I think Stephane is wrong here, It is not because we lack of pation that philosophy fails. I think it is because the socratic principles are not the foundation of education, therefore most of the educational system ''sophisticates'' or endoctrinates people with a shit ton ''general knowledge'' instead of teaching them Socratic questionning because it disturbs the established views of the Era.
Also Wisdom skills are not that well rewarded in this competitive system.
Socrates touches on the duality of opposites without being explicit about it. i.e How could we know pleasure if we did not know despair and what would make it special or worthwhile? How could we identify wisdom if we did not recognise ignorance? etc. A thing is not a thing without an opposite thing to contrast it with. The use in this philosophy is in admitting that even with all our knowledge, we know nothing and should keep searching. This underpins and gives rise to the scientific method.
This was very interesting, and very well structured. Sounds like you're knocking on a new paradigm - one we can no longer avoid. Will watch the rest and comment more then! Thanks so much!
Best video that I have seen on youtube...ever. Stefan, thanks so much, I've been looking for videos with EXACTLY this sort of content. For whatever reason I've lately been troubled trying to cohesively integrate all these disciplines throughout history in a memorable and interesting (and passionate) way giving a perspective to view how these subjects are interconnected. Check out James Burke's "Connections" on youtube or his "The Day the Universe Changed" on my channel for anyone interested.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The problem with you philosophy teachers is you CANT teach you use all these big ass words with your fancy little talk and people dont understand that shit regular people that didnt stick their dick in a vacuum when they were children the BEST teachers know their audience
1.Your sweeping criticism of philosophy in distancing reason from passion for human welfare is unjust. It was great philosophers who promoted Modernity. Machiavelli sought "the common good of each" (Discoursi 1st preface) & despised the Church, Bacon sought "the relief of man's estate" w his Great Instauration & vision of a New Atlantis, Descartes criticised the Scholastics, saying men must go "as owners & masters of nature," Spinoza's the father of "higher criticism" & promoter of the modern...
2.commercial republic, Pierre Bayle doubted the need of religion as a social glue, & one need only name Locke. Your quarrel is perhaps more just against ancient philosophy. But remember WHY the moderns thought their philosophy could rule: by enhancing human power they could bring great earthly benefits easily appreciated by the superstitious masses w which they could be weaned from the priests. Perhaps the ancients had reasonable fears about the perils of increasing human power, & 20th century..
3.history should give one pause before discounting it as childish or otherwise due to their greater timidity or contempt of mankind, though it's also true that in their preoccupation [or I should say, their eros--for THIS was their overriding passion (it's unjust to say they were passionless reasoners)] with knowing the eternal first causes of things, they tended to look down on ephemeral human affairs as not having serious worth, since anything they'd establish they knew would soon pass away.
This is amazing stuff. I would like to learn more about him. I have been to Delphi and it was stunning (and very very hot!!!!). Thanks again for this post and the others.
What you are doing is using rationality while discarding the philosophical foundations upon which it rests.
Science uses mathematics which is an applied philosophy.Mathematics rest on an axiomatic structure whose statements are assumed to be true.Truth and falsehood in mathematics are nonverifiable ideas, just as numbers themselves have no objective reality "out there"..
Science and rationality are tools, no more, no less.
Truth and falsehood are ideas in the mind..a logical conceptual framework must be constructed and there must be a bijective mapping (for discrete) or homeomorphic mapping (for continuous) between the framework and "reality" out there..of course even in a very simple framework you will still end up with propositions that cannot be proven or disproven.
@Bunnydancer777 didnt Newton's "principia"(sp?) answer that question? I mean....it take almost an entire volume to prove beyond reasonable doubt that 1+1 impericaly = 2.
science is based on objective mathematical descriptions of objective observation of nature. it is NOT a philosophy that is open to debate.
this question is a meaningless one because it has already been established. we are done with it.
to volley it around any more is just mental masturbation.
I may not be an anarchist like you, but MAN! I love your vids! A lotta what you say is what I've felt for a very long time but I just don't meet many folks that feel the same way, lol.
@stefbot Wouldn't it be safe to say that using passion as a weapon just like those we wish to liberate would be contradictory to the teachings of truth? I agree, using passion is effective, but only because of the "sex sells" mentallity of it, not because intellectuals (ironic, i know, my spelling is awful) actually need to experience passion to experience truth. The "masses" those, less..... literate and down to earth, need the emotional charge of passion, those in need of truth i believe don't
@stefbot Wouldn't it be safe to say that using passion as a weapon just like those we wish to liberate would be contradictory to the teachings of truth? I agree, using passion is effective, but only because of the "sex sells" mentallity of it, not because intellectuals (ironic, i know, my spelling is awful) actually need to experience passion to experience truth. The "masses" those, less..... literate and down to earth, need the emotional charge of passion, those in need of truth i believe don'
Put simply you really can't teach anyone anything. You can only help them with new information that they must actively use to learn. I am studying to be a math teacher for high school/college and I've learned already that just because something is provable and clear with enough facts and the right way of thinking about it, doesn't mean to can force feed the theorem (or in philosophy's case conclusion) to them until they comprehend.I believe it's the same kind of mental blocks found in math.
nice vid stef. i'm always naturally passionate when talking about philosophy. everyone tells me i should calm down about it. thanks for the reinforcement.
You are trying to unite passion and "truth". The problem is that very many people think they have access to the "truth" when they don't, and their passion has rallied people to do lots of horrible things.
But I'll watch the other videos before I say more.
But I respect your effort, and agree that some new method is needed in philosophy, in which passion is essential.
I'm waiting to see how you can possibly claim that Socrates wasn't deeply pasionate. Perhaps the terminology should be cleard up. Passion, emotion, feeling and desire are related but have quite a different role and value in human life, and also for Plato.
NB, Plato nearly died, and was temporarely enslaved because of his efforts to realize his ideas in real world politics.
I don't like tahat american style of talking as if you are selling me a pitch i should invest in. At least it shows your honesty because that is exactly what you are doing. Not for money, of course, but for the sake of your ideology.
The main difference between you and Socrates (and what I concider philosophy) is your stance that you have it all figured out. No discussion is needed, one should only listen to your preaching and nod in astonishment.
Great subject, reminds me of classic old school Stefbot videos, which I've missed very much.
I don't think project philosophy has failed. You're here!
For me, it seems that it should take a very long time for human beings to embrace something as powerful as philosophy. I dont think there is any way the majority can embrace philosophy before they even embrace sciences, like psychology.
You look great, Stef. Hope all is well with your family.
If you truly believe that you are making significant discoveries about truth, meaning, ethics etc. then clearly these are very important. If you discover them and AREN'T passionate about them it is in fact intensely suspicious. If philosophy is important then you should be passionate about success in it, just like entrepenuers, scientists etc. are passionate. To be calm about it implies you didn't think it was that important in the first place, in which case why bother?
If the reason Philosophy has failed so badly because of its lack of passion. Do you think Religion/Statism uses passion to unconsciously sabotage Philosophy?
i have found that as truth as well use both the left and right hemispheres of te brain and you will be able to understand not just yourself but creation itself
I agree to a lot of what you say. You are one of the best spokesmen for philosophers and philosophy on You Tube. You are correct that many philosophers in the past in general have not been passionate enough about philosophy. Philosophy has also partly failed because many philosophers and people generally have been far too cynical, subjective, relativist, mystical, illogical, etc., which becomes circular. Philosophers need to become more objective, empirical, logical, impartial and honest, etc.
People repress passion into there philosophical debates because people view passion in the truth as hostility towards their irrational selves. Those who bring up the truth are those that have lost many battles in the past to irrational behavior. It's best for one to not even engage.
I would very much like to see a video devoted to passion and inspiration itself. In particular, what has your personal experience been? Have you always been someone who dives "head first" into his own pursuits? Or, did you have to grow into it?
Well I could personally solve this problem with a few different solutions. All resolving around the fact that protecting your land isn't murder. It can in fact be righteous to defend your land from invaders. Therefore local militias could combine to try and ward off enemy invaders. Not to mention the fact that no country with nuclear weapons has ever been invaded :p
The thing about anarchy is that it is open to development. Just think about it and you could probably find solutions to issues.
Then philosophers who find the best solutions publish them. The best ideas will gain the most scrutiny which will lead to further development like any theory. If these ideas prove to be true under all the scrutiny then Anarchism will inevitable gain support. Point being is just because anarchy seems impossible... Democracy (in truth Republics) seemed impossible and yet it developed from philosophers. As we progress there is no reason to believe we wont one day gain our freedom.
Taxes suck... I dont think an intelligent anarchist become an intelligent anarchist because of taxes though. I think Stefbot put it well when he pursuaded me that government cannot achieve anything without coercing us. This alone pursued me that government was bad. Anarchy is so free for development I dont think it matters whether or not you would agree with Stef, you can advertise your own. So in truth yes we are anarchist because the state is violence.
Well do remember there were roads before states dominated this planet. As for other public stations... There are two ways to take care of this in my mind. Either people organize themselves or businesses organize themselves. Either way both parties would have to gain support and money in the same way that the government raises money, but it would have to be voluntary.
If they couldn't gain the support... Then the people didn't really want to infrastructure. Only the popular ideas will win out. Now this may seem bad but only the truly good ideas will get built. Now schools... Schools would defiantly be privately owned. You could also have public schools that are paid by charities/special groups. That would make our society much better as is. Infrastructure could also be private (sort of like Toll Roads). How does that sound?
Your completely right that is one of the two pre-requisites in my mind to a prepared anarchy. We need a global net for all transactions and an intelligent majority. Lots of questions do remain but it is always fun interesting to try and find answers :)
Solutions to implement anarchy? Well the global net requires technology and the intelligent majority requires the new people to learn and be philosophers, but it also requires that the old die off. IMO anarchy is inevitable because it seems like the next step to gaining freedom, and if history proves anything we gradually go from more repressive societies to less repressive societies... At least as long as we continue to progress as a society.
Answers to how we implement anarchy? Well as for the two prerequisites to prepared anarchy... First we need technology to create a global network. As for the intelligent majority... Like most intellectual revolutions it requires young people to be students and philosophers (every person who is ambivalent to these subjects is the problem). The solution is to teach the young and let the old die off with their stagnant ideals. I can't say we will have anarchy anywhere close to our lifetimes.
I've got another suggestion. Philosophy got its butt kicked for all those years becouse its difficult and PAINFULL! It does not suck up to anyone, and it doesn't make anyone feel better about himself. For example, your videos have made me feel pretty damn stupid and, well, evil. I know that the vast majority of people don't like having their belief systems challenged, and will go to any lengths to protect them.
The scary part is, I'm only different becouse I was already disillusioned and full of doubts in the first place. I think I got to the point where I just went through the motions, without believing anything, so there wasn't really anything for me to protect. If I found you a year earlier, I would attack you without a moments hesitation, and without any conscious doubts whatsoever, just becouse you spit in the face of many of the things that made up my identity in that period. Its kinda depressing
So, it appears, were mine. Fuck, they still are, I haven't done any research for myself. Anyway man, why be so hostile towards everyone else? I mean, I'm an ex- skinhead for Christs sake, I know all about hostility! But even then I wouldn't exactly call people worthless only becouse they are ignorant, and certainly wouldn't "frown on the human species". But then again, maybe I'm just trying to make myself feel better. Anyway, lighten the frak up, or you'll pop an artery. It aint worth it.
Yes but to everyone there is a different meaning of "making the most of life". Theres not some universally standard checklist of things you need to do to live a happy life.
I find pointing out shortcomings in others and in society quite exhilarating, so why would I stop doing something that feels so good. I guess in that way Im a hedonist.
Complete BS! I was a hardcore republican christian a few years ago. It was the examination of politics that changed my political view, and my examination of philosophy that changed my view on truth. 2 years later, I'm a new person. People are more receptive than you think... especially in these harsher times.
It was YOU who changed your position, someone might have helped but that person didn't TRY to change you. By "trying" I meant putting in more effort than necessary that would defeat the position you are arguing for in the first place.
So what you're saying is, people who do not seek philosophy on their own are worthless human beings and the scum of the earth? That doesn't make sense. We were all told about philosophy at some point in our life. oops I guess i just proved your point... :)
As Socrates himself said, the unexamined life is not worth living. So why should I care about people who's lives are not worth living?
Philosophy or the ability to reflect on life is the one thing I believe that separates us from animals (and there is not sufficient empirical evidence to disprove they are capable of this) so why should I treat someone who does not philosophize any different than any other animal?
You have sentience, take advantage of it or loose it..
The problem or one of the problems I have with what you just said is that the general public won't just die in wilful ignorance, they will raise innocent childs in ignorance and turn them in to mindless zombies like themselfs and their parents before them, and at the same time they will keep messing up the lifes of others wich aren't ignorant.
Also I don't think that's a good thing to do, even if I sometimes get so tired of them that I think that to myself.
What value have these so called inocents earned? Simply existing is not sufficient enough to justify being valued in my opinion. I think that value should be earned.
Like I said, Im a misanthrope. I frown upon the human species.
I think the value earned if you want to put it that way, would be a better place to live faster evolution both tech and mentality wise that would benefit everyone including you.
Philosophers retreat behind a "wall" and disengage because it is dangerous to use even basic Socratic methods in the general population. They end up being the whipping post of others frustrations when reason and logic strike deep into their beliefs.Philosophers being generally logical people...they don't see value in being hurt(physically, emotionally, financially, etc.) in trying to point out empiricism(s). It's easier for those with "f-u money" or "distance" to explore & point out such things.
Philosophy tries to explain questions which are many times more difficult than the questions asked by physicists, so I'd claim that you can't really compare those things.
Also economics which you mentioned previously asks a lot of hard questions, not as difficult as the basic philosophic questions, which is why people have less basic knowledge regarding economics than physics, while they have less basic knowledge about philosophy.
I think Aristotle would agree that passion is important. He simply believed in a compound of passion and desire. He was definitely not against the idea of passion, of a life constituted only by reason (though it's debatable to some extent by dint of his final remarks in the Nichomachean Ethics.)
11:01 hu hu hu hu hu hu
chisleu 5 days ago
wasn't it a friend of socrates tthat went to the oracle and was told that socrates is the wisest man in athens? and not socrates himself?
KGX16 7 months ago
@KGX16 Yes, Chaerephon (who was dead by the time of the trial, though his brother was apparently present and able to corroborate if needed).
sybo59 7 months ago
I watched/listened to all six segaments. Wow! Very interesting and thought provoking.
1717jbs 8 months ago
I think Stephane is wrong here, It is not because we lack of pation that philosophy fails. I think it is because the socratic principles are not the foundation of education, therefore most of the educational system ''sophisticates'' or endoctrinates people with a shit ton ''general knowledge'' instead of teaching them Socratic questionning because it disturbs the established views of the Era.
Also Wisdom skills are not that well rewarded in this competitive system.
Elementorum 8 months ago
The oracle said "dude" lol.
FlailingJunk 1 year ago
@zencat999 this was a year ago WTF?
BTW IT IS "EMPIRICAL " not IMPIRICAL..
Since you cannot work it out for yourself, try reading
"Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge " BY POPPER AND GET BACK TO ME.
Bunnydancer777 1 year ago
Passion is a tool. And like any took can't be good or bad, but be used FOR good or bad.
dyne313 1 year ago
Socrates touches on the duality of opposites without being explicit about it. i.e How could we know pleasure if we did not know despair and what would make it special or worthwhile? How could we identify wisdom if we did not recognise ignorance? etc. A thing is not a thing without an opposite thing to contrast it with. The use in this philosophy is in admitting that even with all our knowledge, we know nothing and should keep searching. This underpins and gives rise to the scientific method.
jacksawild 1 year ago
I wish you were a Supreme Court Justice
luvhafiz 1 year ago
am a bit high having to watch it twice wish I had a dictionary.......might "borrow" one from work tomorrow so yeah I like it :D
enjoy your day
xargon84 1 year ago
We are on the verge of a philosophical renaissance.
Kitt0000 1 year ago
This was very interesting, and very well structured. Sounds like you're knocking on a new paradigm - one we can no longer avoid. Will watch the rest and comment more then! Thanks so much!
mikkojarvenpaa 2 years ago
thank you so much for these lectures they really helped me so much.
TCTCT 2 years ago
Best video that I have seen on youtube...ever. Stefan, thanks so much, I've been looking for videos with EXACTLY this sort of content. For whatever reason I've lately been troubled trying to cohesively integrate all these disciplines throughout history in a memorable and interesting (and passionate) way giving a perspective to view how these subjects are interconnected. Check out James Burke's "Connections" on youtube or his "The Day the Universe Changed" on my channel for anyone interested.
SpiralOut11235 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The problem with you philosophy teachers is you CANT teach you use all these big ass words with your fancy little talk and people dont understand that shit regular people that didnt stick their dick in a vacuum when they were children the BEST teachers know their audience
midkid89 2 years ago
The fact that you don't understand the words he's using does not mean he doesn't know how to teach, it just means you're retarded.
Ueichen 2 years ago 4
Congratulations Steph!
I'm just finding out now that you are a father.
I think that is wonderful.
I can't wait to hear how your application of philosophy to parenthood develops throughout the years.
ajarnguy 2 years ago
Fundamentally no wisdom-tree exists
nor is the mind a standing mirror bright
Since all is void
Where is there any dust?
Jcolinsol 2 years ago
Jcolinsol,
WIll you get real? Seriously.
attaintruefreedom 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Fuck Socrates!!
ALPHAORDER 2 years ago
1.Your sweeping criticism of philosophy in distancing reason from passion for human welfare is unjust. It was great philosophers who promoted Modernity. Machiavelli sought "the common good of each" (Discoursi 1st preface) & despised the Church, Bacon sought "the relief of man's estate" w his Great Instauration & vision of a New Atlantis, Descartes criticised the Scholastics, saying men must go "as owners & masters of nature," Spinoza's the father of "higher criticism" & promoter of the modern...
bobtassoni 3 years ago
2.commercial republic, Pierre Bayle doubted the need of religion as a social glue, & one need only name Locke. Your quarrel is perhaps more just against ancient philosophy. But remember WHY the moderns thought their philosophy could rule: by enhancing human power they could bring great earthly benefits easily appreciated by the superstitious masses w which they could be weaned from the priests. Perhaps the ancients had reasonable fears about the perils of increasing human power, & 20th century..
bobtassoni 3 years ago
3.history should give one pause before discounting it as childish or otherwise due to their greater timidity or contempt of mankind, though it's also true that in their preoccupation [or I should say, their eros--for THIS was their overriding passion (it's unjust to say they were passionless reasoners)] with knowing the eternal first causes of things, they tended to look down on ephemeral human affairs as not having serious worth, since anything they'd establish they knew would soon pass away.
bobtassoni 3 years ago
I think your completely right...in fact I am almost speechless as to just how powerful your presentation of philosophy is!.
Wow..ha h ah aha, I am pretty much to overcome to respond!!!.
good job man!!.
Peace!.
joebot1 3 years ago 2
This is amazing stuff. I would like to learn more about him. I have been to Delphi and it was stunning (and very very hot!!!!). Thanks again for this post and the others.
CelticReject 3 years ago
very interesting
kittygirl792 3 years ago
What you are doing is using rationality while discarding the philosophical foundations upon which it rests.
Science uses mathematics which is an applied philosophy.Mathematics rest on an axiomatic structure whose statements are assumed to be true.Truth and falsehood in mathematics are nonverifiable ideas, just as numbers themselves have no objective reality "out there"..
Science and rationality are tools, no more, no less.
Bunnydancer777 3 years ago
"Truth and falsehood in mathematics are nonverifiable ideas" - did that statement ever work on your math teachers? :)
stefbot 3 years ago
Comment removed
Bunnydancer777 3 years ago
Truth and falsehood are ideas in the mind..a logical conceptual framework must be constructed and there must be a bijective mapping (for discrete) or homeomorphic mapping (for continuous) between the framework and "reality" out there..of course even in a very simple framework you will still end up with propositions that cannot be proven or disproven.
Bunnydancer777 3 years ago
Of course truth is an idea in the mind, that does not make it merely subjective - so is the scientific method... :)
stefbot 3 years ago 4
@Bunnydancer777 didnt Newton's "principia"(sp?) answer that question? I mean....it take almost an entire volume to prove beyond reasonable doubt that 1+1 impericaly = 2.
science is based on objective mathematical descriptions of objective observation of nature. it is NOT a philosophy that is open to debate.
this question is a meaningless one because it has already been established. we are done with it.
to volley it around any more is just mental masturbation.
which is less fun than...well......
zencat999 1 year ago
@zencat999 this was a year ago WTF?
BTW IT IS "EMPIRICAL " not IMPIRICAL..
Since you cannot work it out for yourself, try reading
"Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge " BY POPPER AND GET BACK TO ME.
Bunnydancer777 1 year ago
I may not be an anarchist like you, but MAN! I love your vids! A lotta what you say is what I've felt for a very long time but I just don't meet many folks that feel the same way, lol.
stealthswimmer 3 years ago 4
Thank you very much! :)
stefbot 3 years ago
@stefbot Wouldn't it be safe to say that using passion as a weapon just like those we wish to liberate would be contradictory to the teachings of truth? I agree, using passion is effective, but only because of the "sex sells" mentallity of it, not because intellectuals (ironic, i know, my spelling is awful) actually need to experience passion to experience truth. The "masses" those, less..... literate and down to earth, need the emotional charge of passion, those in need of truth i believe don't
calebsherman1 1 year ago
@stefbot Wouldn't it be safe to say that using passion as a weapon just like those we wish to liberate would be contradictory to the teachings of truth? I agree, using passion is effective, but only because of the "sex sells" mentallity of it, not because intellectuals (ironic, i know, my spelling is awful) actually need to experience passion to experience truth. The "masses" those, less..... literate and down to earth, need the emotional charge of passion, those in need of truth i believe don'
calebsherman1 1 year ago
Always insightful.
anastasia81472 3 years ago
Freedomain Radio was EXACTLY what I was looking for on youtube!
magichandpuppet 3 years ago 14
This is very entertaining. Keep up the good work.
prodigy00073 3 years ago
great vids
Am32007 3 years ago 2
I very much enjoy your sharing the hard work of your very sharp and engaging mind. :)
BabyHominid 3 years ago 4
y do u say it hasn't worked?
what would you need to happen for u to consider it successful ?
thanks
atlone22 3 years ago
Put simply you really can't teach anyone anything. You can only help them with new information that they must actively use to learn. I am studying to be a math teacher for high school/college and I've learned already that just because something is provable and clear with enough facts and the right way of thinking about it, doesn't mean to can force feed the theorem (or in philosophy's case conclusion) to them until they comprehend.I believe it's the same kind of mental blocks found in math.
newexperiment 3 years ago 2
nice vid stef. i'm always naturally passionate when talking about philosophy. everyone tells me i should calm down about it. thanks for the reinforcement.
eflonmusic 3 years ago
I'm curious about where you'll take this.
You are trying to unite passion and "truth". The problem is that very many people think they have access to the "truth" when they don't, and their passion has rallied people to do lots of horrible things.
But I'll watch the other videos before I say more.
ganymedic 3 years ago
But I respect your effort, and agree that some new method is needed in philosophy, in which passion is essential.
I'm waiting to see how you can possibly claim that Socrates wasn't deeply pasionate. Perhaps the terminology should be cleard up. Passion, emotion, feeling and desire are related but have quite a different role and value in human life, and also for Plato.
NB, Plato nearly died, and was temporarely enslaved because of his efforts to realize his ideas in real world politics.
Bobyslav 3 years ago
I don't like tahat american style of talking as if you are selling me a pitch i should invest in. At least it shows your honesty because that is exactly what you are doing. Not for money, of course, but for the sake of your ideology.
The main difference between you and Socrates (and what I concider philosophy) is your stance that you have it all figured out. No discussion is needed, one should only listen to your preaching and nod in astonishment.
Bobyslav 3 years ago
passion as the lube of a msg!
hmmm... now that sounds really new!
hr hr hr hr ... sry! good vid stef.
LastReplaySC 3 years ago
Red...wall...gone?
Great subject, reminds me of classic old school Stefbot videos, which I've missed very much.
I don't think project philosophy has failed. You're here!
For me, it seems that it should take a very long time for human beings to embrace something as powerful as philosophy. I dont think there is any way the majority can embrace philosophy before they even embrace sciences, like psychology.
You look great, Stef. Hope all is well with your family.
OpineTime 3 years ago
You gotta make a video game like wow
where the philosopher with the best argument
wins.
I am also thinking of starting a religion
worshipping the brain,if anyone is interested
send me some feedback.
anka893 3 years ago
Ayn Rand allready did that.
DaveDoggOwns 3 years ago
Thanks for the video! I look forward to see the next one.
endesigner 3 years ago
Wow, you went through so much in 24 mins it almost made my head spin. Absolutely amazing stuff.
NoCryingNowYes 3 years ago
If you truly believe that you are making significant discoveries about truth, meaning, ethics etc. then clearly these are very important. If you discover them and AREN'T passionate about them it is in fact intensely suspicious. If philosophy is important then you should be passionate about success in it, just like entrepenuers, scientists etc. are passionate. To be calm about it implies you didn't think it was that important in the first place, in which case why bother?
newperve 3 years ago
If the reason Philosophy has failed so badly because of its lack of passion. Do you think Religion/Statism uses passion to unconsciously sabotage Philosophy?
Trandofir 3 years ago
i have found that as truth as well use both the left and right hemispheres of te brain and you will be able to understand not just yourself but creation itself
78999 3 years ago
I agree to a lot of what you say. You are one of the best spokesmen for philosophers and philosophy on You Tube. You are correct that many philosophers in the past in general have not been passionate enough about philosophy. Philosophy has also partly failed because many philosophers and people generally have been far too cynical, subjective, relativist, mystical, illogical, etc., which becomes circular. Philosophers need to become more objective, empirical, logical, impartial and honest, etc.
pythagoras9 3 years ago
This may be your best video yet...........
bar730 3 years ago
This video flows like my bathroom faucet, fluid and quick
AnArChIcSpAcEMoNkEy 3 years ago
Hey, better than that spinning gurgling thing... :)
stefbot 3 years ago
unaware
AnArChIcSpAcEMoNkEy 3 years ago
People repress passion into there philosophical debates because people view passion in the truth as hostility towards their irrational selves. Those who bring up the truth are those that have lost many battles in the past to irrational behavior. It's best for one to not even engage.
AnArChIcSpAcEMoNkEy 3 years ago
Hey buddy! Glad you got another video up. Hope your new family is doing well!
andrushek11 3 years ago
what is your name? stephanmolaniu?
juliecranford 3 years ago
You really look like Pat Condell. Are you related to him?
GodMythology2 3 years ago
Is there really any way for an anarchist society to defend itself from outside threats?
SuperWillHatch 3 years ago
Sure, check out the chapter in my free audio book or PDF 'Practical Anarchy,' available on my website... :)
stefbot 3 years ago
Thank you by the way.
SuperWillHatch 3 years ago
Your begging the question that anarchy would even produce such a threat.
AnArChIcSpAcEMoNkEy 3 years ago
I would very much like to see a video devoted to passion and inspiration itself. In particular, what has your personal experience been? Have you always been someone who dives "head first" into his own pursuits? Or, did you have to grow into it?
gmgauthi 3 years ago
You are quite the sophist yourself stef.
anarch0atheist 3 years ago
let say all people in belgium accept that statism is bad and they dont have a army
the other country's will still have a army and would be defenceless from outside enemy's
anarchism is ok but doesnt have many answers
erdal0 3 years ago
If they have no state, what is the incentive for invasion?
someweirdgayguy 3 years ago
you dont, only the enemy has a state
erdal0 3 years ago
Well I could personally solve this problem with a few different solutions. All resolving around the fact that protecting your land isn't murder. It can in fact be righteous to defend your land from invaders. Therefore local militias could combine to try and ward off enemy invaders. Not to mention the fact that no country with nuclear weapons has ever been invaded :p
The thing about anarchy is that it is open to development. Just think about it and you could probably find solutions to issues.
SuperAtheistBrothers 3 years ago
Then philosophers who find the best solutions publish them. The best ideas will gain the most scrutiny which will lead to further development like any theory. If these ideas prove to be true under all the scrutiny then Anarchism will inevitable gain support. Point being is just because anarchy seems impossible... Democracy (in truth Republics) seemed impossible and yet it developed from philosophers. As we progress there is no reason to believe we wont one day gain our freedom.
SuperAtheistBrothers 3 years ago
but people are then forced to pay money for the army
and isnt that just the reason why we choose anarchism
erdal0 3 years ago
Taxes suck... I dont think an intelligent anarchist become an intelligent anarchist because of taxes though. I think Stefbot put it well when he pursuaded me that government cannot achieve anything without coercing us. This alone pursued me that government was bad. Anarchy is so free for development I dont think it matters whether or not you would agree with Stef, you can advertise your own. So in truth yes we are anarchist because the state is violence.
SuperAtheistBrothers 3 years ago
ok i agree
but who is going to pay for the roads, infrastructure, schools
nobody is going to pay this voluntarily
erdal0 3 years ago
Well do remember there were roads before states dominated this planet. As for other public stations... There are two ways to take care of this in my mind. Either people organize themselves or businesses organize themselves. Either way both parties would have to gain support and money in the same way that the government raises money, but it would have to be voluntary.
(cont)
SuperAtheistBrothers 3 years ago
If they couldn't gain the support... Then the people didn't really want to infrastructure. Only the popular ideas will win out. Now this may seem bad but only the truly good ideas will get built. Now schools... Schools would defiantly be privately owned. You could also have public schools that are paid by charities/special groups. That would make our society much better as is. Infrastructure could also be private (sort of like Toll Roads). How does that sound?
SuperAtheistBrothers 3 years ago
people are not grown up, we dont live in a mature society. i hoped we were because then your plan would work
people will never voluntarily pay money for the lamp on the street or the police they only think for them selves
its a good idea but alot of questions remain
erdal0 3 years ago
Your completely right that is one of the two pre-requisites in my mind to a prepared anarchy. We need a global net for all transactions and an intelligent majority. Lots of questions do remain but it is always fun interesting to try and find answers :)
SuperAtheistBrothers 3 years ago
so prepared anarchy doesnt have answers to these issues?
erdal0 3 years ago
Solutions to implement anarchy? Well the global net requires technology and the intelligent majority requires the new people to learn and be philosophers, but it also requires that the old die off. IMO anarchy is inevitable because it seems like the next step to gaining freedom, and if history proves anything we gradually go from more repressive societies to less repressive societies... At least as long as we continue to progress as a society.
SuperAtheistBrothers 3 years ago
Answers to how we implement anarchy? Well as for the two prerequisites to prepared anarchy... First we need technology to create a global network. As for the intelligent majority... Like most intellectual revolutions it requires young people to be students and philosophers (every person who is ambivalent to these subjects is the problem). The solution is to teach the young and let the old die off with their stagnant ideals. I can't say we will have anarchy anywhere close to our lifetimes.
SuperAtheistBrothers 3 years ago
I've frequently used the combination of philosophy + alcohol + an unwilling audience.
anakin005 3 years ago
and the award for best comment goes to..
PsychedelicVideos 3 years ago
You make me think.
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
11:2
tob1203 3 years ago
I've got another suggestion. Philosophy got its butt kicked for all those years becouse its difficult and PAINFULL! It does not suck up to anyone, and it doesn't make anyone feel better about himself. For example, your videos have made me feel pretty damn stupid and, well, evil. I know that the vast majority of people don't like having their belief systems challenged, and will go to any lengths to protect them.
PeterTheEvilBastard 3 years ago
The scary part is, I'm only different becouse I was already disillusioned and full of doubts in the first place. I think I got to the point where I just went through the motions, without believing anything, so there wasn't really anything for me to protect. If I found you a year earlier, I would attack you without a moments hesitation, and without any conscious doubts whatsoever, just becouse you spit in the face of many of the things that made up my identity in that period. Its kinda depressing
PeterTheEvilBastard 3 years ago
And their belief systems are based on willful ignorance.
PsychedelicVideos 3 years ago
So, it appears, were mine. Fuck, they still are, I haven't done any research for myself. Anyway man, why be so hostile towards everyone else? I mean, I'm an ex- skinhead for Christs sake, I know all about hostility! But even then I wouldn't exactly call people worthless only becouse they are ignorant, and certainly wouldn't "frown on the human species". But then again, maybe I'm just trying to make myself feel better. Anyway, lighten the frak up, or you'll pop an artery. It aint worth it.
PeterTheEvilBastard 3 years ago
Im not concerned with objective things like popping arteries. I welcome death, I know nothing of it and would love to learn about it.
PsychedelicVideos 3 years ago
No point being in a rush. We'll all die, won't we? Might as well make the most of life. Don't pop the artery ;)
PeterTheEvilBastard 3 years ago
Yes but to everyone there is a different meaning of "making the most of life". Theres not some universally standard checklist of things you need to do to live a happy life.
I find pointing out shortcomings in others and in society quite exhilarating, so why would I stop doing something that feels so good. I guess in that way Im a hedonist.
PsychedelicVideos 3 years ago
Thats why is pointless to even try to change a rigid statist or religious person.
AnArChIcSpAcEMoNkEy 3 years ago
Complete BS! I was a hardcore republican christian a few years ago. It was the examination of politics that changed my political view, and my examination of philosophy that changed my view on truth. 2 years later, I'm a new person. People are more receptive than you think... especially in these harsher times.
anakin005 3 years ago
btw, this is a response to anarchlcspacemonkeywhatever, not the video
anakin005 3 years ago
It was YOU who changed your position, someone might have helped but that person didn't TRY to change you. By "trying" I meant putting in more effort than necessary that would defeat the position you are arguing for in the first place.
AnArChIcSpAcEMoNkEy 3 years ago
Yeah.
You've got to be pretty-damn-passionate to want to die in order to escape your passions.
Nice work.
I think I might let you live ¦:¬]
TWITfromURANUS 3 years ago
I consider myself a misanthrope, and as such I say fuck the general population.
Let them die in willful ignorance, they are not deserving of philosophical insight.
Fuck 'em
PsychedelicVideos 3 years ago
I say give them something and then if they are unwilling to listen fuck em :D.
bigcatz4455 3 years ago
But why would I waste my time on another useless being.
If they had value they would have sought out philosophy on their own.
PsychedelicVideos 3 years ago
So what you're saying is, people who do not seek philosophy on their own are worthless human beings and the scum of the earth? That doesn't make sense. We were all told about philosophy at some point in our life. oops I guess i just proved your point... :)
bigcatz4455 3 years ago
As Socrates himself said, the unexamined life is not worth living. So why should I care about people who's lives are not worth living?
Philosophy or the ability to reflect on life is the one thing I believe that separates us from animals (and there is not sufficient empirical evidence to disprove they are capable of this) so why should I treat someone who does not philosophize any different than any other animal?
You have sentience, take advantage of it or loose it..
PsychedelicVideos 3 years ago
we are all innocent...
Jangaboo 3 years ago
The problem or one of the problems I have with what you just said is that the general public won't just die in wilful ignorance, they will raise innocent childs in ignorance and turn them in to mindless zombies like themselfs and their parents before them, and at the same time they will keep messing up the lifes of others wich aren't ignorant.
Also I don't think that's a good thing to do, even if I sometimes get so tired of them that I think that to myself.
motokeiru 3 years ago
Fuck em regardless.
What value have these so called inocents earned? Simply existing is not sufficient enough to justify being valued in my opinion. I think that value should be earned.
Like I said, Im a misanthrope. I frown upon the human species.
PsychedelicVideos 3 years ago
"Like I said, Im a misanthrope. I frown upon the human species."
I would have to join that category too.
bigcatz4455 3 years ago
I think the value earned if you want to put it that way, would be a better place to live faster evolution both tech and mentality wise that would benefit everyone including you.
motokeiru 3 years ago
Great as usual BTW!!!
Nickelodeon2002 3 years ago
Philosophers retreat behind a "wall" and disengage because it is dangerous to use even basic Socratic methods in the general population. They end up being the whipping post of others frustrations when reason and logic strike deep into their beliefs.Philosophers being generally logical people...they don't see value in being hurt(physically, emotionally, financially, etc.) in trying to point out empiricism(s). It's easier for those with "f-u money" or "distance" to explore & point out such things.
Nickelodeon2002 3 years ago 4
Agreed. Sadly, most people cannot take the truth.
Ape65 3 years ago
thank you stef.
wcarlpdrysdale 3 years ago
Zigh..
Like "philosophers" would have had one united goal through out history...
StopButtSearches 3 years ago
They do, its the provocation of thought.
Next time you want to open your mouth and say something, dont.
PsychedelicVideos 3 years ago
Philosophy tries to explain questions which are many times more difficult than the questions asked by physicists, so I'd claim that you can't really compare those things.
Also economics which you mentioned previously asks a lot of hard questions, not as difficult as the basic philosophic questions, which is why people have less basic knowledge regarding economics than physics, while they have less basic knowledge about philosophy.
freedom3001 3 years ago
A different room? NOOOOO, I cannot learn philosophy without a pleasant reddish background!
Another fantastic video :-)
Stargazer5781 3 years ago
I use a coat hanger for itches, myself.
Jeffersonianatheart 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
try a comb, you will thank me later
cozmikzen 3 years ago
I think Aristotle would agree that passion is important. He simply believed in a compound of passion and desire. He was definitely not against the idea of passion, of a life constituted only by reason (though it's debatable to some extent by dint of his final remarks in the Nichomachean Ethics.)
Moragauth 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
OMG FIRST!
JK, will watch this later thanks stef.
datalorez 3 years ago