I've been thinking about that issue of doing philosophy on YouTube for a while. It seems to me that a lot depends on what we're expecting "philosophy" or "educating" to be, and how concerned we are with it being sucked into something else (e.g. being turned into entertainment, or bragging rights).
In the videos I've produced, I don't generally try to entertain, or even to hook or hold a viewer's interest. I don't use much effects, cuts, voice-overs. It's usually just me in front of a chalkboard or at a lectern. My focus is on taking some tricky text and explaining as best I can, what's being said, with perhaps some useful examples, and a few bits of other relevant information (for example, alternate senses of terms in the original language).
I've been at it now for more than 14 years. My channel hasn't had the sort of growth that more glitzy, high-production/low-content, make drama philosophy-focused channels have had, which is to be expected. I do think that the videos I've produced have had some use for those who want to learn about philosophical texts, thinkers, and topics, and that at least some of them could count as decent education in philosophy.
Now, I certainly can't earn my living just with YouTube (or even YouTube + merch + etc.). If that's one's main goal, I don't think that producing the kind of educational videos I do is sustainable for long. But there's still some of us out here doing precisely that.
Many, many of your videos have been invaluable to me. I think they're best suited for starting seriously with a complicated text, and so serve a particularly unique viewer. But as you say, there are so many ways of thinking about what 'philosophy' and 'education', let alone what 'entertainment' is.
Another thing I was going to mention was how I think Youtube attracts a lot of young misfits that are on hiatus, jobless, transitioning, have some spare time, etc - that often evolves into 'I need to make money from this if I'm going to keep doing it' (this was the case for me), and somewhat forces you down a more populist route. Maybe that's wrong (I don't know!) but it can also then be justified as entertaining plus education reaching more people.
I don't think there are right or wrong answers here, but I think fear and insecurity pushes some people (me included) down a populist, attention economy, get the views route.
One level is production of long form content widely distributed that comes with great difficulty for its author to engage with a public that digests it. Another level is having friends with similar interests. When you talk with your friends there is turn taking and book-length turns simply don't happen. You can be challenged more immediately by a friend.
The best of both worlds is where you and your friends read each others books. If none of your friends have much to say this can be disheartening, but what's really disheartening is never being able to form a friendship with the one who really did digest and criticize all the work you put out. They can't give back to you what you have given to them.
1. your videos have been an opening for me to first discover and then read the actual texts you discuss. And by getting your initial introduction to those texts, it is easier for me to 'follow the thread' of some otherwise challenging reads. So it is a critical window to the work. I go back to videos again and again that I particularly found helpful.
2. By sharing your own struggles, doubts and fears related to the work, over the years, you are doing more than transmitting knowledge, you are exemplifying the act of living your philosophy. That is probably the most important lesson for me--much more than the particulars of any text you are discussing. You are showing me and others a way of living and engaging with ideas that is inspiring for me to do likewise. No AI can ever do that, and therefore will not be interesting to me.
3. The best news is that I don't always agree with you and write out long notes of arguments. So we are 'having a dialogue' even if you don't hear it. That too, is a gift that your work provides and that I'm grateful for.
Honestly Lewis, I've been listening to many of your videos both passively and watching them actively for the past 2 years.
You somehow made me come back over and over, one way or another. Even though the video form supposedly causes me to only remember and by extension ruminates on certain ideas within your essays, the beauty is just that: recurrence. The secret to that is out of my boundaries, but I hope that helps you in your creative process.
I've been wondering how I only watch someone's videos, like, say, contrapoint, only once. I do spend time contemplating after the fact, but I don't have the urge to return. Yours, on the other hand... I've gone over your 5-hour movie on capitalism ~5 times, if my memory serves.
Perhaps it's also due to my exposure to a local movie maker, which really inured me to the resilience required for long-form, movie-adjacent media. I admired your editor's work, how cinematic it can be, the documentary style, etc.
I'm guilty of putting some of your work on background while doing dishes or my homework, I'll admit. I notice that those are mostly introductions to some philosophers and their thoughts, though.
This is an excellent piece, and it touches on one of the key dilemmas that long deterred me from engaging on social media platforms—including Substack—for my writing and discussions on various subjects.
Your concluding call to action—"It might be enough to remind people that at least for some of that consumption, pick up a pen, make some notes, and write down your own thoughts, too."—resonates deeply with me. It was precisely this insight that ultimately convinced me to produce content, emphasizing active engagement over passive consumption.
In my Substack publication, I focus on first principles in philosophy, history, and economics, seeking fundamental truths and fostering rigorous discourse that, in my view, best serves the public square—whether digital or physical. Abstaining from participation strikes me as an untenable option if we aim to mitigate the worst trade-offs of monetized philosophical entertainment or debate, which can devolve into mere spectacle.
This is indeed a thorny problem, rooted in the tension between authenticity and accessibility. Yet, these trade-offs demand active engagement; we cannot afford to stand on the sidelines and allow them to inflate into grandiose sophistry, divorced from evidence-backed reasoning.
Your article is fantastic—something I'll sit with and ponder further. Great work, and please keep writing. These are merely my initial thoughts and experiences, which I assign little weight without further empirical backing.
I've been thinking about that issue of doing philosophy on YouTube for a while. It seems to me that a lot depends on what we're expecting "philosophy" or "educating" to be, and how concerned we are with it being sucked into something else (e.g. being turned into entertainment, or bragging rights).
In the videos I've produced, I don't generally try to entertain, or even to hook or hold a viewer's interest. I don't use much effects, cuts, voice-overs. It's usually just me in front of a chalkboard or at a lectern. My focus is on taking some tricky text and explaining as best I can, what's being said, with perhaps some useful examples, and a few bits of other relevant information (for example, alternate senses of terms in the original language).
I've been at it now for more than 14 years. My channel hasn't had the sort of growth that more glitzy, high-production/low-content, make drama philosophy-focused channels have had, which is to be expected. I do think that the videos I've produced have had some use for those who want to learn about philosophical texts, thinkers, and topics, and that at least some of them could count as decent education in philosophy.
Now, I certainly can't earn my living just with YouTube (or even YouTube + merch + etc.). If that's one's main goal, I don't think that producing the kind of educational videos I do is sustainable for long. But there's still some of us out here doing precisely that.
Many, many of your videos have been invaluable to me. I think they're best suited for starting seriously with a complicated text, and so serve a particularly unique viewer. But as you say, there are so many ways of thinking about what 'philosophy' and 'education', let alone what 'entertainment' is.
Another thing I was going to mention was how I think Youtube attracts a lot of young misfits that are on hiatus, jobless, transitioning, have some spare time, etc - that often evolves into 'I need to make money from this if I'm going to keep doing it' (this was the case for me), and somewhat forces you down a more populist route. Maybe that's wrong (I don't know!) but it can also then be justified as entertaining plus education reaching more people.
I don't think there are right or wrong answers here, but I think fear and insecurity pushes some people (me included) down a populist, attention economy, get the views route.
Thanks for all your work.
One level is production of long form content widely distributed that comes with great difficulty for its author to engage with a public that digests it. Another level is having friends with similar interests. When you talk with your friends there is turn taking and book-length turns simply don't happen. You can be challenged more immediately by a friend.
The best of both worlds is where you and your friends read each others books. If none of your friends have much to say this can be disheartening, but what's really disheartening is never being able to form a friendship with the one who really did digest and criticize all the work you put out. They can't give back to you what you have given to them.
My experience/thoughts:
1. your videos have been an opening for me to first discover and then read the actual texts you discuss. And by getting your initial introduction to those texts, it is easier for me to 'follow the thread' of some otherwise challenging reads. So it is a critical window to the work. I go back to videos again and again that I particularly found helpful.
2. By sharing your own struggles, doubts and fears related to the work, over the years, you are doing more than transmitting knowledge, you are exemplifying the act of living your philosophy. That is probably the most important lesson for me--much more than the particulars of any text you are discussing. You are showing me and others a way of living and engaging with ideas that is inspiring for me to do likewise. No AI can ever do that, and therefore will not be interesting to me.
3. The best news is that I don't always agree with you and write out long notes of arguments. So we are 'having a dialogue' even if you don't hear it. That too, is a gift that your work provides and that I'm grateful for.
Honestly Lewis, I've been listening to many of your videos both passively and watching them actively for the past 2 years.
You somehow made me come back over and over, one way or another. Even though the video form supposedly causes me to only remember and by extension ruminates on certain ideas within your essays, the beauty is just that: recurrence. The secret to that is out of my boundaries, but I hope that helps you in your creative process.
I've been wondering how I only watch someone's videos, like, say, contrapoint, only once. I do spend time contemplating after the fact, but I don't have the urge to return. Yours, on the other hand... I've gone over your 5-hour movie on capitalism ~5 times, if my memory serves.
Perhaps it's also due to my exposure to a local movie maker, which really inured me to the resilience required for long-form, movie-adjacent media. I admired your editor's work, how cinematic it can be, the documentary style, etc.
I'm guilty of putting some of your work on background while doing dishes or my homework, I'll admit. I notice that those are mostly introductions to some philosophers and their thoughts, though.
This is an excellent piece, and it touches on one of the key dilemmas that long deterred me from engaging on social media platforms—including Substack—for my writing and discussions on various subjects.
Your concluding call to action—"It might be enough to remind people that at least for some of that consumption, pick up a pen, make some notes, and write down your own thoughts, too."—resonates deeply with me. It was precisely this insight that ultimately convinced me to produce content, emphasizing active engagement over passive consumption.
In my Substack publication, I focus on first principles in philosophy, history, and economics, seeking fundamental truths and fostering rigorous discourse that, in my view, best serves the public square—whether digital or physical. Abstaining from participation strikes me as an untenable option if we aim to mitigate the worst trade-offs of monetized philosophical entertainment or debate, which can devolve into mere spectacle.
This is indeed a thorny problem, rooted in the tension between authenticity and accessibility. Yet, these trade-offs demand active engagement; we cannot afford to stand on the sidelines and allow them to inflate into grandiose sophistry, divorced from evidence-backed reasoning.
Your article is fantastic—something I'll sit with and ponder further. Great work, and please keep writing. These are merely my initial thoughts and experiences, which I assign little weight without further empirical backing.