Today we live in a complex world where we are consumed by commodities and have killed all and every God that once existed. We have replaced religion with science, but what is the long term effect of this change for our psyche?
We have gained a lot of knowledge regarding religion, psychoanalysis and science, yet the bridge between them has not yet been build. Could it ever be built? Why are we here, and why do we all suffer? What is morality in a Godless age and how do our desires guide us to our own demise? This and more is what we will find out on this channel.
To do this, we make videos on the greatest philosophers, psychoanalysts and scientists that ever lived like Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Kant, Lacan, Jung, Freud, Alan Watts, etc.
Our motto: "If you choose to play, play to win. Take it seriously, yet not to serious".
Пікірлер
Well done, and you deserve more subscribers! Just subscribed!
Awesome, clear and concise!
These are so awesome. Thank you!
Free will seems to be an evolution of our culture and religion to teach us to control the physical aspects of our life and thus have the cognitive free will to decide with the morality we have chosen
This video was pretty awesome, As someone faced with the great challenge of life and dealt a shitty hand but also the option to climb out of it, it is weird to serve as inspiration for my brethren, to be stoped by a few people who tell me that I inspire them to b greater, that in this cesspool of degeneracy there is hope even for the lowly, that we should all aspire to be more and face the challenge of life with dignity
I searched "fichte", "fichte ego" and "fichte system". On all these searches this video did not come up! This video came to my recommended feed, I'm very happy it did because this is a very usefull video to me! I ordered his Wissenshaftslehre and it's being delivered in 2 weeks. I'm using my time untill then to prepare myself further and this video was a good resource that I will definitely be rewatching.
Is there going to be another video on Nietzsche?
Why was Shopenhaur Niestche's enemy?
That's a good question! So basically Schopenhauer amd Nietzsche draw the same conclusion, namely that life is suffering. But for Schopenhauer the cure is to deny life. To retreat into philosophy and renounciation like the chistian priests. But for Nietzsche this philosophy is very dangerous and he blames Schopenhauer for creating a school that celebrates this denial. For Nietzsche we should celebrate life! Yes it is suffering, but we should embrace it and try to overcome, not avoid it, because we cannot avoid sufgering. No matter how hard we try. So they are the polar opposites of each other.
As someone who has suffered greatly but has overcome I agree. This modern denial of life and suffering is wrong, it will only cause more suffering. I have burned myself in many fires and overcome inconceivable obstacles that these “intellectual” claim to care about but live in decadence and delusion and avoid the real solutions
Marx didn't understand what capital is...he was confusing capital with money. Not that he didn't fundamentally understand it, but he maliciously leading people to a view of the world that would justify his lazy parasitical life style. He was evil and not just ignorant. He was in his own terms a Lumpenproletariat...although he didn't belong to the proletariat, he came from a very wealthy bourgeois family and he was married with an extremely wealthy aristocrat...it's hilarious to even dream that he had any concept of how it was to be from the working class...since he didn't work a single day of his life or even spoke with working class people. In short he was a fraud and marxism is a fiasco.
He has returned !
When I gave Slavoj a copy of my Ecology without Nature in 2007, he was profoundly influenced and started to broadcast the idea. He did eventually cite me (in In Defense of Lost Causes): "brilliant"; and since then we've done dialogues (for example in Real Review 2021), and we email back and forth. I'm acknowledging him in my new book Hell: Towards a Christian Ecology, which came out just exactly when his one on Christian atheism came out.
If Nietzsche was alive, he would have called this life denial. Embrace the wanting. These priests want you to sleep. Also, does he say anything about those desires that you realize that really do make you happy over time? This things do exist, even materialistic things like nice cars.
Really appreciate your comment! You know Nietzsche well and he would be proud. By chance our next video will be on Nietzsche. I do believe that philosophy could use some extra Nietzsche. 🙂
Early psychology is such mystical nonsense, and French psychology is a thousand times worse.
I have a question please … did he believed in universal and abstract entities as independent being ? If not then how he thought of them ?
your insights are always spot on and truly inspiring. I did notice the prounpuncation of Gichte's name is wuite off ( i've dtruggled a lot, science months avtually if i shall mention it), i'm not german but öive here over a decade therfore i thought adressing it might qualify as something constructive. Because Fichtes name is also a name for a particular tree type its quite easy to find great audio ressources... i don't wanna name them to not sound as an ad. Im sorry to mention such a tiny thing, but it clushes with the genius contenet. Sorry. Dont hate me! Keep up the fantastic work! 🎉
Thank you for your comment! And feedvack is always welcome!! I am glad to hear that ypu like the content, and if ypu do send the name of the source I will make sure to say it correctly in the next videos 🙂
thank you! thank you for everything you huys have done. Ans gor a shelter for my mind in any tie of the day. thanks
Thank you for making this video!
Thank you
To think that what makes us human beings miserable is called objet petit a…
This video is so damn good. I swear Lacan is complicated. The barrier to entry is like nothing else. And you put it so clearly.
I found this really annoying and it did not explain anything at all it was just a string of jargon words next to each other
sophistry
Thanks. Very understandable😊
I'm inclined to agree with schoppenhauer that the German idealists totally missed what Kant was about, and got lost in the conceptual.
Who ever states that ecology tells, green paradise is ecology, never understood what's about. Ecology studies the interconnected relations in which organisms aquire what they need to survive. Its often cruel, but never the less we know now that all organisms totaly depend on the networks and energy and material flows of the whole ecospere. At least we depend totaly on the free lifesupport that nature delivers. To tell this doesn't exist is Bullshit. Furtheremore we now understand that these are complex self organising systems, prone to tippingpoint scan thresholds, that can drive them into extremely fast changes where they can switch from one quasi equilibrium in another. These are the danger, because we can push them exceedingly strong, and it changes longtime linear, befor nonlinear changes totaly chaotic change the system untill it falls into another stable Refugium. To ignore this is absolute stupid, because humankind has never ever been more dependant on nature it is a part of, then ever before
Enjoying your work. Thank you very much.
this assumes that people do things only for a desired outcome. that we think by doing x,y,z we will be happy. but that isn't necessarily why people do things at all. this theory tries to make universal claims about the way people think and there is just no way you can do that
this theory only holds if you believe that desire is the most important thing. but i dont mind not desiring anything once i obtain it. so i dont miss that loss. why does it give so much emphasis on desire being the thing we value most?
Very interesting topic! There's so little about Fichte, thanks for this. What about a video on Novalis? His philosophy is relevant in this very context and it's even less analysed than Fichte's. Keep up the good work, cheers!
Someone should also write a book on "How to read Zizek"! 😂
Radical and interesting contrarianism by Zizek, but at bottom he is surprisingly unwise here. Has he ever spent a week in the wild even once? I doubt it. Yet he “knows” nature is a dead end. 😂 He is blatantly ignoring quality for quantity. He is throwing out the wisdom of thousands of indigenous civilizations in favor of our modern “civilized” society which is undoubtedly one of the least ethical, least sensitive, and least happy ever to have lived. The true harmony of nature is not “things never change”, “death doesn’t happen” or “life is painless”. The harmony of nature which he so badly misunderstands is more like: “Time is cyclical. Beauty transcends the individual. In spite of my death, life on Earth will go on.” It is this deep spiritual confidence in life’s persistence that comes from being present in and in tune with the natural environment, which our sick industrial society threatens and destroys so callously and pointlessly. Like Nietzsche explained: Schopenhauer was sick. Lamenting all this pain everywhere and giving up on organic life is not a sign of great empathy or wisdom, but of physical and mental illness. Today most of us are trained from birth to hide behind our stupid comforts - TV, painkillers, cars, computers - never realizing that the more we run to our artificial comforts and distractions, the weaker we become, the less we are able to bear the reality of Earth, and the more we seek to escape to some fake techno-utopia. Check out Ludwig Klages’ “Man and Earth” for a great opposing view and counterpoint to Zizek.
Thank you. I'm almost done reading zizek's sublime object of ideology and this was very helpful 🙏🏻
Very good.
I just finished How to Read Lacan and this was a perfect next step to a deeper understanding to the three registers. Thank you.
It seems to me a bit oversimplified. The will to live - what is actually the act of "living"?! When a subject experiences depression, does he still have the will to live? Is everything really the same will? Also regarding "suffering" - Is everything the same suffering? or are there different levels to it? do we always suffer or maybe it comes in certain waves? Is it inherently bad and negative like it seems to be portrayed (suffering vs happiness, life vs death) or maybe it's all complicated sensations though out time that we experience as part of life that we compress into simplified words to make our existence a little bit more coherent which in turn creates more suffering , negativity or sometimes positivity?
What is we find the particle that cause gravity, wouldn't that mean to know gravity in itself ?.
Slave labor makes money. The slaves make a commodity that is sold for money. Slavery is essentially maximized surplus value extraction. A little bit of Marx will help to unfuck peoples brains, but not if you misrepresent him 😂 I can't believe he even entertained Jordan Peterson
excellent video
Gotta say these videos are high quality content!!! I'm shocked that it's still less than 1k views
Unbelievable vid my friend. I don’t want to puff you up, but you are one of the most insightful persons I’ve heard. Stay humble. Keep your head down. Stay curious, and keep searching. Really thankful for your vids.
What is the name of the movie in the first?
I need translation to arabic
My question is if the mirror stage is so importabt to development of the symbolic order what happens in the age of video where the infant might see him/herself acting out on a screen that is not a mirror? Also can we develop the symbolic order in our pets if we expose them to mirrors and try to get them to understand it when they are puppies/kittens/parrotlettes.
This very well maybe the most insightful video I’ve ever seen!! Amazing! Excellent dissection of human desire, and where it originates from.
"And so on"
I can't believe i'm watching this after Evangelion 4.0😅😅
thanks, it's simple to understand this way, God bless ya
I use to think Sam Harris was smart but I realized he is not after many years of contemplating free will and determinism. “Soft determinism” is true. If hard determinism is true then no experimental evidence could be trusted nor could our senses. If hard determinism is true then all debates are rendered useless. One cannot contemplate in a hard deterministic universe but only the illusion of contemplation. If the contemplation is an illusion then the results of the contemplation could never be seen as wise or correct. That would mean the person holding a belief of hard determinism admits they have lost a debate in advance. Obviously libertarian free will is wrong because minds are interacting with a world and other minds and they respond in an ordered way. If hard determinism was true crimes could never be said to be crimes. A person could always claim they couldn’t have done otherwise. Even if they were locked up to keep the public safe any feelings of guilt or wrong doing could never said to be objectively wrong. In fact if hard determinism was true thinking, logic, morality, truth, and intelligence could never be shown to be objectively true but only subjectivity true. Since objectively is necessary for truth nothing could ever be said to be true. In this video I assume hard determinism is being argued for and therefore the video
I don't have all of the seminars, and so I'm learning a lot from excerpts. There's so much information to sift through to answer the million questions I have. When Lacan asserts that the "I think" of the Cogito is like something inside a homunculus that causes the Subject to be and act, and then shows how that leads to an infinite regress, is he then using that as a way to show that thoughts stem directly from unconscious impulse because it's the most logical way for him to break the infinite regress of the "I think, therefore I am?" As Nietzsce says, "It" is doing the thinking, and we are acting the thought. But what is doing the thinking that causes the thinking of the it? and so on and so on... Does it all just stop at impulse? In other words "desire"? So, unconscious desire is what's doing the thinking, and language is like the passport which allows the subject to enact the desire in one way or another? Or is the big Other that is doing the thinking from outside, and we just reiterate it within a form that fits our desire? Like, the unconscious is just this empty mirror/jug that sucks language in from the big Other to understand its own Oedipal drives and then manipulates the signifiers and ships them back out to create action? Am I just making stuff up here, or have I actually learned something?
Great summary! Nice work! Thank you!