yea, I like the basic premise of what she says on non-meaning, but I really don't like her. She just oozes with pretentious self-righteousness and makes irrelevant and untrue political points.
Contradiction! She speaks of basking in the abruption of these dogs, trying to see it for what it is, in the here and the now, without meaning. Yet a few minutes later she is criticizing President Bush for sending troops to war.What happened to basking in the abruption of non meaning? How are we any different than the dogs, in this case? Because we are human. Very well, but this would throw away her whole theoryShe is bringing a morality into the picture beyond her existentialistic nonsense
i hate being mean but i can't stand this lady spewing her incoherent bullshit. it's poetically sad that she wears her identity crisis on the outside not knowing it.
she has a purpose, though. she exists in this movie only in parallell to great thinkers like zizek and cornel west who only need 10 minutes. if you don't have the ability to explain a theory of a truth within the timespan of 10 minutes you may still be a philosopher, but a very crappy one.
@brokenshines you know, i dont see her really contradicting zizek here. ethics is what 'must be done', and zizek talks about how the truly ethical Act would be not to indulge in the modern injunction of 'Enjoy!' that lies at the heart of our consumer society. this all lies in the void, an abyss of freedom from which the subject acts beyond their physical and social drives
@mit181 I think that if she had said that meaning is used to cover up the wound of instability it would make more sense. But I still disagree with her. "It's been very devastating this craving for meaning,". How so?
@jefflunar Because of the ways in which, if meaning is inherently unstable, when fixed, it is fixed for reasons other than a love of truth, learning wisdom and so forth. So the challenge that these theorists attempt is how to (re)think through truth, goodness, duty and so forth in a manner that doesn't fall back into the old, what Derrida calls 'Metaphysical' tradition, where such things were fixed in such a manner that leads to hierarchies, such as man over woman, west over east, Aryan over all
@mit181 I see. BTW, I'm a philosopher major (simply a student). It's skepticism of this worldview & not ignorance that drives my doubts. If one says that 'non-meaning' is the antithesis of evil, isn't this a form of finding meaning that is absolute. Just another construct that gives us a one-fits-all understanding (and supposedly a solution) to our problems. Where is the evidence that this way of thinking leads to hierarchies? Could it be that it is used to justify hierarchies? Cause or effect?
@jefflunar Just quickly, I think the real problem you point out is why should it lead to these hierarchies and not to some stable but innocent, democratic system of equal terms. Rather than explain something that requires huge time and patience to understand really starting with Kant, I'm going to return to being enigmatic, and borrow a phrase from Wittgenstein: 'Don't think, but look!'. Hope I've been of some help :) and if it's any help, I have my reservations about Heidegger in particular.
I respect everybody's opinion, but this is the type of philosophy that is so detached from this thing I call "reality" that becomes somewhat useless.
Meaning is part of being human. We have evolved to attached meaning to things. Without meaning there would be no philosophy, no political systems, indeed, no philosophy at all.
@jefflunar How is meaning is generated? She mentions the 'promise' of meaning, then grounds it IN reality...she calls it 'Fascist', questions the way in which different political and religious institutions have used meaning to prop themselves up. A 'politics of refusing that gratification'...where does the word 'gratification' come from? Capitalism? How is meaning appropriated, used (abused?) in a Capitalist framework? What are you assuming about your 'reality'? Who has constructed it?
@mit181 I'm not sure if you agree or disagree with what I said. She says 'when you see this dogs play why reduce it to meaning', but isn't 'playing' her interpretation of the dogs interacting. She talks about non-meaning, yet she also talks about 'the other'. And what is or who is 'the other' if not an abstract concept that we use to better understand the world. Beginner's mind (Bhuddism) seems to me a more realistic concept than non-meaning. Or perhaps that's what she meant.
@jefflunar In moments of trauma this experience of the Other is possible too, when the mind is thrown into situations it can't contain, structure...in what? Language? Your right to bring up language and I think she agrees with you. 'Play' is set up against (italics) arbitrary eruption ... not as the 'correct' interpretation. Her use of the term 'non-meaning' i think is unfortunate...perhaps because it's for a popular audience. Unstable is better, and unstable is what she = with 'Other'
@mit181 I wrote a long reply on whether or not Other is a concept...for Hegel it is. For Derrida it not only is not, it cannot. His system of philosophy won't allow it because that would act as what she makes reference to as a 'transcendental signified'. I can't help you out past here on youtube I'm afraid.
I respect everybody's opinion, but this is the type of philosophy that is so detached from this thing I call "reality" that becomes somewhat useless.
Meaning is part of being human. We have evolved to attached meaning to things. Without meaning there would be no philosophy, no political systems, indeed, no philosophy at all.
Wonderful to have listened to Avital Ronell. Definitely she gave me food for thought with her take on meaning.
And she is dead right about the self-deception of clean consciousness. I have heard so many people claim to be "good" who rather watch TV than help someone in need.
As for Bush, his actions seem to indicate that he is walking dead. Absent consciousness of inner realities. Unfortunately he is representative of the majority of us.
She is actually doing the same thing to Bush that she is complaining about. She does not "know" Bush, she might just guessing about his phenomenological inner workings like we do to everyone.
To me, this is just very funny. Ronell's responses, the interviewers questions, the documentary itself...But I guess, what else is Ronell supposed to say to the questions she is asked? Philosophy is something that is difficult to explain. I hope viewers do not get the wrong idea about Ronell or philosophy from this...
Avital is one of the most brilliant writers on the planet. Each its own beacon, her sentences bespeak hidden connections, as between mundanity and ethicality, derision and value.
She just tries too hard. From what I know of Ronell has a very superficial understanding of deconstruction and Heidegger. As a philosophy student, I can say form experience that all who have said that this shit is the reason why people don't take philosophy (especially continental philosophy) seriously are exactly right on. Get your hands out from behind your back and drop the black coat. That would be a good start. Nice bit of Bush hate in there too. Classy.
@anrchyvk I agree 100% she's so full of herself, like at the beggining of the interview. I don't know if that was her trying to be funny or if she was serious, either way it was not necessary. Also she just complicates things so much with fancy words and is struggling to make any points at all, she tries sounding smart and ooh la la but she ends up looking foolish and doesn't have any "meaning" in her words or a message to deliver.
Check out Lacan, Deleuze, Badiou and Foucault, mix 'em up. Then go on to Heidegger, Nietzsche, Freud and Marx and mix 'em up. Then Hegel, Kant, Descartes... mix 'em up: you got yourself a new life. Then read Krishnamurti and die.
This is what might be termed as a Neo-Menshivick form of Marxism, yet in the sense that B. Hantlon terms it, Ideology-as-Being. What Ronell is doing here is not asserting a worldview but instead performing a kind of eulogy or, if you will, momento mori to what I what like to call, perhaps wrongly, the proto-existentialist deconstruction of the will to Being
Deconstruction at its worst; this has pretty much nothing to do with derrida or any other serious philosophy - her 'guickly grasped transcendental signifier' is the insufficient idea, which i would call pseudo-deconstructivism
Lets see ST2K--pretentious quoting Derrida as an authority for justice, rambling, obfuscating nonsense by Aviral Ronell...embarrassing...the reason why poeple don't take philosophers seriously...lowlight of an otherwise good film by Astra Taylor.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
She is a condescending, stuck-up bitch. Check out Cornell West instead - he was one of the few thinkers from this movie to have anything to contribute.
It's an excellent documentary, however, Avital's arguments did seem somewhat familiar and they have probably been discussed in one form or another ever since philosophers started thinking about 'meaning' I have certainly not studied philosophy or anything related but her arguments should actually be common sense. To me it is...
regardless, this is a very progressive movie. I might be fanatic but I believe that this film, or one of its distant relatives, will be on the sidelines of humanity's next great Renaissance. I mean, do you see those people in the park? They are intrigued and ready for change.
I understand that youtube comments isn't the best medium for philosophical discussions beyond your run-of-the-mill shouting match, however...
I wish that those who are negative on Ronell would explain why they think she's incorrect. Or.. at least provide a link to material that may better clarify why she's incorrect.
Personally... I'm new to Ronell's work but the more I hear from her, the more I'm liking her.
@ST2K She's interesting, but she's turning philosophy into performance art, and I think performance art should do performance art. Philosophy SHOULD be 'cognitively inflected', it should be about solving problems in a society, how to figure out ways of living the good life, it should be about meaning (meaning is fascist at its core? how so? you can't just say that and expect it to stand..), and most of all it should be materialistic at its core.
@ST2K You can watch the dogs playing and not need a meaning for it, but you damn well ought to find a meaning for Tea Party unreason and not just watch them as a 'spontaneous eruption of contingency' at the heart of American society.
@ST2K Your right, youtube is not a great place for philosophy, more like a great place for a shouting match. But I disagree Ronell, is someone who does the whole pseudo profundity, where is just uses a bunch of big words and your like "what?" at the end of it. Good philosophers can explain the basics of their philosophy at least in more basic terms so non-philosophers can understand it. Also how does she know that Bush, had no anxiety, that is an assumption, and really partisan.
Odd to say that "meaning has often had fascist or non-progressivist edges if not a core" when you've just been defending Heidegger's willingness to go on paths to nowhere. For him that was quite compatible with extreme right wing politics.
I just recently heard of Heidegger and found his ideas very interesting. Then I heard he was a Nazi and it started to kill the message for me. But I researched further on Wiki and saw that he wouldn't allow students at his Univ. to burn books or post anti-Semitic propaganda. A year later he resigned from the university. He's quoted that he realized that it was a false social movement after The night of long knives incident.
What exactly. I think the real issue with this sort of thought is that it hasn't done anything new or shed light on things in a new way. Which is funny since Digger was so keen on new uncovering and alethia
yea, I like the basic premise of what she says on non-meaning, but I really don't like her. She just oozes with pretentious self-righteousness and makes irrelevant and untrue political points.
nidansandan1992 2 weeks ago
some great inforamtion here thanks
MrJonkelp 1 month ago
interesting video and very informative
clairebehun 1 month ago
great video thanks
clairebehun 1 month ago
What a pretentious blowhard.
wickedtothemisty 1 month ago
@wickedtothemisty how is that so, or is it your unwitting desire to obliterate the other.
MGX890 3 weeks ago
"I thought I am not good enough for physics and I am too good for philosophy. Mathematics is in between." - George Polya
thenebbishroute 3 months ago
How is boredom an offshoot of melancholy? Someone please explain this to me.
thenebbishroute 3 months ago
Contradiction! She speaks of basking in the abruption of these dogs, trying to see it for what it is, in the here and the now, without meaning. Yet a few minutes later she is criticizing President Bush for sending troops to war.What happened to basking in the abruption of non meaning? How are we any different than the dogs, in this case? Because we are human. Very well, but this would throw away her whole theoryShe is bringing a morality into the picture beyond her existentialistic nonsense
idontknow902 3 months ago
@idontknow902 Because the dogs erupt into action/motion/arbitrary movement--Bush planned, strategized, conferred.
mrpollock 3 months ago
congrats girl keep up the good job
IntiqYana 6 months ago
i hate being mean but i can't stand this lady spewing her incoherent bullshit. it's poetically sad that she wears her identity crisis on the outside not knowing it.
she has a purpose, though. she exists in this movie only in parallell to great thinkers like zizek and cornel west who only need 10 minutes. if you don't have the ability to explain a theory of a truth within the timespan of 10 minutes you may still be a philosopher, but a very crappy one.
brokenshines 7 months ago
@brokenshines you know, i dont see her really contradicting zizek here. ethics is what 'must be done', and zizek talks about how the truly ethical Act would be not to indulge in the modern injunction of 'Enjoy!' that lies at the heart of our consumer society. this all lies in the void, an abyss of freedom from which the subject acts beyond their physical and social drives
mistarcraw 1 month ago
she looks like a vampire.
DavidCEberhart 9 months ago
6:32 : that is extremely judgmental. who's to say that they don't care? if someone made a judgment call like that against her how would she feel?
browilliams 10 months ago
@mit181 I think that if she had said that meaning is used to cover up the wound of instability it would make more sense. But I still disagree with her. "It's been very devastating this craving for meaning,". How so?
jefflunar 10 months ago
@jefflunar Because of the ways in which, if meaning is inherently unstable, when fixed, it is fixed for reasons other than a love of truth, learning wisdom and so forth. So the challenge that these theorists attempt is how to (re)think through truth, goodness, duty and so forth in a manner that doesn't fall back into the old, what Derrida calls 'Metaphysical' tradition, where such things were fixed in such a manner that leads to hierarchies, such as man over woman, west over east, Aryan over all
mit181 10 months ago
@mit181 I see. BTW, I'm a philosopher major (simply a student). It's skepticism of this worldview & not ignorance that drives my doubts. If one says that 'non-meaning' is the antithesis of evil, isn't this a form of finding meaning that is absolute. Just another construct that gives us a one-fits-all understanding (and supposedly a solution) to our problems. Where is the evidence that this way of thinking leads to hierarchies? Could it be that it is used to justify hierarchies? Cause or effect?
jefflunar 10 months ago
@jefflunar Just quickly, I think the real problem you point out is why should it lead to these hierarchies and not to some stable but innocent, democratic system of equal terms. Rather than explain something that requires huge time and patience to understand really starting with Kant, I'm going to return to being enigmatic, and borrow a phrase from Wittgenstein: 'Don't think, but look!'. Hope I've been of some help :) and if it's any help, I have my reservations about Heidegger in particular.
mit181 10 months ago
I respect everybody's opinion, but this is the type of philosophy that is so detached from this thing I call "reality" that becomes somewhat useless.
Meaning is part of being human. We have evolved to attached meaning to things. Without meaning there would be no philosophy, no political systems, indeed, no philosophy at all.
jefflunar 11 months ago
@jefflunar How is meaning is generated? She mentions the 'promise' of meaning, then grounds it IN reality...she calls it 'Fascist', questions the way in which different political and religious institutions have used meaning to prop themselves up. A 'politics of refusing that gratification'...where does the word 'gratification' come from? Capitalism? How is meaning appropriated, used (abused?) in a Capitalist framework? What are you assuming about your 'reality'? Who has constructed it?
mit181 10 months ago
@mit181 I'm not sure if you agree or disagree with what I said. She says 'when you see this dogs play why reduce it to meaning', but isn't 'playing' her interpretation of the dogs interacting. She talks about non-meaning, yet she also talks about 'the other'. And what is or who is 'the other' if not an abstract concept that we use to better understand the world. Beginner's mind (Bhuddism) seems to me a more realistic concept than non-meaning. Or perhaps that's what she meant.
jefflunar 10 months ago
@jefflunar In moments of trauma this experience of the Other is possible too, when the mind is thrown into situations it can't contain, structure...in what? Language? Your right to bring up language and I think she agrees with you. 'Play' is set up against (italics) arbitrary eruption ... not as the 'correct' interpretation. Her use of the term 'non-meaning' i think is unfortunate...perhaps because it's for a popular audience. Unstable is better, and unstable is what she = with 'Other'
mit181 10 months ago
@mit181 I wrote a long reply on whether or not Other is a concept...for Hegel it is. For Derrida it not only is not, it cannot. His system of philosophy won't allow it because that would act as what she makes reference to as a 'transcendental signified'. I can't help you out past here on youtube I'm afraid.
mit181 10 months ago
I respect everybody's opinion, but this is the type of philosophy that is so detached from this thing I call "reality" that becomes somewhat useless.
Meaning is part of being human. We have evolved to attached meaning to things. Without meaning there would be no philosophy, no political systems, indeed, no philosophy at all.
jefflunar 11 months ago
Wonderful to have listened to Avital Ronell. Definitely she gave me food for thought with her take on meaning.
And she is dead right about the self-deception of clean consciousness. I have heard so many people claim to be "good" who rather watch TV than help someone in need.
As for Bush, his actions seem to indicate that he is walking dead. Absent consciousness of inner realities. Unfortunately he is representative of the majority of us.
ManACanadian 1 year ago
She is actually doing the same thing to Bush that she is complaining about. She does not "know" Bush, she might just guessing about his phenomenological inner workings like we do to everyone.
natedaug1 1 year ago
Comment removed
socrates757 1 year ago
To me, this is just very funny. Ronell's responses, the interviewers questions, the documentary itself...But I guess, what else is Ronell supposed to say to the questions she is asked? Philosophy is something that is difficult to explain. I hope viewers do not get the wrong idea about Ronell or philosophy from this...
electricvalentina 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
She contradicts herself over and over again. Be zen , then it's good to have anxiety ? lol
She like most are spinning around and around . I'm glad I went into therapy so I can believe in myself and see the phonies in this world.
Mspoopoogoogoo 1 year ago
Comment removed
Mspoopoogoogoo 1 year ago
Avital is one of the most brilliant writers on the planet. Each its own beacon, her sentences bespeak hidden connections, as between mundanity and ethicality, derision and value.
Thank you for producing these videos.
jwillfilms 1 year ago
If she was going to interview someone on meaning why not get Nagel? His paper, the Absurd, is one of my favorites.
yhkeyui 1 year ago
This video demonstrates why only analytic philosophy should be taken seriously.
yhkeyui 1 year ago
She literally says nothing more than:
DON'T INTERPRET LIFE, ENJOY IT!
DON'T THINK YOU CAN TRULY UNDERSTAND OTHERS!
I am a big fan of post-structural philosophy. I am very much against Avital Ronell.
CubemenHandbook 1 year ago
HEY, AVITAL, HOW MUCH DO CLOTHES COST IN THE MATRIX???
victor1eremita 1 year ago 36
She just tries too hard. From what I know of Ronell has a very superficial understanding of deconstruction and Heidegger. As a philosophy student, I can say form experience that all who have said that this shit is the reason why people don't take philosophy (especially continental philosophy) seriously are exactly right on. Get your hands out from behind your back and drop the black coat. That would be a good start. Nice bit of Bush hate in there too. Classy.
anrchyvk 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@anrchyvk She probably never even read the tractatus
MrGrevy 1 year ago
@anrchyvk I agree 100% she's so full of herself, like at the beggining of the interview. I don't know if that was her trying to be funny or if she was serious, either way it was not necessary. Also she just complicates things so much with fancy words and is struggling to make any points at all, she tries sounding smart and ooh la la but she ends up looking foolish and doesn't have any "meaning" in her words or a message to deliver.
cristofolon 1 year ago
Avital Drivel should be read and not heard
anechoicmedia 1 year ago
Check out Lacan, Deleuze, Badiou and Foucault, mix 'em up. Then go on to Heidegger, Nietzsche, Freud and Marx and mix 'em up. Then Hegel, Kant, Descartes... mix 'em up: you got yourself a new life. Then read Krishnamurti and die.
clarinetato 1 year ago 3
@clarinetato or save yourself the trouble and skip to John Dewey
Urdoxa 1 year ago
looks like it was a really hot day, everybody in singlets and t-shirts, why was she wearing that heavy black outfit?
safaribrother 1 year ago 3
@safaribrother Good point :) Even though the outfit looks pretty damn cool!
Skelic 1 year ago
This is what might be termed as a Neo-Menshivick form of Marxism, yet in the sense that B. Hantlon terms it, Ideology-as-Being. What Ronell is doing here is not asserting a worldview but instead performing a kind of eulogy or, if you will, momento mori to what I what like to call, perhaps wrongly, the proto-existentialist deconstruction of the will to Being
carlsunshine 1 year ago
Deconstruction at its worst; this has pretty much nothing to do with derrida or any other serious philosophy - her 'guickly grasped transcendental signifier' is the insufficient idea, which i would call pseudo-deconstructivism
absinth1987 1 year ago
Lets see ST2K--pretentious quoting Derrida as an authority for justice, rambling, obfuscating nonsense by Aviral Ronell...embarrassing...the reason why poeple don't take philosophers seriously...lowlight of an otherwise good film by Astra Taylor.
aardvarkspleen 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
She is a condescending, stuck-up bitch. Check out Cornell West instead - he was one of the few thinkers from this movie to have anything to contribute.
bosman1988 1 year ago
It's an excellent documentary, however, Avital's arguments did seem somewhat familiar and they have probably been discussed in one form or another ever since philosophers started thinking about 'meaning' I have certainly not studied philosophy or anything related but her arguments should actually be common sense. To me it is...
tupG 1 year ago
regardless, this is a very progressive movie. I might be fanatic but I believe that this film, or one of its distant relatives, will be on the sidelines of humanity's next great Renaissance. I mean, do you see those people in the park? They are intrigued and ready for change.
dbd301 1 year ago
I understand that youtube comments isn't the best medium for philosophical discussions beyond your run-of-the-mill shouting match, however...
I wish that those who are negative on Ronell would explain why they think she's incorrect. Or.. at least provide a link to material that may better clarify why she's incorrect.
Personally... I'm new to Ronell's work but the more I hear from her, the more I'm liking her.
ST2K 2 years ago 21
@ST2K She's interesting, but she's turning philosophy into performance art, and I think performance art should do performance art. Philosophy SHOULD be 'cognitively inflected', it should be about solving problems in a society, how to figure out ways of living the good life, it should be about meaning (meaning is fascist at its core? how so? you can't just say that and expect it to stand..), and most of all it should be materialistic at its core.
traccan 1 year ago
@ST2K You can watch the dogs playing and not need a meaning for it, but you damn well ought to find a meaning for Tea Party unreason and not just watch them as a 'spontaneous eruption of contingency' at the heart of American society.
traccan 1 year ago
@ST2K Your right, youtube is not a great place for philosophy, more like a great place for a shouting match. But I disagree Ronell, is someone who does the whole pseudo profundity, where is just uses a bunch of big words and your like "what?" at the end of it. Good philosophers can explain the basics of their philosophy at least in more basic terms so non-philosophers can understand it. Also how does she know that Bush, had no anxiety, that is an assumption, and really partisan.
natedaug1 1 year ago
She's an unoriginal idiot. Her brain is composed of post-modernist nonsense-goo. She is not a philosopher.
scotty123123 2 years ago
Odd to say that "meaning has often had fascist or non-progressivist edges if not a core" when you've just been defending Heidegger's willingness to go on paths to nowhere. For him that was quite compatible with extreme right wing politics.
jrobertwood 2 years ago
Ad hom
kives1985 2 years ago
@jrobertwood
I just recently heard of Heidegger and found his ideas very interesting. Then I heard he was a Nazi and it started to kill the message for me. But I researched further on Wiki and saw that he wouldn't allow students at his Univ. to burn books or post anti-Semitic propaganda. A year later he resigned from the university. He's quoted that he realized that it was a false social movement after The night of long knives incident.
peter42082 1 year ago
Jesus, this pretty much condenses in 8 minutes everything I believe philosophy needs to get away from. And this is coming from a former Heideggerean!
Krelianx 2 years ago
@Krelianx
What exactly. I think the real issue with this sort of thought is that it hasn't done anything new or shed light on things in a new way. Which is funny since Digger was so keen on new uncovering and alethia
Benesyed 1 year ago
I think there are broader problems on theoretical grounds.
Krelianx 1 year ago
it feels very awkward the way astra is waling backwards and the way avital is reacting to that
sugarsean1 2 years ago
this reminds me of a good intro to any porn film.
rasjvon 2 years ago