Introduction to Affect Theory: Brian Massumi & Eve Sedgwick

43 thoughts on “Introduction to Affect Theory: Brian Massumi & Eve Sedgwick”

1. this channel is underrated.

2. Please say wool.

3. Always leave these videos learning so much.

4. Neuroimaging studies suggest that as we watch what someone else is doing (especially if it is an intentional and/ or goal-related movement) our brains mirror the firing pattern going on for real in their brains and bodies. When we watch someone we care about in pain, or watch someone smell a liquid that turns out to be disgusting, our brains fire in the same distinctive way as the brains of those actually in pain or experiencing disgust. This research argues that as an organism moves around the world its brain is constantly preparing and holding in potential a range of relevant action patterns in relation to the objects it encounters. -Wetherell

   Could this tie into types of BPD?

5. Saying performative utterances "create the world" might be easy to misunderstand. Austin's examples are about getting married or naming a ship. Austin described it more like the statement becoming true in virtue of itself, rather than changing the world. (But if you think the name of a ship is part of the world, that's totally ok, I just want to point out something that might be tricky).

6. this accent tho

7. What's the similarity/difference/relation between the nodes of the following quadrality: Consciousness vs. the mind vs. the brain vs. the body? Or, in contrast to the foregoing question: Is this just a schema that we're laying on top of reality and fitting reality into this schema instead of realizing that we're doing this?

8. Lewis: I like how much you emphasize Habermas’ ‘public sphere’ for democratic discussion/argumentation. The structure of YT is oppressive in how it gives power to YT channel users in discussion at the expense of other commenters. Though, on your last video you removed my 1st intellectual property abolition thread without notice to me. And you removed another comment in this video. So instead of immediately removing comments (or blocking users) from now on, I have a suggestion that you respond to each user with the same or similar following comment:

   “YT channel users can remove any comments and block other users from commenting for any reason. This is anti free speech and gives power to YT channel users at the expense of other users commenting on their channel. Your last comment _________, however I won’t immediately remove this comment. So instead I’m giving you until 24 hours from now to explain why I shouldn’t remove your last comment.
   (I’m also open to hearing explanations from anyone for why/how I should change this process)”

   Please let me know your thoughts. You could substitute “remove your comment” with “block you” or “remove your comment & block you” whenever it seems appropriate. It’s also important YT channels don’t ban any particular terms: All terms can be ethically used in the right context . It would be very beneficial for free speech & democracy on the internet if more channel users (& users/mods/platform holders on other sites) started conducting themselves like this.

9. For my grad project, I'm working with/through affect theory (which isn't a theory by the way) and I can without doubt say that the day I'm done with it is the day I last speak about it. #Bewildering. Deployment of language which makes affect "ungraspable" is very unhelpful. Affect is everything! What on this planet does not affect or get affected?

10. Excellent video, Lewis! I’m so glad I was introduced to affect theory, and your explanations are incredibly helpful

11. Awesome video

12. .affected.

13. Please Please Please .. No Music in your next video …The constant dings and dongs of the piano are very off-putting .. Thank you

14. Imagine watching this while on a psilocybin trip where you're already questioning your own physicality and mind vs. feelings!

15. …My main contention here is, I'm coming from a panpsychist point of view; that is, mental states are not reducible to physical states; there is no logical process by which strictly material reagents result in an immaterial product. I'm not sure how much of a difference that makes, though, when my perspective is that the abstract is consciousness' experience of the physical. Like, either way, who we are and what we do is defined by material processes. This actually reminds me a lot of New Materialism. Actually, now I'm not so sure what the difference between Affect Theory and New Materialism really is… Is it that the latter decenters the human, and starts talking about the agency of non-human entities?

16. Affect theory has some structural similarities to object-oriented ontology, I think.

17. Ever since I heard the idea of my existence being the outcome of an inifinte number of possibilities it changed my entire view on who I am. I am still very much inextricably tied to my experiences and they define me, being born black, being born in Trinidad and Tobago etc. But it also creates conflict because I could have easily been born elsewhere and could have been someone else. So how important is my ethnicity in defining who I am? How important is my nationality?
    On a fundamental level it truly helps me to see the humanity in people much different from myself.

    On another different but related topic. I am also preoccupied with the idea of language being the thing that locks us into a shared view of reality. If the world was not described to us, how would we view it? What would reality seem like?

18. Thank you for an amazing video. The only thing is: in the word "affect", the first syllable is stressed, so it is "A_ffect", not "a_ffEct".

19. Where is Eve Sedgwick in all of this? She is not quoted, at least not before 6+ minutes. And why is the voice male, and all of the images male. As if mind were exclusively a male domain? This is a terribly Boys Club video. It is limited to a male-dominated view of the world. Call it reactionary. Deeply flawed. Pointless.

20. I have to watch this video for a hw assignment

21. Thank you for this lovely intro 🙂 !

22. Wasn't Sedgwick's book called Touching Cloth?

23. Wot bolox!
    Q, Why do so many badly educated, pretentious wankers give philosophy a bad name?
    A, Cos they can't help themselves.
    Defund the universities – so only real knowledge is passed on. Go to crowdfunding, not the poor tax payer, if you want to talk bolox!

24. Discussed affect theory in one of my grad school classes yesterday and found my brain a little muddy trying to make sense of it. This video was extraordinarily helpful. Thank you for your work!

25. can thinking about the affect be an affect of the affect?

26. Thank you, thank you, thank you!

27. Sylvan Tomkins

28. I caught the dentist 2:30 joke.

29. Did anybody catch the dentist at 2:30 joke? 🙂

30. Why do philosopher complicate things? I believe what you’ve describe in this video is English grammar.

31. Tooth hurty 😀

32. Thank u !!❤️

33. Thank you for this. Been struggling to get my head around affect theory – this proved really helpful.

34. The phrase "non-conscious experience" does not make sense to me. It's a self-contradictory.

35. I know this video has been up for almost a year, but you have just saved my Intro to Philosophy grade. Thank you for the wonderful explainer <3

36. pardon me but what the fuck

37. Do Actor Network Theory next

38. I love your channel! It's incredibly useful and all the videos are wonderfully edited. I would really appreciate it if you also provided either transcripts or closed captioning. The auto-gen captioning isn't always reliable. Thanks so much for the uploads!

39. I just subscribed. Do you have anything on Hannah Arendt?
    This is a great series!

40. Great video

41. What are the goals of Affect theory?

42. No Silvan Tompkins?

43. I mean, its really just an extended reading of Deleuze, almost a humanist take on their theory.

Comments are closed.