I'm a Master's student studying philosophy at the University of Houston. Plato's Cave is my attempt to exit... well, the cave. It's a philosophy podcast meant to help me guide my ascent to the place where life is worth living--and apparently that means giving up a regular job with good pay to pursue the security of the academic job market. Join me on my journey as I cover philosophical works and speak with the best philosophical minds I can convince to come on the show!
Пікірлер
❤Matter is mind in form is also said by Sydney Banks in the 70's. He didn't want much to be recorded as he didn't want to be perceived as any kind of leader, but there are some here on YT.
You have such an organic talent for hosting and making your guest feel welcome and helping them flesh out their own ideas
Thank you so much!!
Ask open-end questions: “Why did you go for PhD?” Not: “Did you get PhD to go into academia?” Interviewer’s ego gets in the way of a good interview.
I can call myself a Bernardo follower. Since retirement and a life changing event four years ago I’ve been trying to understand what is going on with our very existence. I spent a couple years looking at panpsychism and it never resonated even though I kept trying to believe it. Then I discovered idealism through Bernardo and I knew instantly that this makes sense. I’ve listened to everything I can find with him and it keeps making more sense to me. Thank you Bernardo!
what is consciousness again?
I began watching Bernardo Kastrup in his work with Rupert Spira, and I did find his theory unsettling. This discussion helps me to understand his view better than ever before. Huge thanks!
Idealism has a deep intuitive truth to it. After following the logic step by stepit completely changed my worldview. It was dizzying, I felt the room fall away when it happened. It was a real epiphany.
" Lo...do not say either here nor there..."
Thanks for watching!
Naïve realist materialism entails a contradiction in terms: namely, it presupposes that the qualia of consciousness are not the qualia of consciousness. Now, not only is a naïve realist materialism self-refuting, because it presupposes and is founded upon a contradiction in terms (the assumption that qualia are not qualia), but, it is naïve too, implying the absence of impartial criticism, because under no circumstances whatsoever does impartial criticism lead to a contradiction in terms: in other words, naïve realist materialism entails dogmatism (accepting some thesis as true (namely, the thesis that qualia are not qualia) without further reflection, without grounds, without substantiation). The application of impartial criticism inevitably, incontrovertibly, and necessarily leads to a phenomenalist stance (if by phenomenalism is meant “the acknowledgement that what we know is our own consciousness and its attendant qualia”): the application of impartial criticism cannot lead to a contradiction in terms, and, ipso facto, cannot lead to a naïve realist materialism. In a word, it is superfluous to refute materialism, because materialism refutes itself (by way of entailing a contradiction in terms, by assuming that qualia are not qualia); additionally, naïve realist materialism is incompatible with a genuinely impartial criticism, since the application of impartial criticism inevitably leads one to the conclusion that what we know is our own consciousness and its attendant qualia (that we are consciousness ouroborically in a state of interaction with itself, namely, consciousness interacting with its own qualia). kzread.info/dash/bejne/aKZm1JKFpK2vmso.htmlsi=9FJsI_XJoefpWyXD
So universal Mind is unable to do what lower personal minds can?
This makes so much sense 👏
great content! Thank you so much!
What if it’s the opposite? What if there are veritable limits to consciousness and it is actually consciousness that cannot fully comprehend physical existence and falls on its own face all the time?
Is there any empirical evidence for the existence of purely physical stuff outside consciousness? What would evidence for such a thing even look like?
@@leatui7 how can there be “empirical” “evidence” if your postulate is “all is mind”? Neither the math nor the method would add up.
@@therealfahadameen Im asking you to do this within your belief system. You seem to be entertaining the possibility that physicalism is valid. So as a physicalist, all I'm asking is for you to give me an example, within the physicalist framework, of evidence for purely physical stuff (with "physical" defined according to physicalism). In other words, describe to me, as a physicalist would see it, what you would consider evidence for something that is purely physical stuff, stuff that would exist in the absence of any consciousness whatsoever. (please keep in mind, I'm not asking for proof; merely for valid evidence of any kind - please note, I'm not disputing your point or trying to prove anything about idealism. I strongly disagree with almost everything Bernardo says about it, and I'm definitely not a believer in idealist philosophy, so please don't let any of your preconceptions get in the way of answering this simple question) I don't really see why this should be difficult. At least 95% of neuroscientists believed the universe sailed along quite easily for at least 9 billion years without any consciousness. The late Daniel Dennett believed there never has been anything but purely physical stuff. So you would be in the company of the vast majority of scientists. To conclude, from a physicalist point of view, what would you consider evidence for standalone, purely physical stuff?
@@leatui7 Well, like you nearly indicated, the evidence to the contrary is what is difficult to find. We don’t even really know what “consciousness” is or how to measure/describe it(?). Not that I am disapproving such ideas/experiences - in fact, I am in the journey of understanding it myself. What is “purely” physical? And how can a “consciousness” like me ever expect to comprehend what is truly “out there”? If you are familiar with the works of Anil Seth, could be interesting. Daniel Hoffman and the likes are a notch further postulating we are in a simulation. I did for a long time believe the universe is holographic myself. As such, my comment wasn’t so much as a physicalist but our inability to provide “conclusive evidence”. We are prone to solipsism. I do believe “physical’ and “conscious” are essentially singular when we break reality down to information or probability/quantum fields. All being said, if you take the unmeasured measurer as base, physicalism has done just fine in the last century in terms of describing reality. The world around us is perfectly (depending on measurer’s capacity) predictable and measurable, and we can intervene on it - starting from a gallbladder surgery to landing on the moon (or finding aliens).
@@leatui7 That’s quite incredible. I replied last night and find that KZread has somehow not posted it. Coincidence?
How nicely BK explains Advaita.. 👌
According to Yogacara Buddhism (YB), our consciousness is a three-fold transformation of spaces and energy - rather than from the brains. Brains, our sense organs, all physical objects, including our ideas, sciences, and physical laws exist only in names which are illusion of the three-fold transformation. The first transformation is 8th Consciousness, followed by 7th Consciousness, and first 6 Consciousness. These are totally metaphysical. They show up in string theory which are M-theory, F-theory, and 5 superstrings. It's, on the above principle, worth mentioning that string theory can automatically produce entire general relativity (if Einstein has never been born) and all constants required by quantum mechanics (which take a lot of effort to calculate and measure) - as they are produced by the three-fold transformation. Also, we don't "see" with our physical eye organs but with something called "Visual Function of Eye Consciousness" (VFEC) as idealism, as there's nothing exist outside the Mind, hence the actual objects we see are "Image Function of Eye Consciousness" (IFEC). These are repeated for Ear, Nose, Tongue, Body (first 5) and even Mind (6th). Metaverse reality can help to understand. VFEC is like the 2D surface of the goggle the player is wearing where IFEC is like the LED dots on the goggle. That's why string theory naturally has branes (VFEC or the 2D surface of the goggle) and strings on the brane (IFEF or LED dots on the goggle). Exactly like in a metaverse, an apple which thought to exist in reality is an illusion. A metaverse player can never see an apple after taking down the goggle. That's why Yogacara Buddhism, true idealism, says nothing exist outside of consciousness. All the above (transformation and functiona) are through activation of Seeds which are strings in string theory. Seeds are stored in 8th Consciousness where M-theory has dualities to 5 superstrings. In YB, all our experiences are in one of 5 Fruits. 1. The first is Existential (phenomenally correlated to the reptilian brain) which is Type IIB in string theory. 2. The second is Cognition and Action (phenomenally correlated to the cortices) which is Type IIA in string theory. 3. Remember, nothing exists outside of consciousness, the third is called the Superior Fruit which is External (to the body and brain) and Interactions. For example, an apple, conversation, teaching, lesson, bodily movements. These show up as E8xE8 heterotic in string theory. 4. True idealism has to assume that consciousness is the most fundamental. If consciousness is the most fundamental, the number 1 law of the universe is then conservation of conscious actions. The fourth is Maturation which means all our conscious actions wether wholesome or unwholesome will get matured (by 8th Consciousness which has the maturation function). Then there's an endless cycle of birth and death. This is SO(32) heterotic in string theory. 5. Lastly, to get out of the cycles, it's the Fruit of Nirvana. This is Type I in string theory. The above are the reasons why there are 5 superstrings. As an idealistic based consciousness theory needs all the 5. Seeds are also called Dhatus which is an extension of Ayatana. Dhatus and Ayatana basically mean a space that we can't see. As all our experiences are transformation from Seeds, Seeds then need to contain all sorts of information. As Seeds are strings, then Dhatus / Ayatana is naturally the universal hologram. kzread.info/dash/bejne/hYZ908RqaMa4j7A.html
Kastrup examines metaphysics with exceptional clarity - rare to have a philosopher truly able to refute the prevailing paradigm with such rigour and precision. Always a feast for the mind listening to his eloquent and lucid defence of idealism ❤
BK is the Galileo of Consciousness. E=🕉️
I think what bk is saying is obviously true.
But I understand why people disagree. But.... They are wrong. It's important not to play around with this stuff We should be firm about what we know to be true and we should be gracious with people who disagree
I'm no one special but i pay attention to these issues and ive not heard any successful oppositions to Bernardo's views.
The second part of the comment is a quote that references the notion of the rest that comes from being meek after experiencing a burden or dukkha in Buddhism
I like the Buddhist notion of equanimity as a good analog to meek. It gives the flavor of balanced strength and calmness that leads to unshakable peaceThe word for meek in Aramaic is the same word for rest nucha. I believe Jesus is saying: “Come to me and find peace and rest because I am nucha peaceful and restful. Like a little child who is fearful and his father picks him up in his arms and the child feels restful because his father is restful, he has everything under control.
Enjoyed this, you're a good interviewer
I’ve listened to a lot of interviews with BK and he really pops here. But there are a few hints that it was recorded a few years ago. Would love to know when.
BK is on point as always. & it's NO exaggeration either, pathological narratives are afoot.
As I understand it consciousness is non-local and we are only local illusion of the field. But we can open the third eye and get out from the cave because we have a drop of light of the consciousness to which we belong. It is like the relation between the flower (as we are) and the plant to which it belongs (that we also are).
This Podcast has brought out an angle of BK, that I never completely understood before; unity of his version of Idealism with Spirituality! BK's contention that 'all Matter' is Mind at Large, manifesting in form; albeit Dissociated, is an understanding within Spirituality, that it is Consciousness (call it God if you so wish) that manifests as the numerous forms we see. That this dissociation looks like life, is but the icing on the cake. I further found his contention that all is mental; and most likely, is in the form of thoughts, quite in agreement with some sages (who also contend that what we see is ideas), whose interplay with our senses of perception make us see physical objects; which are not physical, at all!
Yes indeed - when I first came across BK I was thrilled that he was giving very good scientific ( and philosophical) arguments for the aeons old philosophy of Advaita Vedanta . Of course there is much in quantum physics - particularly that the observer and the observer are intimately connected - that does the same . E=🕉️
bernardo doesn't understand occams razor
Explain more
@@TimG-lq1pe there are two kinds of entities: rules & consequences. The rules are prior, and the consequences of those rules are subsequent. Occam's razor favors models which reduce prior entities, while saying absolutely nothing about the amount of subsequent entities. If Occam's razor favored the reduction of subsequent entities, then the most parsimonious model of reality would be absolutely nothing at all, which we know is false, thus, this heuristic in selecting a model of reality is not even slightly convincing. However, when we consider Occam's razor to be advocating for reducing the amount of prior entities (rules a system follows), then the multiverse, which follows the rule "everything that can happen in a certain way, does happen in that specific way" is the most parsimonious model. Bernardo's only strategy against the Multiverse is the incredulous stare. But, he's directing his incredulous stare at the natural consequences of using (the true version of) Occam's razor as a heuristic.
@@dmitrysamoilov5989unless you can conceptually reduce consciousness to physical parameters (which is incoherent), idealism is more parsimonious than physicalism no matter how you split it, multiverse or not
Different parts of the brain (eyes, ears, stomach, long term memory) encode information into mathematical structures which are transmitted by neurons to the brain stem. The brain stem decodes the mathematical structures into sensory experience using dedicated neural structures. When these structures are damaged, they result in conditions such as visual agnosia, where a person can only see in black-and-white, but can still remember what different colors are like, and pain asymbolia, a condition where people can still perceive pain but don't have actual suffering or an aversion to it. Now that we know a physical structure in the brain is responsible for decoding a mathematical structure into sense experience, all we have to do is map that physical structure in excruciating detail to find out how it works.
@@dmitrysamoilov5989 think this is just a little bit silly as an argument. I know what he means by Occam's razor and I think everyone else does too. I don't think you're correct in how you're defining it. You're correct in saying that technically if he holds parsimony as an orientating heuristic, he should be a solipsist but that's not a serious point, you're being playful.
If life can be compared to a dream, then why do I (as the subject) always only experience life through 'my' body-mind, an never through 'other' body minds (the ones appearing in 'my life-dream')?
But you are 😂
You’ve may have heard of Sadhguru, Jaggi Vasudev. His talks are always very funny as well as full of insight. He states that he gets his jokes telepathically from the minds of passengers he may be travelling with. He is not a teacher of any spiritual school but is perhaps closest to Vedanta. Ancient Vedanta is saying essentially what Bernardo is saying here about “reality” .. there is only consciousness.
@@seabud6408 this doesn't address my question at all unfortunately
If you are interested then you might wish to look at the videos of Michael James on KZread. He is an expert on Advaita Vedanta generally and the words of Sri Ramana Maharshi in particular . His most recent video ' in discussion with Sandra ' covers the very subject you are querying - solipsism Vs Idealism etc. Best wishes 🙏🕉️
@@michaeldillon3113 Hola, thanks a lot, I listened to kzread.info/dash/bejne/pZiXx5mdmta4oMY.html at 1:05:30 he says that other "I's" experience is just as real as 'my' experience.That's what I am intuitively sure about as well. But why is there always only the same body-mind appearing here, which makes this observation? Nobody ever could explain that...
Materialism is literally stupid.
"I don't need to explain it". Not turtles all the way down. The cogito on steroids. Godel's incompleteness at the base.
Its time to look at what sent the amish into the feilds with horses not tractors. I like Bernardo, but everything seems to be the same but inverted . As far as a measure of humanistic materialism that leans into human dashboard bias hierarchy knowledge of( indirect & direct) lines of measure treating them the same dualism but lieing about yourself it just continues to ignore this and flip the dualism. Lol As if form and shape evolutionary horizon paradoxes on all scales are still a problem, the same problems of no homogenous galaxies, 3 degrees of motion/separation on all scales still fail. All your saying is that humanist orientation and direction inverted and everything is idealism or alive is the same differences. For 80 years classical American pragmatic christian self sacrificed generations just to be proven correct as it funded everyone to prove them wrong and exclude them from countless fields. .proper orientation and direction allowed millions of 3rd grade health class kids to predict code of life measure despite not being inverted and the dualistic Babylonian evolutionary primordial Darwin goo argued against it and teacher pressured to spit lyle argument against all things phenotypical. This comes from same source platogot his but far more literal and physically time & time again proven. This Newtonian peasants revolt separatist pilgrims puritan gonna find Jesus left over fingerprints in creation map it and improves the human condition can not be ignored! Pragmatism would call it literal miracle prophetic orientation and direction graced by God as he moves through at his own discretion. It's dualistic physically mystified minds Magicians that deflected eastern philosophy, not prayer logic conservative ortho and damn sure ain't European German cursed rationalism progressive interventionism. Every where you can see emerging pragmaticism and everyone trying to deflect away Or into the same Ole failed stuff under new modeling
Pluralism humanism for the so called greater good was handed the keys and hi jacking driving daggers through it. Well now here we the world has had tine to make hard adjustments just as these ancestors had to make so long ago and the great great grandkids help pay for new nations, new borders and time to dug up everything In the past. All Humam history is there for all to see yet still, this reluctance is there.
And itts so simple 🤣
@@pinkifloyd7867 Yes its as simple as allowing naturally pragmatic energetic actors to emerge. To witness proper orientation and direction over and over and stop being so hard headed about it. The phenotypical explanatory power is constantly the dominant proof over and over .. Treating Matter as Devine allows time and money to be dictated as local systems that can be manipulated and evolved how powers that be see fit. I like Bernardo but he like most are going through a known history of circling back to Devine matter it's just the other side of the same coin. . Gets in the way while others re loop into finely tuned single cell origin of life ( space is bottleneck) Babylonian evolutionary primordial soup goo that lighting strikes. No, its just uh ,just uh , deductiveness Athens Atomized showers of building blocks of life from comits . No wait it's extreme whatsboutism of panspermia everywhere alive. No it's consciousness everywhere Mean while Lee Cronin and other bad actors looping back to darwins Babylonian matter is divine single cell but let's use abstract assembly Theory selection. All of these are the same conclusions same tricks and all avoid the most pragmatic common sense literally proven most successful explanatory power of all
If one can honestly step outside of personal bias, there is much depth to Idealism. Bernado has done a great job in such a short discussion to explain these depths. If you have ever watched people wearing color blind correcting glasses for the first time, you will see a new experience right there. Thank you for sharing. Cheers from a retired soldier down under.
I disagree. I think consciousness came from mindless evolution
how... and why?
Yes, lots and lots of people think that something unconscious produces consciousness. The debates are about if those people have any actual theories or is it just an assumption based on other premises. It's fun to hear the different responses. Are you more inclined to say that mindless evolution created consciousness (implying there are some differences between consciousness as unconsciousness) or to say that some aspects of mindless evolution simply are conscious?
@rooruffneck "evolution created." Son do you see the contradiction in that? How does something mindless have volition?
@@TJ-kk5zf "have volition." My child, do you see the question you are begging there?
That's mindless
"i do not need to explain it" B. Kastrup
He must be talking about an ontological primitive. Nobody can explain the aspect of reality they take as ground floor. Physicalists and dualists say the same thing.
religion too
@@TJ-kk5zf Yep. Anybody who isn't willing to accept the notion that reality has no fundamental aspect.....they all must posit an ontological primitive that wasn't caused by something else. It's so telling when somebody thinks that Bernardo is being silly when he specifies why he has chosen consciousness as his ontological primitive, as if he should then be able to explain what causes it...yikes.
@@rooruffneck no fundamental aspect? explain how you come to that (pretty stupid and illogical) (non) conclusion
@@TJ-kk5zf No, I'm saying reality does have a fundamental aspect.
So I have a question, are you a compatibilist? I ask because in some of these episodes i get Incompatibilist or impossibilists vibes, but then you have a work that commits you (it seems) against Incompatibilism. Im just incredibly curious haha. - And one further note, hearing from Gregg here has, in some sense, lifted a lot of anxiety off of me about free will. I definitely dont believe in pure backwards moral responsibility, but i think perhaps I still desire some backwards form (i think luck ahhnilates regardless of determinism), BUT my biggest worries werent purely about emotions or blame or morality, but things like agency, selfconception, action, and openness. My worry about free will skepticism like Carusos is the, i think, destructive implications for our notions of agency, choice, meaning, and ability, us being unfolding of the given so to speak. That it seems impossibile to ever go back into the agential perspective. So, in one sense, i agree and am a free will skeptic, but in another, i absolutely could not be a free will skeptic.
Love the question!! I have certainly transitioned from being a hard incompatibilitist to..... well, at least not that. I no longer think that determinism is relevant to free will or responsibility. It doesn't rule out either in any meaningful sense imo. But, as you point out, luck (det or indet) seems to run inescapably deep. I'm not sure that metaphysics has as much to say in this debate as I used to. I agree with you that the most important issues seem to be how we view ourselves and our own agency and how we interact with others, both interpersonally and at a societal level. But tbh I'm realizing how insanely deep and complicated this area of philosophy is, and my new approach has been to backpedal a bit and try to figure out what I think wrt one issue at a time. For now, I would not call myself an incompatibilist! Hopefully more developments to come....
Nice podccats. Do you believe free will exiists? Is libertarian free even possible?
Thank you!! I'd have to know what we meant by "free will" before answering whether I think it exists... BUT I can say that I certainly don't think libertarian (contra-causal) free will either does exist or really even could exist. I think the idea that a free action could be made without being determined by your psychological history, your character, your personal experiences, etc. is not an idea of free action which matches my experience. I feel most free whenever I feel as though I could not do otherwise and I am happy to endorse that action. That's how I felt about leaving my job to go back to grad school--like I couldn't do otherwise. So I think people hinging their hopes on free will is a bit of a mis-fire.
@@platoscavepodcast thanks! I love this perspective! Perhaps we could talk more in depth about this sometime. Love the podcast and interviews. Keep up the good work
@@Think_4_Yourself I'd be happy to! Thanks for the encouragement
Wooo, the legend is back
I live to serve
How do I get the paperlink?
This video should have more views
If only I could trade all the comments like these for more actual views 😅
Your account is great! You have such amazing guests on. I love Caruso and hope his views catch on. I completely agree with him. Thanks so much, really enjoyed!
This good, though I always wonder what this special notion of “control” that agents supposedly have that either non-skeptical accounts don’t capture or else are captured by accounts of free will, but are completely implausible for other reasons. I have much more antecedent confidence that some non-skeptical view is correct than I have in the intelligibility of the control that is being used as a way to undermine non-skeptical views. Similar comments for this special notion of desert called “basic desert.” Maybe that means I’m a dogmatist (akin to Pryor in epistemology). But, anyways, always good to run across these discussions.
You might find any summaries or papers that discuss Leeway freedom and Sourcehood freedom helpful!
@@platoscavepodcast Thank you for the suggestions--I'll look these up! I'll just add that hard incompatiblists or Fw skeptics like GC have to walk a delicate line when talking about the first order implications of their views. For instance, on the one hand, people like GC believe that retributivist impulses have led to our current state of mass incarceration, but, on the other hand, have to argue that the adoption of free will skepticism will not lead us to give up many of our institutions--including those making up what we call our "criminal justice system." In brief, GC's view has to pitch itself as radical enough to call for a major overhaul of our punitive institutions, but, at the same time, not so radical as to completely undermine them and much else. Add further that it is unclear whether the characterization of desert is overly punitive, tied, as it seems to be by many writers, to the concept of proportionality. It is an open question that is partially empirical as to whether, in a given case, optimal deterrence or the maximalization of other consequential values can be achieved by inflicting more punishment than just deserts would warrant. The issues are especially pronounced, at least for deterrence based theories, when the clearance rate/discovery rate of criminal violations is very low. (Of course, there are many that complain that "moral desert" is an elusive concept and so no such comparison can really be drawn.) And, btw, without more, I should add that it doesn't seem to me that FW skepticism entails that we should, ethically, do away with "retributive attitudes" and the practices that reinforce them: you might be a consequentialist about these: for example, arguing that the satisfaction of retributivist hunger for revenge is something we developed as part of an evolutionary strategy and therefore receive great pleasure out of the satisfaction of such hunger. In these cases, possessing and acting on retributive attitudes would be morally justified, albeit on consequentialist grounds. I know that this sort of justification offers no comfort to retributivism as a philosophical theory, but definitely is an open possibility when you think about the implications of adopting a free will skepticism. In any case, thank you again for this gem!
@@adamsimon8220 I'm not an expert on anyone's views, but I do know Caruso says that his rejection of basic desert does affect how he views institutions of punishment. He has a new book called Rejecting Retributivism that I believe touches on that. There's also a great book by Pereboom called free will, agency, and meaning in life (and his earlier Living without free Will) that I believe lay out the interpersonal implications of his view. There's also The Objective Attitude by Tanler Sommers on what that project looks like in daily life!
What I took out of the paper is that If we consider jones #4 morally responsible he couldn’t have done otherwise so the PAP is false
👏
I think that if you listen a sort of a summary from Gregory B Sadler on this book and I think it’s also 2 parts will clarify some of the confusion that when I read this I also had. I think after that I had some idea what it all meant. But I think that this book was purposefully showing the horror that Antonie or a random person would experience and this would be something that is unshakable. As Sartre says that Existence precedes essence, Sartre I think shows here an account on how in a contingent world without a necessary causation objects outside of him not only that don’t have any meaning but they can be seen grotesque because of our inability to have the preconceived notion of why do they exist but they first exist and then people give the quality attributes in a way to lessen their grotesqueness and their apparent meaninglessness. Also I think the protagonist feels this and whenever there is a possibility he flees from the causation of this feeling. He can’t find refuge among people anymore where there would be this I guess instinctual amelioration of the “nausea”. Even the book that he is writing on that diplomat does not make this nausea go away because he is as if passing days in a pursuit of something that is alluring and sort of like a carrot and a stick where he is writing a biography based a coherent narrative for the most part but the project is doomed because he can’t present a reality of the character he is writing about without that knowledge that of writing for someone that he does not have for himself. In a way we don’t know people like we know ourselves. He makes a point to write a novel instead because it would have that cohesion that comes from one’s imagination and that would be a creation of something that would be remembered as his creation or a creation of something meaningful. As for Annie time here plays an interesting factor to sort of leave things of the relation in a kind of same but different feel to it where things of their relationship feel a strange where they have different reactions to each other desire and in the time and deliverance that the reaction could be perceived and this would sort of encapsulate what the misunderstanding between people mean and how things in a way hang in a thread and sometimes even if desire is great there is the chance of the inability of completion of that immeasurable understanding and bonding. The self-taught man in a way that I have seen it is a banal humanist that does not know that his ideas are scattered in a very banal way where he does not know where they come from. He is a sort of a dumpster where you can throw anything in it and he can make a coherent argument, and as Antonie I think puts it there are many kinds of humanists but None of them seem to have the quality of that preconceived notion that tells which one is right and has that meaningful quality that one can truly know for sure who’s right and who is wrong. It’s like that carrot and the stick example that here works in a way that while the self-taught man thinks he is right and in a very superficial way tries to tie Antonie in a position he is also a variation and not a real deal in a way when it comes to truly know what humans are. I think the pedofile thing at the end illustrated a love for humanity in the form of little boys for the self-taught man sort of to explain the banality of the variations of humanity which can exist. Antonie’s encounter with him at the end shows a humanism in Antonie’s part which I think goes to show that the humanistic attitude should be showed even toward people like him because he is after all human in this ironic sense. Overall I would say that this book is very interesting in the sense that it touches I guess for me a general attitude that I have grown through these last years of my life not to say that I completely sort of empathize with the character but a lot of what he goes through I think happens to me time to time right when I don’t know if it happens. I would totally not recommend this book if you are not familiar with Being and Nothingness which is Sartre’s big book of philosophy. I know it took it long, I am sorry but it was a great discussion of you guys even though we may disagree 😂 . Sorry for my English, it is my second language😅
I love the idea of Antione fleeing from the feeling of causation!!! That's a wonderful way to put it and I think substantively different than how I was originally conceiving it. I've never heard of that summary but I'll definitely check it out! I also really like your interpretation of the self-taught man; I think that we found his behavior at the end of the book so strange that it corrupted the philosophical point that Sartre was using him to make. I also definitely agree that we should have read being and nothingness before Nausea, that a tactical mistake. Your English is fantastic--I cannot speak any second language so I'm amazed when people like you apologize for excellent writing! Thanks for the comment!!!
A scientific investigation wouldn't be possible without "free will". Without "free will", our minds ("brains") wouldn't know how to separate true information or usable data from influenced information or false data. The results from all scientific investigations would be corrupted. Although computers can be programmed to separate data, a computer can only process data by following a human programmer's instructions. For example, a computer can't decide on it's own to choose another way to separate data, it wasn't programmed to recognize as true information or usable data, and influence information or false data. Human beings can have unlimited creativity, like a professional master artist painting on a blank canvas (computers are limited by it's program and circuits), because of our unlimited imaginations. A human mind is more than chemical reactions reacting to the environment, or a product of the physical universe (God created us). We all have a mind ("self-aware consciousness") that is uniquely ours (including genetically identical twins). A human mind probably exist at the quantum energy level (quantum vacuum energy state of matter) that supersedes classical physics (the ordering of cause and effect of the observable physical universe). This superseding property is necessary to have free will. It allows human beings (with God's help) to overcome their emotions, biases, other preconceived ideas, and instantaneous temptations. Time is also needed to evaluate all possible choices accurately and completely, before a decision is made. Here's a link to an interview of Dr. Ruth Kastner PhD.; philosopher at physics department at New York State University (who believes "free will" is real and obeys the laws of quantum physics): kzread.info/dash/bejne/eKqLwcuTn9LNdNI.html The uncertain nature of people is not explained by randomness. Quantum phyics is not random. The positions of the subatomic particles only appear to be random, because exact measurements aren't possible (only probability measurements) with modern-day instruments. Here's a link to a video by PBS Space Time that describes the Quantum Eraser experiment. It shows that quantum entangled particles, like a photon, can influence each other instantaneously across great distances in a timeless and spaceless quantum vacuum energy state of matter- "Is what really defines reality in this space-time" -PBS Space Time. kzread.info/dash/bejne/aoOGrrCYe9qnl9Y.html
this chanel is amazing. I'll show it to all my classmates and some teachers too.
That would be amazing!! I'd love for more people to know about it
Gracias. It really helps me. Tomorrow I have to give an exposition of this. Greetings from Argentina.
Amazing that someone as far away as Argentina can see this!! Thank you!
Hey, this sounds like an intro from another youtuber, BayAreaBuggs
Thank you for this! Made his works way more understandable and helped with my homework a ton! Well made too!
Love to hear that!!
Hey guys, its been a while since i've listened to your conversations... I never read this novel, but I have read Crime and Punishment, and this definitely carries over many of the anti-hero motifs of the self doubt, delusion, self loathing and just self exile into misery... I actually happened to be both a girl and russian, and I'm happy to see that you pickd a translation that was able to successfully transmit both the humor and also the gloom in Dostoyevsky's writting. There is definitely a layer of russian culture you might not be able to pick up on so easily... but Dostoyevsky's books are almost like a dark mirror for russians to see themselves through - Dostoyevsky's books are diconstructive of a 'Russian mindset' through characters that spiral down with their overthingking, lack of emotional maturity and hot-headedness which leads to self sabotage and cinicism. And though Dostoyevsky's anti-hero are usually men, the way he writes the inner monolog of the character trancends gender. As a girl, i dont identify with the author's female characters because they are usually plain and cardboard like - they seem to have some positive qualities, but they are always just reactionary, and lack any will.
Hey! (First of all that actually very cool that we have a Russian listener - and I also like that we don't completely push away a female audience lol) I do love this translation. And wow that's really cool to hear - I knew that this novel was written for a Russian audience, but I wasn't aware that those cultural issues are still pervasive in many ways today. I wonder what Notes from Underground would have looked like from a more American perspective... And yes, I very much agree with you that Liza is a bit of a cardboard figure, but in some ways she's one of the most understandable people in the novel. It's filled with great characters!
@@platoscavepodcast Keep doing what you do! you guys deserve a lot more listeners. I been following your content since the street epistemology days... and though i dont catch every video that you release, all the ones that i did fully watched are awesome! "Those who walk away from Omelas" and the "Moral Machine" were my favs! Regarding Dostoyevsky's work, after reading this novel, what do you guys think of JP's recent rants? I couldnt help but to see JP as THE Underground man... with his grandiouse rightious indignation monologues, that are just ripe for ridicule. Let me know what you think
@@AP-ss7lt Haha I absolutely love the idea of JP as the modern day underground man. I don't think this is a good argument against what he says (that can be brought down just by looking at it), but he definitely strikes me as someone who was bitter and resentful for all those years before he got famous, and now doesn't have what it takes to endure the spotlight. He does seem still stuck in that stage where the underground man is whipping the coach driver and telling off the young prostitute for how she's wasting her life because it feels better to degrade someone below you then actually help them.
@@platoscavepodcast totally agree! although I think he doesnt go as far as degrade someone below him(at least i havent seen clear examples) what i have seen is he has a messiah complex for thinking that he is the savior of 'lost young men', and he also seems to be easily moved by his own speech... JP definitely has many layers... i admit that agree with some of his life coaching ideas... but, his twitter rants, the trans fixations, and of course, the needless mystification of the mundane language through his metaphysical lens... there is a lot to criticize there, and in some ways his ideas do lead into the incel rabbit hole that can be quite dangerous... But him being a big Dostoyevsky fan, im surprised that he lacks the self-reflection to see the parallels between his thoughts and the thoughts of the fictional characters that he seems to loathe... I dont know, I try to not be biased, but I keep concluding that history will see him as one of the "bad guys" of today's social issues arena.
@@AP-ss7lt Very sad that he cannot recognize the underground man in himself. Yeah he just seems like the only reasonable stuff he says - the life coach stuff - is pretty obvious... which doesn't mean he couldn't have been a force for good if he stuck to that. It's a shame he had to go off the deep end like so many people in the IDW did