Thank you for explaining this book! I tried reading it and felt super overwhelmed your podcast really helped me take notes so when I finish I'll understand her ideas clearly!

Just wanted to say a heartfelt thank you!! I have adhd and really struggle with focusing on dense reading, and your videos for both Foucault and Butler have helped me so much with a theory class I'm taking this term :-)

Thank you so much for this! I have a final assignment to do on butlers explanation of gender as a performative action, but their work is very dense and hard to skim to try and find quotes and whatnot without losing out on integral points.

Thank you dude! I've really been enjoying listening to your posts. They're really helpful. I'm studying gender, anthropology and religion and it's been very handy.

@TheoryPhilosophy

4 жыл бұрын

Happy to hear it :3

Thanks so much for your video. I was really struggling with Butler and you have helped me so much. Appreciate you sharing you knowledge and insights :)

@TheoryPhilosophy

4 жыл бұрын

Super happy to hear it :3

Yesterday I was panicking about writing my philosophy of culture paper, today I'm much more relaxed thanks to you. You made someone's life a little less stressful:D

Great video my dude

Hey, are you planing on doing Bodies that matter as well?

Thank you! This really helps :)

fantastic explanation thanks!

Love this class. I just finished the book and it was very eye-opening. I wasn't aware of how necessary it was to go through her text as opposed to only "hearing" her ideas from other people's appropriation. I think she has been grossly misinterpreted - which is normal when ideas become popular, and it's not necessarily bad, as you said, but well... I wouldn't like to misinterpret her myself, cause she is just a genius. Thanks a lot for this lesson, it helped me a lot to assimilate what I read!

Did deleuze sort of come to this conclusion in his book on Proust? It’s about 3/4 of the way through.

Thank you for this video, my professor told me to write a book report on this book but I just cant make sense of what the book is saying. I'm not native speaker and the language Butler used is just out of my capacity lol. This helps me understand the important points of the book so I can read the book now. And by the way, you've got a nice voice. I love listening to it

THANK YOU

Thank you!!

Thank you thank you thank you!

David is god-tier

How would you say this relates to the work of George Berkeley and his assertion that there is no material reality beyond what the individual sees at any given time? It seems this idea of the world as an indivdual construct has simply been expanded into a communitarian construct instead.

Who’s to say? Hmmm

Heartfelt thanks dear

the idea judy puts forward here of 'woman as phallus' made me think of this part of system of objects [at the end of 'the domestic world and the car']. baudrillard criticizes the notion of 'car as woman' by positing that instead it's more accurate to describe the eroticism of the car as narcissistic and masturbatory, and therefore it would be more accurate to describe the car as a phallus-object than a woman-object. but ms judy saying that woman is phallus could then kind of knit the two ideas together pretty nicely - car as woman/phallus?

@TheoryPhilosophy

4 жыл бұрын

Ya I think there's a connection to be drawn there. I think Butler is more critical of that Lacanian idea than I might have presented, but at least there's that Lacanian connection to be drawn to Baudrillard anyhow.

@TheoryPhilosophy

4 жыл бұрын

@@ganooki I can't say exactly because I haven't really read Lacan, but I think that Butler is reiterating what Lacan says. She's critical of it for two reasons: it implies heterosexuality to be the dominant sexual structure in society and all others to be derivative; it posits there to be an innate sexuality--homosexual or heterosexual--that precedes culture.

@ozturk22949

10 ай бұрын

Hello, I am intrigued by the topic here and also wanted to write a few things about it. I am still reading the Gender Trouble (I just finished chapter 2) and as I read the book, I am trying to corroborate and validate the text with various sources (like this one). I have been reading an interpretation of Lacan's phallus, and as far as I understand it, his concept (or investigation/observation, whatever) of patriarchal culture is very fruitful for understanding the kind of life we live socially. But as @TheoryPhilosophy said, the emphasis on heterosexuality and its necessary compulsiveness in human life in Lacan's text is a no-no for Buthler. So reading J. Buthler not only allows me to understand her ideas, but indirectly gets me to read the concepts (like Lacan's phallus thing) that she discusses in her book. Ps. The forum article by the dangerous mind on Lacan's phallus is an eye-opening piece of writing. I'll leave the link here for those who are interested in it: thedangerousmaybe.medium.com/lacans-concept-of-the-phallus-498743c9527

Why does Butler confuse the crap out things EVEN more by layering in Intersex? It simply makes no sense. Intersex is a genetic anomaly PERIOD, FULL STOP. To try to rationalize this is simply ludicrous. I mean it simply to say, why stop there? Genetic abnormalities will cause human variations grounded firmly in biology. In some cases, this can create sex ambiguity or even lead to a premature death. Examples of genetic abnormalities include Cystic fibrosis and Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome or even Down syndrome. The abnormalities which create sex ambiguity include Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia, which is one of the most common intersex genetic conditions, and Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. These are all variations of normal genetics. The central being - or foundation - is set in the binary.

edit out them mouth noises my boy. can potentially automate it using a gate before the compressor, or just being aware of those noises by putting the compression before your monitoring. (once you become aware of the noises of awkwardly swallowing spit mid-sentence, you'll naturally be able to change your performance as you see fit.) (I comment because I appreciate the video otherwise.)

@TheoryPhilosophy

3 жыл бұрын

Ughh I know. I only recently started implementing noise reduction tabarnak

I just finished reading this book and it was crazy town. it's outright evolution denialism. It's only 'theorizing' and no substantive support of her 'arguments'. It's really quite unhinged

@numbersix8919

Жыл бұрын

Science and its concepts form a domain of inquiry. The postulates of science are intelligible and hopefully internally consistent within that framework. But what we think about and associate with scientific concepts is an entirely different domain. It is personal, can be arbitrary, and idiosyncratic to the point of being quite unhinged. You are speaking from that domain. I hope you understand what you have just read.

@lukeskirenko

9 ай бұрын

It's staggering that an intellectual establishment ran so far with the garbage Freud made up. But hey, the incentives aren't primarily towards truth, they're primarily towards making careers, and if genuine critical thinking follows it's subservient to the latter.

@user-ub2jp7tg6k

5 ай бұрын

​@@lukeskirenkoevery idea is made up. Perhaps addressing why Freud is wrong is the actual argument you should be making. Instead of this conjecture.

This is complete garbage. Post structuralism should have put an end to the tendency to essentialise, but that's what psychoanalysis is all about, turning concepts like 'lack' into platonic forms and constructing ludicrous narratives that pretend to explain the grand sweep of civilisation. What happened to scepticism towards meta-narratives? The oedipal complex is the stupidest meta-narrative I've encountered, probably. If one wants to better understand concepts like gender, a better place to start would probably be: how do we understand the concept 'face', as in a person's face. There's a whole load of stuff going on there that you can only shed some light on with a mixture of cognitive science experiments and analytic philosophy.