Philosophy videos

[Alex077]

Rick you should really open up a section of ACCESSIBLE Philosophy Sources not ones where one is likely to be asked for an Institutional login as a vast number of us bar Academics and Students cannot access such Repositories.

Rick, it's essential to consider accessibility in philosophy sources. Many of us, outside the academic and student realm, face barriers when asked for institutional logins on certain repositories.GB whatsapp Apk

[RickLewis]

Hi Alex, sorry I only just spotted your post. When I started this thread, which was apparently sixteen years ago (!) I posted a link to a Philosophy Now page which had links to a load of philosophy videos we had spotted on YouTube. The links page has since moved. It is now here:

https://philosophynow.org/links/Philosophy_Videos

However, you can always search YouTube for philosophy videos anyway, just as we did. There are a lot there, including a surprising number involving really well-known names in 20th/21st century philosophy.

We also have a page of (free to access) Philosophy Now videos:

https://philosophynow.org/videos

There isn't a vast collection there, but there are one or two interviews conducted by the Philosophy Now editors, plus a couple of talks from Philosophy Now Festivals, and various other bits and pieces.

If you are looking for articles rather than videos, then the Philosophy Now website has a vast, searchable, archive of articles from past issues of Philosophy Now going back to 1991. There are about 3,500 articles there. Anyone can read up to four articles per month completely for free. If you want to read more than that, then you need to buy either a print or website subscription. (No money coming in = no magazine!) However, our subscription prices are extremely reasonable:

https://philosophynow.org/shop

[Gary Childress]

Hi Alex, sorry I only just spotted your post. When I started this thread, which was apparently sixteen years ago (!) I posted a link to a Philosophy Now page which had links to a load of philosophy videos we had spotted on YouTube. The links page has since moved. It is now here:

https://philosophynow.org/links/Philosophy_Videos

However, you can always search YouTube for philosophy videos anyway, just as we did. There are a lot there, including a surprising number involving really well-known names in 20th/21st century philosophy.

We also have a page of (free to access) Philosophy Now videos:

https://philosophynow.org/videos

There isn't a vast collection there, but there are one or two interviews conducted by the Philosophy Now editors, plus a couple of talks from Philosophy Now Festivals, and various other bits and pieces.

If you are looking for articles rather than videos, then the Philosophy Now website has a vast, searchable, archive of articles from past issues of Philosophy Now going back to 1991. There are about 3,500 articles there. Anyone can read up to four articles per month completely for free. If you want to read more than that, then you need to buy either a print or website subscription. (No money coming in = no magazine!) However, our subscription prices are extremely reasonable:

https://philosophynow.org/shop

Rick, just FYI. The guy you are responding to seems to have posted a download link for something. I didn't linger on the page long enough to see what it was but it looks a little fishy (pun acknowledged). It might be worth deleting his post maybe?

[Osric]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djFoV0BMWNg

[promethean75]

^^^ That would be H. Quirk @ 7:50 tryna kill that beast with a 19th century double barrel shotgun.

[promethean75]

Zizek, Atheist Christianity, Putin's dream to return to imperial russia, and more....

https://youtu.be/IVgAc_oJ6DY

[promethean75]

He's killin it. Lol at the Himmler bit. This is zizekoanalysis that only Slavoj can do.

[promethean75]

@ 17:40

A techo-feudalism of warring mega corporations controlling whole domains of information and how a return to old.fashioned social democracy is impossible and so on and so on.

[promethean75]

https://youtu.be/nF6GKYZzS_Q

That's right, these social media platforms are businesses, and 'free speech' can be limited in these spaces because users abide by the business's rules when using them... rules that include the prohibition of certain language.

But what is 'tolerable' speech should be decided only by the owners of the platform. This argument can't become all philosophical because then you'd be in an endless debate about what's tolerable and what isnt. It simpler than that. If you use someone's service, you abide by their rules. If they say 'you can't say the N word or talk about jewish space lasers' when using the platform, you can choose to use the platform or not. And if you get banned, you're not having your right to free speech violated directly. The indirect violation happens when you are denied using a service, which isn't a violation of your free speech rights, in which you would have your free speech violated by the prohibition of certain language on the platform. But you have to choose to join before you get banned.

This, in turn, can end up being pushed to an absurdity; so then what happens when all the space in the world is owned and therefore everyone is abiding by some rule that prohibits them from speaking freely? As it is, i can't stand up in a theater and shout a string of obscenities without getting into trouble. Neither can i call the judge a troglodyte without being criminally charged. And if i assaulted you with the right kind of language, i could be sued for libel.

So there are already instances of free speech prohibition everywhere in the world. Just saying.

[swampyyy]

https://youtu.be/yorvamYvJfs
Hi there, here is a video essay on the anti-representation movement in art. Adapted from a lecture I gave at the Savannah College of Art and Design.

[Phil8659]

https://youtu.be/nF6GKYZzS_Q

That's right, these social media platforms are businesses, and 'free speech' can be limited in these spaces because users abide by the business's rules when using them... rules that include the prohibition of certain language.

But what is 'tolerable' speech should be decided only by the owners of the platform. This argument can't become all philosophical because then you'd be in an endless debate about what's tolerable and what isnt. It simpler than that. If you use someone's service, you abide by their rules. If they say 'you can't say the N word or talk about jewish space lasers' when using the platform, you can choose to use the platform or not. And if you get banned, you're not having your right to free speech violated directly. The indirect violation happens when you are denied using a service, which isn't a violation of your free speech rights, in which you would have your free speech violated by the prohibition of certain language on the platform. But you have to choose to join before you get banned.

This, in turn, can end up being pushed to an absurdity; so then what happens when all the space in the world is owned and therefore everyone is abiding by some rule that prohibits them from speaking freely? As it is, i can't stand up in a theater and shout a string of obscenities without getting into trouble. Neither can i call the judge a troglodyte without being criminally charged. And if i assaulted you with the right kind of language, i could be sued for libel.

So there are already instances of free speech prohibition everywhere in the world. Just saying.

I believe that you have completely missed the whole point. Those who claim freedom of speech, must then point to a standard as to what speech actually is, so, not only is our government complicit in not doing that, not only are companies complicity in not doing that, but the general public is equally complicit because no one has ever had the wit to point to a factual standard.
That standard was put forward by Plato, called dialectic, however, no one seems to have been literate enough to understand him. That same standard, binary information processing, is point out by the computer, however, again, no one has the wit to comprehend the implication. However, there is one point of introduction that the world can ignore also, the standard pointed out in the JCS, Judeo-Christian Scripture, by Plato, and by human biology. The pairing of the motion of the hand with the definition of a thing, called Geometry.
Today, the only standard mankind knows, is that of megalomania.

Currently however, once again, no one with the intelligence to even comprehend the one to one correspondence between the hand and the definition of a thing.
So, no, it is not up to any individual, corporation, or government to lay down rules of anything, unless they are violating a Constitution claiming to guarantee human freedom within its borders. No Corporation actually has the authority over the Constitution even though the Supreme Court is Staffed by illiterate judges.
Relation to self is inadmissible, a fact. Or as Plato demonstrated, independent of both gods and men.

So, no, your explanation is shit. Stupidity, illiteracy does not justify shit. Once you have agreed to the definition of a thing, it is wholly impossible to claim that any one, any corporation, any government, makes laws. Only a delusional fool would claim that they can grant or deny standards of behavior, or anything else. Then, and only then, is Nomocracy, a world standard of behavior, is possible.
That is in the Bible,
Socrates said it.
Your computer is telling that to you.

Most people do not know, that the Bible tells of a cusp point in human evolution. A time when mankind realizes that it is illiterate. The foundation of that illiteracy involves only one concept. What is a thing? Plato explained it, yet there has never been a mind to demonstrate it until the advent of the computer. Every grammar wholly depends upon a clear notion of what a thing is, it is a binary construct. Plato did it for Common Grammar, but nobody understood. It is done for arithmetic, algebra, and by those who actually know geometry, geometry. Every other so called geometry is based on the denial of the unit, and Ph.D. holders are too stupid to realize their gibberish.
I have done and am doing what I was asked to do in that regard. Show how you can actually draw an interactive computer in simple geometry, i.e., your own had, as written, can teach literacy.

[Pistolero]

On a side note....
What does 'freedom of speech' mean to those who deny freedom of will?

Is it 'determined speech'?
Is it inevitable speech?
What is free about it, that does not apply to the Will?
Is not speech, a willful act?

Carry on.

[promethean75]

https://youtu.be/74jsba4Mp7c

Martin could have just as well called Stirner instead of Fritz the end of metaphysics, a philosopher as significant as Plato in terms of systematic leaps.

Nietzsche was a far better writer and much more clever than Max, but he did not possess the brute efficiency and force of Stirner, the James Dean of Western philosophy. Martin knows all this, but he won't mention Max because nobody likes Max except the anarchists, and Martin is a nazi so Max thinks he's a spooked out nerd anyway.

[promethean75]

https://youtu.be/zYfz0LqTMvQ

On religious texts and cookbooks.

[promethean75]

Are you hungry like the Wolff? Find out in one of his latest releases (uncle Richy's not drunk just growing impatient. See my comment).

https://youtu.be/HxBE5ACfNnc?si=m8e_TS6IMdtCUgSU