YouTube Instagram TikTok How it works FAQ

The fastest way to turn talking videos into clean, searchable text. Free, private and no account required.

About

Built by Rishav Raj with one goal: free transcripts for everyone.

rishav@yttotranscript.com

Transcribe

YouTube to text
YouTube with timestamps
Instagram Reels
TikTok videos

Learn

How it works
FAQ
YouTube transcripts guide

More

Chrome extension
Contact
Privacy policy
Terms of service

© 2026 YTtoTranscript. Made for creators & researchers.

Not affiliated with YouTube, Instagram or TikTok. Respect creators’ copyright.

Foucault: ¿Qué es la Ilustración? — Transcript · YTtoTranscript

Home/Transcripts/YouTube

YouTube Transcript

Foucault: ¿Qué es la Ilustración?

Heterocronías Feminismos y Epistemologías del Sur · 2,121 words · 11 min read · EN

Watch on YouTube

Share X LinkedIn WhatsApp

Below is the complete, readable transcript of Foucault: ¿Qué es la Ilustración? by Heterocronías Feminismos y Epistemologías del Sur on YouTube. Read the full text, copy any part you need, or generate a transcript for any video with our free tool.

Good evening. This video is about the football text, which is the illustration. In this text, he plays and analyzes a text with the same title, the same title as Cannes, and here, Fuco perceives a difference between this text and others by Khan. The difference lies in the fact that in this text, Khan is going to raise the question

of his own present, that is, he is going to question his current situation, his now, the now in which he lives. So what we have to try to understand is what that element of the present is, what is that element of the present about which there will be a philosophical reflection? And the first thing we have is

that this element of the present is a sign of, and it is a sign of a process, a process in which knowledge, thought, and philosophy will be involved. Yes, and there is a very important element: the philosopher himself, the subject, will be involved in that process; that is, he is part of that process and fulfills a

function in that process. This is if we compare, for example, with the subject of the Critique of Pure Reason, where the subject is a subject who is distanced from all the processes that occur in the world that are part of the picture. If the subject isn't there, appearing in those representations, they aren't part

of the picture. Changes here in this process. If the philosopher speaking, the one who has the discourse, is part of that process, then the situation is completely different. Khan is reflecting on a present to which he belongs. So what we have here is that philosophy is fundamentally a discursive practice. And what he's

doing in this text is precisely problematizing his own present. Okay, so how are we going to understand that present? Well, that present must be understood as an event. And what is an event? It's important to understand this term because this term is key to understanding the analysis that focuses on the text. That

Transcribe another video

Paste any YouTube, Instagram or TikTok link to get a free transcript.

Free · No sign-up · Unlimited

Add to Chrome — transcribe in one click

is, to understand what an event is. Well, an event is the opposite, we could say, of something that is a phenomenon. We saw that the phenomenon, upon which the object will later be constituted, is what we saw in the Critique of Pure Reason. It is distant from the subject. Yes, that's what we were saying a moment ago. The phenomenon is

part of that picture, and the subject is totally distanced from the phenomenon. The object, or this phenomenon, is what will give the object its basis. Let's say no, it doesn't involve the subject if they are two separate points of knowledge. On the other hand, in the event, the opposite happens: in the event, the subject is involved. That is to say, the one who

speaks, the one who is part of that discursive practice, is involved in that event. And what philosophy must do is account for the meaning of that event. Therefore, what the philosopher is doing here is questioning their own belonging to that present, which is an event. And that belonging is not as an individual being, but as a "

we." Therefore, the event involves that " we," and fundamentally, that " we" is the object of philosophical reflection. So, the event is distinct from the phenomenon. The phenomenon and the subject, separate in the event, are intimately related; they are involved. Therefore, when philosophy problematizes its own actuality, and is actual, it is understood as an event—that is to say, not

as a representation of an event, of a process that is there, separate, distant— but as an event in which that "we" is involved. Therefore, to problematize that actuality is to problematize that "we." Yes, so it's important to know what this discourse should address here. It doesn't stop at the present itself; fundamentally, it must find its

own place, yes, and specify the way in which it will act in that process. So that's what Canes refers to when he asks, "What is my own present like? What is the meaning of that present?" And here, Fuco draws attention to a characteristic of the Enlightenment: the Enlightenment is a period that formulates its own mandate

regarding all forms of knowledge. It determines what knowledge is, it determines what ignorance is. That is to say, to be enlightened already involves, let's say, a prescription. Without defining what Enlightenment is, defining the prescription is to account for the prescription involved in being enlightened. So, the Enlightenment and the mandate that the Enlightenment establishes

are the same. We cannot define what the Enlightenment is without considering what that mandate is. And Fuco compares this text, "What is the Enlightenment of Cannes," with another text, " The Revolution." He analyzes the revolution, and that's what he will also consider in another text, "The Conflict of Faculties." And what he sees in these texts is that a

question that begins to emerge is whether there is progress for humankind. That is to say... We progress as a species, human beings are progressing, yes or no? Is there progression? Is there evolution? Are we getting better every day, so to speak? To be able to talk about progress, there has to be a

cause for that progress, yes, and that cause has to act effectively. So that cause is what will give the event precisely the value of a sign, because precisely that cause has to be constant, and what does it mean that it has to be constant? It has to act in the past, act in the

present, and act in the future. Only if we have this cause, if that event is to have the value of a sign, yes, and what that cause does is precisely to have already guided humanity on the path of progress. That is to say, if that cause occurs, then we can say that there is progress in

humanity. So we have seen that that event has to have the value of a sign, and here, Jugo will highlight aspects of the sign. The sign has to be commemorative, demonstrative, and prognostic. Commemorative because it has always been so, that is, that of which that event will be a sign has always been so.

Demonstrative refers to the present; it is so in the The current situation, and the prediction, will continue to be this way in the future, and this relates to this idea of cause, which is a constant cause that acts in the past, in the present, and in the future. So the cause of progress hasn't acted at

a given moment, but rather it's a tendency in humankind; that is, it's something inherent in humankind. What kind of element is this that will have this characteristic of an event and change? Well, it's not something grandiose, it doesn't have to do with empires, it doesn't have to do with great events, but rather it's

something almost imperceptible, if not a great event. So, for example, with respect to revolution, the question is what happens? What element of the revolution is precisely what will transform it into a commemorative, demonstrative, and predictive sign? So what will it discard? It's not the revolutionary upheaval, nor does it matter if the revolution triumphs

or fails. It's not the revolutionary process, nor the change that the revolution produces. None of those elements will be precisely what will have the value of a sign; rather, it will be the sign of progress. Precisely what will give rise to what will be the revolution seen from the outside is precisely the sympathy that this

revolution awakens, and that will be the enthusiasm. So the important thing is not the revolution itself, but precisely what happens in the minds of those who do not make the revolution, and that is the enthusiasm. So this will highlight this in him, since enthusiasm for the revolution, this enthusiasm for the revolution is

precisely what he will call a moral disposition in humanity, and so this moral disposition in humanity will be characterized by two things: one, the right of peoples to establish a political constitution that is convenient for that people; the world, that this political constitution tends to avoid war, that is, that has peace as its objective. So this

moral disposition, which is precisely a disposition related to a political constitution, will have the revolution as a center of movement and radiation of enthusiasm. So this enthusiasm, which has been there since the origins, is a disposition that has been in human beings since the beginning of humanity; therefore, it is a commemorative sign. It is also present in

the present of Kahn himself, and in that sense, it is also A demonstrative sign, and this disposition, since it cannot be forgotten, cannot be left behind, precisely makes us think that it will be able to, will be in the future, and in that sense it is a prognostic sign; therefore, it has the three

necessary elements to be a sign, and this disposition is independent of the success or failure of the revolution. So, consider asking yourself: what is the Enlightenment? Is the revolution? These are forms in which Kahn poses the problem of his own present. So the question is, what must be done so that this will for this revolution,

this enthusiasm for the revolution, is not confused with the revolutionary enterprise? That is to say, what is there to this will for revolution as something different from the revolutionary enterprise? What does that mean? That we must not confuse the enthusiasm for the revolution with what the revolution itself has been. That is why it is

indifferent whether the revolution has succeeded or failed. These two questions that are raised here will determine precisely the philosophical question of what we are in the present. So, football will arise from these two questions that Kahn poses to problematize his own present, to be able to, and comparing it with Other texts will

show how Kant establishes the two great critical traditions of modern philosophy. So, on the one hand, we have what he will call the analytics of truth, and on the other hand, we have the ontology of the present, the ontology of ourselves. So, let's first analyze the analytics of truth. We can find it, let's say,

in the Critique of Pure Reason, and there, precisely, what is studied are the conditions of possibility of knowledge, of knowledge that we will consider true. So, what makes that knowledge possible? Well, we have seen that what makes that knowledge possible is a subject, the transcendental subject. The transcendental subject is a universal subject. Although, then, it is that subject that

produces phenomena and objects, and those phenomenal objects are separate from that subject. We can see this tradition present in all epistemology, which has basically belonged to analytic philosophy and which continues to this day. So, there in the Critique of Pure Reason, he establishes one of the great traditions of modern philosophy, which is the Epistemology

in these other texts where the question of its own actuality is raised, yes, what is the field of possible experiences in this actuality, which are, for example, in this text about the Enlightenment and about the revolution, and here precisely what will be developed is not a critical philosophy as in the Critique of Pure Reason, but a

critical thought, and here precisely what we had seen was to question precisely about that present, about that actuality, to look for what are the elements that signify a process that is taking place, and that here there will not be in that enthusiasm, what is a moral disposition, well, but the question is what interests us here

beyond the answer that Kahn himself gives, yes, that is, what does our actuality consist of? That is the basis of critical thought that has as its origin this problematization that Kahn raises in this text, and this is an ontology of the present, yes, that is where the whole philosophy of football itself is framed, and so what we

have here clearly are two traditions, two currents that have their origin in each one, one is to ask about the conditions, the possibility of knowledge, and the other is to ask about the possibility of experiences, that is, what experiences are possible In our current times, that's the question that will interest football: what experiences are

possible in our present day? And that's the basis of critical thinking. Well, this has been the text by Foucault that we've analyzed. See you in future videos.