:54.519 --> 00:16:57.919 thinks it's b is naive even though they've been given 331 00:16:57.960 --> 00:17:00.919 no argument for it, and the assertion is barely intelligible. 332 00:17:01.320 --> 00:17:05.200 For example, to be to be human is not purely biological, 333 00:17:05.240 --> 00:17:09.039 but instead always made coherent and legible through the social 334 00:17:09.160 --> 00:17:12.279 arrangement in which one partakes to partake in being and 335 00:17:12.319 --> 00:17:15.359 having ones being partaken by the other. But like, it 336 00:17:15.400 --> 00:17:17.359 also kind of makes sense to be honest, like. 337 00:17:17.640 --> 00:17:19.799 That's what Jijik does all like all the time. 338 00:17:19.880 --> 00:17:22.079 But what was like infuriating about the article is like 339 00:17:22.119 --> 00:17:25.519 he just makes such generalizations and like lacks a lot 340 00:17:25.559 --> 00:17:28.200 of specificity. He like has a few examples, but then 341 00:17:28.240 --> 00:17:30.200 doesn't go back to the examples and be like, see 342 00:17:30.200 --> 00:17:32.480 these examples I gave you are doing the thing that 343 00:17:32.519 --> 00:17:34.920 I'm talking about. He just kind of like leaves the 344 00:17:34.960 --> 00:17:37.319 examples to stand on their own and then goes on 345 00:17:37.400 --> 00:17:39.640 to talk about patterns and then goes on to talk 346 00:17:39.680 --> 00:17:43.160 about patterns that like I did recognize, right, So, like 347 00:17:43.200 --> 00:17:46.480 I was kind of like you said, pills, Like Jijik 348 00:17:46.559 --> 00:17:48.359 does that all the time, and I think that others 349 00:17:49.079 --> 00:17:50.599 do that all the time. But what was kind of 350 00:17:50.640 --> 00:17:53.440 funny in the example that he like made up was 351 00:17:53.440 --> 00:17:56.079 that it made sense. I mean, isn't that sentence just 352 00:17:56.119 --> 00:18:00.319 saying like like reducing human beings to biology is like 353 00:18:00.319 --> 00:18:03.319 making a mistake, which seems right. But I guess he's complained, 354 00:18:03.440 --> 00:18:06.079 is like, that's not making an argument. I guess I. 355 00:18:06.000 --> 00:18:09.160 Don't know why is that A is not B but 356 00:18:09.319 --> 00:18:13.480 instead C. That that infuriates him that some people do that, 357 00:18:14.160 --> 00:18:17.920 Like what what is what? I don't understand, Well, it's 358 00:18:17.960 --> 00:18:21.880 an argument, he says, like, that's that is so legit. 359 00:18:21.960 --> 00:18:25.039 People do that all the time. And then the Butler example, this. 360 00:18:24.960 --> 00:18:28.680 Is egregious that he thinks that this is continental. He claims, 361 00:18:28.680 --> 00:18:31.480 this is a continental method of argument. This is literally 362 00:18:31.519 --> 00:18:34.960 the structure of science to say that A is not B, 363 00:18:35.480 --> 00:18:38.359 the common sense response that most people think it's actually C. 364 00:18:38.920 --> 00:18:40.799 This other thing that people don't know about. 365 00:18:41.160 --> 00:18:41.799 Yeah, it's true. 366 00:18:42.279 --> 00:18:45.440 That's that's a basic essay structure. You're taught like, that's 367 00:18:45.480 --> 00:18:49.759 an introductory strategy when you're introducing your thesis. Your thesis 368 00:18:49.960 --> 00:18:53.640 of your article is C. Everyone expects you know A 369 00:18:53.920 --> 00:18:56.200 to B B, but I'm going to argue that it's 370 00:18:56.279 --> 00:18:59.559 actually not so B, it's actually C. Like that is 371 00:18:59.559 --> 00:19:04.559 a very traditional way of introducing her argument in an essay, 372 00:19:04.640 --> 00:19:08.200 yet he somehow hates it when Judith Butler does it 373 00:19:08.400 --> 00:19:11.799 and Judith Butler doesn't even do it. Here, gender is 374 00:19:11.880 --> 00:19:16.559 not to culture as sex is to nature. Butler is 375 00:19:16.599 --> 00:19:20.039 saying A is not to B as C is two D. 376 00:19:21.480 --> 00:19:26.640 Actually gender is put before as a gender is the 377 00:19:26.720 --> 00:19:32.119 discourse through which sex is like constructed as not constructed 378 00:19:32.480 --> 00:19:37.200 as pre discursive. It is put into a prediscursive neutral space. 379 00:19:37.240 --> 00:19:39.599 It's such an easy quote like that. He couldn't have 380 00:19:39.640 --> 00:19:43.519 chosen an easier quote to understand and not fit what 381 00:19:43.599 --> 00:19:44.839 he's saying it's doing. 382 00:19:45.160 --> 00:19:47.160 Yeah, it's like it's almost like it comes from this 383 00:19:47.240 --> 00:19:50.920 sort of analytic impatience that I think, like some specially 384 00:19:50.920 --> 00:19:54.480 young like kind of late like lazy, I would say, 385 00:19:54.480 --> 00:19:55.960 like not willing to do the work if it's not 386 00:19:56.000 --> 00:19:59.359 structured in exactly the way that I want impatience because 387 00:20:00.240 --> 00:20:02.640 I think, I mean, there might be cases where this 388 00:20:02.720 --> 00:20:05.599 is not true, but at least in my experience of 389 00:20:05.640 --> 00:20:09.079 reading quite a lot of and maybe sometimes it doesn't happen, 390 00:20:09.119 --> 00:20:11.319 but for the most part, like they'll make that claim 391 00:20:11.440 --> 00:20:14.039 and then like you keep reading and then it becomes clear, 392 00:20:14.119 --> 00:20:16.640 like what the argument for that is usually like usually 393 00:20:16.640 --> 00:20:19.279 it's just like he's like, you made a claim, like 394 00:20:19.400 --> 00:20:21.720 you have to put like if this, you have to 395 00:20:21.759 --> 00:20:24.200 give it to me in an argumentative structure, like immediately, 396 00:20:24.720 --> 00:20:28.240 because like I just don't believe him that now. 397 00:20:28.279 --> 00:20:30.799 Look, I think it's fair to say he's right. 398 00:20:30.839 --> 00:20:34.039 It happens like Jijik's like, oh, we think the dads 399 00:20:34.119 --> 00:20:36.160 now are so good because they don't beat their kids, 400 00:20:36.319 --> 00:20:39.839 But in fact, the dads now are have a much 401 00:20:39.880 --> 00:20:45.680