Some of the brightest philosophers today seem to have chosen multimedia as their medium of choice instead of written...

Some of the brightest philosophers today seem to have chosen multimedia as their medium of choice instead of written media. Pic related, of course.
How will academia respond to this: will we see more and more traditional scholars dialoguing with youtubers and other digital influencers or will they go full blown ivory tower and insulate themselves even further?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/user/egsvideo
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>Some of the brightest philosophers today seem to have chosen multimedia as their medium of choice
wrong
>How will academia respond to this: will we see more and more traditional scholars dialoguing with youtubers
no

Demosthenes was the greatest orator of the ancient world, and yet there is not even a single line of his embedded in the collective consciousness to compare to the reams of those of the philosophers. — A note on the philosophical, at any rate, value of rhetoric.

Why is rhetoric of so much less value than writing? The orator only has to convince those who happen to be present when he delivers his oration, the philosopher has to "convince" the entire future. Oratorical skill is not merely irrelevant for us but a downright weakness. To HAVE to talk to "people" — that is how weakness is defined for us. Between higher and lower, as I've already said, there can be no communication. That is the province, not of words, but of actions.

Note that what I said about rhetoric also applies to YouTube videos, "pod"casts, public debates, interviews and smoke signals. Real intellectuals will always choose writing, all other forms of communication (including, by the way, direct discussion) are for peasants.

These pop philosophers show not the slightest acknowledgement in their writings that a philosophical tradition even exists, and that the intractable problems with which they are so incompetently grappling have been discussed ad nauseam for millennia by all the geniuses. — All these efforts, at the end of the day, are obviously inherently abortive, since contrary to what all these people seem to think, you can't defeat a beast by RUNNING AWAY FROM IT. There's only one solution: to GRAPPLE with the beast, which is to say, WITH THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY, which of course presupposes that you have at least some inkling of it! In short: Don't be a pseud. Don't abortive. Be a man. Be a genius. — Or at least try to be one, the first step of which attempt would be... to see how you measure up against past geniuses, by making at least some kind of an effort to read them.

>The orator only has to convince those who happen to be present when he delivers his oration, the philosopher has to "convince" the entire future.

This criticism holds no weight when talking about digital recordings that can be viewed till the end of time. I don't know why you mentioned it, this is sort of dumb.

>Real intellectuals will always choose writing, all other forms of communication (including, by the way, direct discussion) are for peasants.

Almost every single intellectual you can think of has spoken publicly. Some even have a number of lectures transcribed.

I am embarrassed for you.

Do you seriously consider that guy one of the brightest philosophers today?

There is no hope for you

I think a lot of universities are making lectures available on youtube

The European Graduate School has a great channel. You can listen to lectures by some of continental philosophies brightest minds, like Zizek, Baudrillard, Virilio, Harraway, Butler, Badiou and others.

youtube.com/user/egsvideo

I think the real question should be flipped around. Why would you only do youtube/podcasts? Zizek writes films, gives lectures, gives interviews, makes public speeches, makes movies. He seems to have the multimedia approach figured out.

>Why is rhetoric of so much less value than writing?
It isn't. Only autists would think that.
Pic related, proof that the transformative power of politics (rhetoric) is infinitely superior to philosophy

sorry meant to say "writes books" not "writes films". But that should be obvious anyway.

Godwin's law.

>This criticism holds no weight when talking about digital recordings that can be viewed till the end of time. I don't know why you mentioned it, this is sort of dumb.
FUCKING RETARD. Read before you write.
>>>Note that what I said about rhetoric also applies to YouTube videos
codex, even digital recordings (ebooks) of Demosthenes can be 'viewed till the end of time' and will at least be appreciated longer than Molyneux' will, not to speak of actual philosophers.

>Almost every single intellectual you can think of has spoken publicly.
Naturally, they were probably communicating with students (intellectual children) or the rabble (politics).

>Some even have a number of lectures transcribed.
And the fact that this is the EXCEPTION should tell even your thick skull something.