Comments by "harvey young" (@harveyyoung3423) on "How Feminism Exploits Young Women. What Are YOUR Daughters Watching Online?" video.
-
Up to 11:00 mins I'm off to see the greatest's rock band in the world so not enough time to do a proper job (even if i could) but enough time not to do nothing. So I'll just throw this out there for now.
Wittgenstein in #82 of "Philosophical Remarks" elucidates a way of thinking about the distinction as being on different scales of measurement but neither can have a zero on the scale. I get this from Patricia Hanna and Bernard Harrison "Word and World: Practice and the foundations of language" Chapter 10 :Truth and Use, i. Negative description.(The Context is mostly Frege Russell and Garth Evans on names) I read this in the context of Harrisons "Philosophy of Language"; and his discussion of Wittgenstein in the 20th century philosophy of language. we can go back from there to maybe the forgotten Cambridge Philosopher C.D. Broad "Mind and its Place in Nature" (the synoptic view); and going forward to an Aristotelian tradition intervention into this debate in K.T. Maslin "An Introduction to the Philosophy of Mind". Maslin is right to think the distinction is about a whole person but I think wrong to claim the relation is one of parts and wholes mereological (see Husserl's Logical Investigations VI, I think). The context is J. J. C. Smart D. Armstrong and I think U.T. Place(?). This was the first philosophy problem i read as a Physics and education under graduate following the recommendation of a Marxist friend who i think abandoned it after! I was introduced to Edgar Wilson who had just written "The Mental as Physical". He took me a a two day philosophy conference, i didn't understand much but that made me more curious (!) and so i abandoned Nuclear Physics for a Philosophy MSc.
Do you know McDowell's "Intention in Action" talk google on YouTube. Keeping track of "how far" in relation to the end verses keeping track in relation to where you start from.
Just some points then:
I recall a discussion with a friend who was into Aristotle on this he said My Tv starts to work when i hit it with a hammer, but that doesn't mean that what was wrong with my Tv was that it lacked a hit with a hammer"
I'm not at all sure we should try and think of naturalism as Being without cloths. Cloths make people feel good and is expression and objective symbolism, but for Spirit then cloths are not an add on, to what is natural to reason. Why can't we say the same about some drug? People say I want a drug or i need a drug, I'm not me without it.
When people are drunk they know its the beer and not them, but you cannot separate the drunken dance from the graceful dance, but can you analytically separate the alcohol from the body or even add another drug like coffee to counter effect an equilibrium. But then the mean of good dancing is not to get the alcohol and coffee equilibrium correct. Even if it might feel like it on the night, the mobile phone video of you on YouTube the next day will be a brutal objective teacher.
Here's another of mine: Looking though and telescope and looking through a microscope cannot be placed on the same scale from an electron to a galaxy. where is the human scale here? an accident or moment of a slice a Dedicand cut and so on.
This sort of approach is devastating for the historical reconstruction of Justice as post fact post human compensation towards an end.
Thank you Harrison Pitt Evan Riggs and Freya India for the discussion so far up to 11:00 mins.
It looks like i got to postpone following my rock band for a day cos the trains are on strike or is that the rail staff? I'm in support of all rail staff everywhere cos they are always great to me. Even in London and the busy weekend of Queen Elizabeth II funeral they were running around all over the place to get me on my train. They must have seen me go the wrong way and so waited for my inevitable return, and gave it "Its that way ->"
(They are also on about getting rid of the ticket staff, the best and hardest and friendliest workers ever. I will be lost without them.)
So i may have time to add more, but I've just discovered you can write in Ancient Greek in the comments sections :)
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
26:00 mins. its interesting to think in terms of each generation as a reaction to the previous and up take and reversal of some of the claims. As i said earlier, in late seventies there was this kind of tacit coalition of far left feminism and traditional conservatism against a back ground of economic collapse (IMF bail out with fiscal restrictions and demands), some very scary far right and far left Revolutionaries here but mostly in Europe, all in conflict with each other. Result was the genius of Margret Thatcher who turned to liberalism and freedom, and as she said she would created the conditions for harmony, people in solidarity with them all hating her, and the rest to embrace liberal freedom and money. Two opposed feminisms emerged liberal freedom from and radical feminism. Camila Paglia has many YouTube talks on the history of this from the 1960's to 3rd 4th wave feminism, a story of decline and betrayal. ( A good interview with Jorden Peterson a few years ago) When I first started seminars on feminism in the mid 2000's, straight out of years of Kant studies, i knew nothing of these distinctions, and i had seen Camila Paglia on TV, so i thought to make a friendly common ground intervention, and man they hated her more than Kant. On the other hand my liberal mates thought I ought to hate Lucy Irigary but i thought she was radical in a possibly good (useful?) way, after the course.
1
-
1