I'm an Epicurean and a tiny bunch of olives, small wine, veg (small quantities), while doing justice (not breaking the law), decency (using wisdom w/o vanity or idleness to distinguish good from evil, for example a bee stings and brings pain whereas a listen to music does nothing and therefore can't harm you), is in fact realistic. If I went to an amusement park it does no harm to see the animals, whereas fear brings pain so I wouldn't even watch a horror film any more. Knowing good from vice.
The Stoics did not think that pleasure was a kind of vice and was therefore bad. The Stoic sage is someone who, among other things, experiences joy in existing in the world, which is certainly a kind of pleasure. The Stoics did warn against becoming attached to pleasurable experiences and being governed by their pursuit. But there is nothing wrong with pleasure per se. Cf Marcus Aurelius who wrote that one could be virtuous even in a palace.
So Epicurus was happy because everything was bad and Zeno was sad because everything was good... I know there's more to it than that but in basics that ^ can be said
what is good and what is bad is in the eye of the beholder....Say a guy stabs 20 people and it brings him joy than its good for his behalf but say a person witness it and gets traumatized from the murderess scene than its bad for that person...good and bad can just be an idea and nothing more and may not even exist..from a Christians point of view only disobedience from Gods word is bad..every thing else would have to be good or neutral (lukewarm).
It is indeed easier to define what good is, when there is a God. (as a matter of fact i don't think it is possible to define good or evil without God, all would be what they are, as all what is is either random, or determined. No responsibility, no choice, no ethics :)
@ChadC919 O YE THAT PRIDE YOURSELVES ON MORTAL RICHES! Know ye in truth that wealth is a mighty barrier between the seeker and his desire, the lover and his beloved. The rich, but for a few, shall in no wise attain the court of His presence nor enter the city of content and resignation. Well is it then with him, who, being rich, is not hindered by his riches from the eternal kingdom, nor deprived by them of imperishable dominion.... ~Baha'u'llah "Hidden Words"
@ChadC919 Know ye the pleasures in the small things, for there's joy in an apple and is attainable, O ye fools who get impossible pleasures, for ye are blind I tells thee. And is it not small pleasures like the joy of empathy that bring forth selfishly thy own happiness? - Confessions of a clever man.
@AndyRaslan That's what I thought. There are differences, but their central doctrine of over coming pain and desire leaves me laughing to the fact that the Epicureans are called hedonists or even negative hedonists as a form of slander while no one dares criticize Buddhists like that. Though all philosophies/religions are a form of hedonism as far as I can tell.
There's something suspicious about this series: 1. I happen to be philosophical, 2. you're a sceptical arsehole, 3. some of the philosophies you talk about are rational and make perfect sense, 4. you reject philosophy because one religious or atheist arsehole disagrees, 5. you're wrong, the elements of the earth are in actuality earth, fire, air, and water, and six, you only encourage me to worship John Locke since he has a convincing argument and I only see the light in the knowledge of Locke.
Nice serries . Philosophy's history in bullet points for dummies.And u've done a good job being cinic , but sometimes silly .
After all , one question : Define me "interresting" as a person's general characteristic , so that me (and everybody else curious about it) can accept the following equation: Epicuros+Zenon= 2x Boring .
For the ones interrested in Epicuros (a man who wrote 300+ books , which early-christians burned or used as toiltet paper ):mousa.gr/en/html/epicurus.html
When I first heard of Stoicism I though - "insane! Impossible! Everyone has emotions!", but now I realize that peace/stillness/calmness is not an emotion but the natural flow of all things and the universe. Happiness is an add on to peace, and Unhappiness is a subtraction of peace, but peace is the natural place to be!
@AndyRaslan Not really. Though Epicurus' predecessor and the founder of skepticism, Pyrrho, traveled to India alongside Alexander the Great, from where he studied under the Gymnosophists(naked philosophers), then imitated the way they lived, before returning to Greece and studying Democritian atomism. Then Epicurus came to study at Pyrrho's school as well as atomism in 321 B.C.
@MarkMcGinn Yes, I am categorically certain that it is unequivocally incontrovertible that I recurrently employ gargantuan and multifarious terminology throughout the progression of otherwise ingenuous assertions with the intention of facilitating the manifestation of the opinion that I am of extraordinary and superior astuteness. Yes, i can keep talking using complex, unnecessary and pompous language, but because I'm not as immature as yourself, I shan't. I hope you realize that typing in that-
@MarkMcGinn that sort of shit isn't going to help your argument whatsoever. You hating on me is irrelevant to the video and your remarks of stupidity. This video is a NUTSHELL of Epicurus & Zeno. It is not politically incorrect, it simply gives the viewer a general idea of their situation. If it were a 4 week analysis of Epicurus & Zeno, it may be expected that it would go into the finer points. it's 3 minutes. it's humorous. Chill the fuck out.
@Krshwunk He didn't believe death was something we should strive for, what this video leaves out is his materialism. What he really said about death was that in order to feel pain there must be matter, and if death can be defined as the disintegration of matter in a thing such that matter ceases to maintain its composition in that thing then one cannot be said to feel pain in death, or simply that the process of dying is more painful than death itself and death, therefore, should not be feared.
@Salieri325 I know Epicureans didn't say that death should be striven for ... but it nonetheless logically follows from their ideas. No Epicurean was honest enough to admit it.
Buddhists are a bit more honest since (at least some of them) try striving for non-existence in order to escape pain which (they say) always accompanies existence.
@Krshwunk I'm not so certain of that. I think Epicureans draw a lot of criticism for that reason but I don't think they were as fatalistic in that sense. I am more inclined to call them quietists. I don't know as much as I would like to about Buddhism so I can't respond to your second point. I think I could, but I wouldn't want to do a disservice to the philosophy behind it.
@Salieri325 It's true that Epicureans aren't fatalistic ... insofar as they would not admit it. I'm just saying that if they were honest about their logic given their problematic premises, they WOULD be openly fatalistic.
@Krshwunk As far as death itself was concerned, Epicurus valued pleasure above pain, and for that matter above no pleasure at all. So he would not recommend killing oneself as that would be a pursuit of pain seeing as the process of dying may be thought of as painful for some and it also eliminates the option for pleasure. And given a dichotomous choice one, according to Epicurus, should always choose pleasure.
@Salieri325 Actually, most Epicureans thought a mere absence of pain was better than pleasure because, they said, pleasure leads to downtimes ... i.e. pleasure results in pain. Also, Epicureans believed that doing something painful for the purpose of achieving long-lasting absence from pain was good. And in any case, the Epicureans could hire someone to kill them in their sleep to avoid pain altogether.
Hence, death (i.e. non-existence) is the Epicurean paradise.
@Krshwunk reminds me of the pattern of what some drug users feel. They strive for a rush, only to find that their existence after the rush feel more painful and crushing than their existence before the rush.
if i understand correcly epicurus was a consequentialist whereas zeno took a deontological view of ethics? right? or am i just a simpleton using big words?
Great video as always, Mr. Binary. These philosophers were extremely important people, especially with their formation of major schools of thought like Epicurean belief and Stoicism. Keep up the fantastic work!
I laughed so hard at the "pulling your head directly out of your ass" comment that I totally missed the rest of the video. Looks like I'll have to watch it again! :3
Nicely done video! This is good for people to get a first idea about philosophy.
It seems there are basically two different kinds of philosophy: the one that tries to explain how the world works, and the one that deals with values and goals. The first falls flat today when we have real science, but the second is still relevant.
@Grasslander You are wrong. Epistemology / Philosophy of science are still very important branches of philosophy. From where do you think scientists get their methods and structures of work? An you forgot other branches like metaphysics and logic.
@merzer131 I am talking about philosohers two millennia ago saying, "I think the world is a big and perfect bubble." Or, "Everything is a reflection of the Perfect World of archetypes that exists behind that big dome with stars above us." Wrong, wrong. These philosophers went way beyond thinking of morality and purpose, and instead went into guesswork to impress their students. Where scientists get their methods? From the scientific principle of theory-experiment. Not from, say, Immanuel Kant.
@Grasslander While I agree with the first part of your comment, the part about the guesswork to impress their students (which doesn't make it less interesting, though ;)), I think you underestimate the influence of later philosophers in areas as for example (especially) science. I could pick up the one you scrapped yourself: Kant. His philosophy had a great impact of peoples perception of science, and convinced people that empirical studies of the earth is the right way to get knowledge.
@Grasslander To give another example, even closer to our time: the two most used methods of back-checking the scientific and factual value of different branches of research are the methods of validation (Comte and positivism, philosophy of science 1800's) and the theory of falsifiability (Popper and critic rationalism, philosophy of science 1900's). So the overall structures of scientific work are, in fact, inaugurated by thinkers and philosophers.
Nicely done video! This is good for people to get a first idea about philosophy.
It seems there are basically two different kinds of philosophy: the one that tries to explain how the world works, and the one that deals with values and goals. The first falls flat today when we have real science, but the second is still relevant.
For Friedrich Nietzsche, go to Scribd (dot) com and search for "Thus Spake Zarathustra Abridged". It gives you a summary of Nietzsche's most famous book, although he also later wrote books that were easier to read, like On the Genealogy of Morals.
For Friedrich Nietzsche, go to Scribd (dot) com and search for "Thus Spake Zarathustra Abridged". It gives you a summary of Nietzsche's most famous book.
For Friedrich Nietzsche, go to Scribd (dot) com and search for "Thus Spake Zarathustra Abridged". It gives you a summary of Nietzsche's most famous book.
The one thing
Calebspittman 17 hours ago
you keep WOW out of this!
eugkra34 2 days ago
why does the hedonist dude not have legs`?
jhoffmann132 1 week ago
I'm an Epicurean and a tiny bunch of olives, small wine, veg (small quantities), while doing justice (not breaking the law), decency (using wisdom w/o vanity or idleness to distinguish good from evil, for example a bee stings and brings pain whereas a listen to music does nothing and therefore can't harm you), is in fact realistic. If I went to an amusement park it does no harm to see the animals, whereas fear brings pain so I wouldn't even watch a horror film any more. Knowing good from vice.
Hoobifta 1 week ago
nothing of friendship and altruism? Epicurus was pretty big on that
KillerWhaleSFl 2 weeks ago
The Stoics did not think that pleasure was a kind of vice and was therefore bad. The Stoic sage is someone who, among other things, experiences joy in existing in the world, which is certainly a kind of pleasure. The Stoics did warn against becoming attached to pleasurable experiences and being governed by their pursuit. But there is nothing wrong with pleasure per se. Cf Marcus Aurelius who wrote that one could be virtuous even in a palace.
LockeShocke 2 weeks ago
So Epicurus was happy because everything was bad and Zeno was sad because everything was good... I know there's more to it than that but in basics that ^ can be said
aidan50203 3 weeks ago in playlist Three Minute Philosophy
beer=bees
XxGDUBxX7 3 weeks ago
Stoics = ISTJ
Epicureans = ENFP
TheMathShaman 3 weeks ago
INCREDIBLY BORING PEOPLE XD EPIC!!!!!
RyuHayabusa360 4 weeks ago
Haha, great! I have a presentation tomorrow for school and this is in for sure!
ryanwedem 1 month ago
what is good and what is bad is in the eye of the beholder....Say a guy stabs 20 people and it brings him joy than its good for his behalf but say a person witness it and gets traumatized from the murderess scene than its bad for that person...good and bad can just be an idea and nothing more and may not even exist..from a Christians point of view only disobedience from Gods word is bad..every thing else would have to be good or neutral (lukewarm).
TexasBarBQ 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TexasBarBQ "What is good and what is bad is in the eye of the beholder."
The real issue here is to discover what man's natural nature is.
AnubisEye009 3 weeks ago
Boring for you...
BraveManNewWorld 1 month ago
no he was fail good is defined as that witch is closer to the ideal.
takebackkean 1 month ago
Boring people? :O
Shiyuru999 1 month ago
when will another video come out ?
ScottyG543 1 month ago
What's that music?? The beginning music, I have to know!!
WarPig15 1 month ago
@WarPig15 Beethoven NO 5!!
Grudwurd 1 month ago
I take great pleasure in knowledge.
FreeeeS 1 month ago 4
It is indeed easier to define what good is, when there is a God. (as a matter of fact i don't think it is possible to define good or evil without God, all would be what they are, as all what is is either random, or determined. No responsibility, no choice, no ethics :)
Rekenbij 1 month ago
O SON OF BEING! Busy not thyself with this world, for with fire We test the gold, and with gold We test Our servants. ~Baha'u'llah
ChadC919 2 months ago
@ChadC919 O YE THAT PRIDE YOURSELVES ON MORTAL RICHES! Know ye in truth that wealth is a mighty barrier between the seeker and his desire, the lover and his beloved. The rich, but for a few, shall in no wise attain the court of His presence nor enter the city of content and resignation. Well is it then with him, who, being rich, is not hindered by his riches from the eternal kingdom, nor deprived by them of imperishable dominion.... ~Baha'u'llah "Hidden Words"
ChadC919 2 months ago
@ChadC919 Know ye the pleasures in the small things, for there's joy in an apple and is attainable, O ye fools who get impossible pleasures, for ye are blind I tells thee. And is it not small pleasures like the joy of empathy that bring forth selfishly thy own happiness? - Confessions of a clever man.
Hoobifta 1 week ago
meh
KathrynJaneyBabii 2 months ago in playlist Three Minute Philosophy
No, epicureans rule!
Sonjayu 2 months ago 4
Hardly boring, if you read their works.
BADALEX1 2 months ago 2
if u could do a 3 minute philosophy about sartre by tomorrow that would help a lot for my philosophy final
padlock246 2 months ago in playlist Three Minute Philosophy
zZz..?>_<......"they were boring"..:S
OhJoyLOL 2 months ago
LoL at the end.
EliteDoomer 2 months ago 22
@AndyRaslan That's what I thought. There are differences, but their central doctrine of over coming pain and desire leaves me laughing to the fact that the Epicureans are called hedonists or even negative hedonists as a form of slander while no one dares criticize Buddhists like that. Though all philosophies/religions are a form of hedonism as far as I can tell.
Sloth7d 2 months ago
@AndyRaslan
Sloth7d 2 months ago
There's something suspicious about this series: 1. I happen to be philosophical, 2. you're a sceptical arsehole, 3. some of the philosophies you talk about are rational and make perfect sense, 4. you reject philosophy because one religious or atheist arsehole disagrees, 5. you're wrong, the elements of the earth are in actuality earth, fire, air, and water, and six, you only encourage me to worship John Locke since he has a convincing argument and I only see the light in the knowledge of Locke.
Hoobifta 3 months ago
Nice serries . Philosophy's history in bullet points for dummies.And u've done a good job being cinic , but sometimes silly .
After all , one question : Define me "interresting" as a person's general characteristic , so that me (and everybody else curious about it) can accept the following equation: Epicuros+Zenon= 2x Boring .
For the ones interrested in Epicuros (a man who wrote 300+ books , which early-christians burned or used as toiltet paper ):mousa.gr/en/html/epicurus.html
SuperFrankenChrist 3 months ago in playlist Περισσότερα βίντεο από τον χρήστη CollegeBinary
Can you please do one on Berkeley? (hate that guy)
bliingq 3 months ago
pweasure. : D
love the series.
bluedistortions 3 months ago
Boring? Wtf is wrong with you.
fireman12888 3 months ago 2
Will you be doing Montesquieu at any point?
VoxJoxx 3 months ago
Comment removed
openuniverse2003 3 months ago
@openuniverse2003 You are absolutely right.
MrDerogative 3 months ago
boring people ?!
tedcathigh 4 months ago
I'm sorry, but are you intentionally doing the bishop's voice from The Princess Bride?
romxxii 4 months ago
a gaping hole where all your pleasures used to be. Sounds like my bro's ma.
Sicknose 4 months ago
"unrealistic expectations"? well if all u can hope for is considered by u as crap, then zeno, the stoic, can go fuck himself...
mephatboi 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
When I first heard of Stoicism I though - "insane! Impossible! Everyone has emotions!", but now I realize that peace/stillness/calmness is not an emotion but the natural flow of all things and the universe. Happiness is an add on to peace, and Unhappiness is a subtraction of peace, but peace is the natural place to be!
arpee9216 4 months ago
I can't stop laughing at the stoic face
Roflsaurassss 4 months ago
I liked the old music...
BTVSCharmed 4 months ago in playlist More videos from CollegeBinary
Wait... Why did you do Zeno instead of Epictetus?
Musicianofthenight 4 months ago
So Epicurianism was Buddhism?
AndyRaslan 4 months ago
@AndyRaslan Not really. Though Epicurus' predecessor and the founder of skepticism, Pyrrho, traveled to India alongside Alexander the Great, from where he studied under the Gymnosophists(naked philosophers), then imitated the way they lived, before returning to Greece and studying Democritian atomism. Then Epicurus came to study at Pyrrho's school as well as atomism in 321 B.C.
CosmoShidan 4 months ago
@CosmoShidan It was a joke....
AndyRaslan 4 months ago
@AndyRaslan narp.
x69Crunchyx 4 months ago
So many connections to Buddhism it's not even funny anymore.
larrysg1 4 months ago
LOL I LOVEYOU
lelouch3 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Do one on Derrida please!
themrninja101 5 months ago
Do one on Derrida please!
themrninja101 5 months ago
Yep. This is me studying for my liberal arts class. It really is helping!
GrapeWaves 5 months ago
Lol. Mr Bonar never said it'd be this funny.
DeathbyNoob15 5 months ago
pwesurable?
Juefawn 5 months ago
I love this.
xxxGreaseMonkeyxxx 6 months ago
so good
rd1999 6 months ago
More 3min videos... Plz!!
simplicity2012 6 months ago
@Krshwunk Well you cant experience happiness either, or anything at all
pochopaz7381 6 months ago
Make sense...
pochopaz7381 6 months ago
love it
3ratones 6 months ago
Both were idiots.
yuirrr 7 months ago
@yuirrr
As if you're going to base what you learned from this video to them. This guy has it quite wrong, i'd urge you to look them up yourself.
TheKenTerry 5 months ago
do a three minute philosophy on beyonce
JackJosephh 7 months ago 76
@JackJosephh Dude... not cool, philosophy is about THINKING. Do a music report on Rebecca Black
AdamsTeinz 3 months ago
Comment removed
MarkMcGinn 7 months ago
Please do a Three Minute Philosophy on Schopenhauer.
spereat 7 months ago
Any chance of you doing a Three Minute Philosophy on Karl Marx?
TomHPMc 8 months ago
Comment removed
MarkMcGinn 8 months ago
@MarkMcGinn shut the fuck up.
reggie84743 7 months ago
Comment removed
MarkMcGinn 7 months ago
Comment removed
MarkMcGinn 7 months ago
@MarkMcGinn Yes, I am categorically certain that it is unequivocally incontrovertible that I recurrently employ gargantuan and multifarious terminology throughout the progression of otherwise ingenuous assertions with the intention of facilitating the manifestation of the opinion that I am of extraordinary and superior astuteness. Yes, i can keep talking using complex, unnecessary and pompous language, but because I'm not as immature as yourself, I shan't. I hope you realize that typing in that-
reggie84743 7 months ago
@MarkMcGinn that sort of shit isn't going to help your argument whatsoever. You hating on me is irrelevant to the video and your remarks of stupidity. This video is a NUTSHELL of Epicurus & Zeno. It is not politically incorrect, it simply gives the viewer a general idea of their situation. If it were a 4 week analysis of Epicurus & Zeno, it may be expected that it would go into the finer points. it's 3 minutes. it's humorous. Chill the fuck out.
reggie84743 7 months ago
Comment removed
MarkMcGinn 7 months ago
only a few hours of wow...is that possible?
LoreJunkie 8 months ago
More, please :)
DaAwesomeSubscriber 8 months ago
... your l's. They are adorable.
Nani101 8 months ago
Why is it every time he makes mention of the stoics he shows an image of a bunch of blue balls? What is he trying to say about stoics?
Salieri325 9 months ago
Meh...
Feelgoodlost99 9 months ago
FFF- so fast/heavily-accented at some parts I need some subs.
dreamingWisdom 9 months ago
yessssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss......ok thanks.....
frontbum666 9 months ago
I think pweasure is good, too.
xKwinx 9 months ago
In Epicureanism, non-existence is the best place to be because you can't be harmed. So, why didn't the Epicureans just kill themselves?
Krshwunk 9 months ago
@Krshwunk He didn't believe death was something we should strive for, what this video leaves out is his materialism. What he really said about death was that in order to feel pain there must be matter, and if death can be defined as the disintegration of matter in a thing such that matter ceases to maintain its composition in that thing then one cannot be said to feel pain in death, or simply that the process of dying is more painful than death itself and death, therefore, should not be feared.
Salieri325 9 months ago
@Salieri325 I know Epicureans didn't say that death should be striven for ... but it nonetheless logically follows from their ideas. No Epicurean was honest enough to admit it.
Buddhists are a bit more honest since (at least some of them) try striving for non-existence in order to escape pain which (they say) always accompanies existence.
Krshwunk 9 months ago
@Krshwunk I'm not so certain of that. I think Epicureans draw a lot of criticism for that reason but I don't think they were as fatalistic in that sense. I am more inclined to call them quietists. I don't know as much as I would like to about Buddhism so I can't respond to your second point. I think I could, but I wouldn't want to do a disservice to the philosophy behind it.
Salieri325 8 months ago
@Salieri325 It's true that Epicureans aren't fatalistic ... insofar as they would not admit it. I'm just saying that if they were honest about their logic given their problematic premises, they WOULD be openly fatalistic.
Krshwunk 8 months ago
@Krshwunk As far as death itself was concerned, Epicurus valued pleasure above pain, and for that matter above no pleasure at all. So he would not recommend killing oneself as that would be a pursuit of pain seeing as the process of dying may be thought of as painful for some and it also eliminates the option for pleasure. And given a dichotomous choice one, according to Epicurus, should always choose pleasure.
Salieri325 9 months ago
@Salieri325 Actually, most Epicureans thought a mere absence of pain was better than pleasure because, they said, pleasure leads to downtimes ... i.e. pleasure results in pain. Also, Epicureans believed that doing something painful for the purpose of achieving long-lasting absence from pain was good. And in any case, the Epicureans could hire someone to kill them in their sleep to avoid pain altogether.
Hence, death (i.e. non-existence) is the Epicurean paradise.
Krshwunk 9 months ago
@Krshwunk reminds me of the pattern of what some drug users feel. They strive for a rush, only to find that their existence after the rush feel more painful and crushing than their existence before the rush.
urbandefinition 9 months ago
MARX
yoogregcon 9 months ago
BEEEERRRRRRRRRKKKKKLLLLLEEEEEEEYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!
ktmracr91 10 months ago
penis
number6of6the6beast 10 months ago
Great post !
Mad , but great !
faunflynn 10 months ago
Tell my wife "Hello".
shodanxx 10 months ago
i love your videos... but you didn't mention more important parts of Zeno which were his arguments against pluralism and motion?
Pianoblacks 10 months ago
Nice! I happen to be Epicurean!
CosmoShidan 10 months ago
Brilliant!
Some other suggested topics... Vienna Circle, Bertrand Russell, and I'll *definitely* second (or 56th?) Wittgenstein!!!
1TheSocraticMethod1 11 months ago
NIN! YES!!
iriddell1 11 months ago
100 videos and i didn't realize i was an Epicurian :I
unassumption 11 months ago
These guys didn't show up until the Roman empire, as in, after Hellenistic Greece.
Sewblon 11 months ago
@Sewblon Most civilization in the roman empire was hellenistic in nature :p
InfindecimalSlice 10 months ago
Perhaps Martin Heidegger? Been learning phenomenology in philosophy class recently, and the parts where I'm not going "Wha...?", I'm going "Whoa!!!"
roflcopterprods 11 months ago
Brilliant
MentalToss 11 months ago
Could you do three minutes on Sartre?...Please!
Adrianology101 11 months ago 3
if i understand correcly epicurus was a consequentialist whereas zeno took a deontological view of ethics? right? or am i just a simpleton using big words?
Dathinkingman 11 months ago
Copyrights for music is about 50 years, I'm pretty sure you're in the clear using Night on Bald Mountain.
XelleohelleX 11 months ago
Do one on Ayn Ra-- Oh wait, never mind.
TheVodkaHaze 11 months ago
@TheVodkaHaze Why shouldn't he do one on Ayn Rand? That'd be epic!
KajiCarson 11 months ago
and you should also post the text here, as some of us can't follow so fast reading..
ihugtheworld 11 months ago
it's too quiet, i can't hear anything !
ihugtheworld 11 months ago
Lady Ga Ga has a turtle on her head! lol
toecutterr6 11 months ago
you should do a cover of monty pythons philosophy song :D
cartoonsfut 11 months ago
You have to do one of these on Wittgenstein. Use the Twilight Zone music whenever he's on-screen.
Conkyworm 11 months ago
These are always awesome
Gman1920 11 months ago
Do Hegel and Marx. Even though, well, whatever you do is going to be good anyway really.
a199215 1 year ago
Night on Bald Mountain, please.
pigeonsgowoot 1 year ago
Bring back Night on Bald Mountain!
dodgerpreacher 1 year ago 2
Reminds me of Zero Punctuation
BrynTheSkits 1 year ago
How about a single TMP on the positions of Hegel, Feuerbach, Marx and Freud on religion? Should be easy to wrap up in three minutes.
MoaiMaea 1 year ago
Three minute philosophy on Bertram Russell please. but just new ones like this are still good... i like tmp... :)
Adamkhant 1 year ago
OMG DO NIETZSCHE PLEASE MACH EIN VIDEO VON NIETZSCHE!!!!
MrPlacebo11 1 year ago
TMP on Sartre! Just to show that the French could muster something better than Descartes!
oldsoulyoungbody 1 year ago
Just awesome!
KJTB8 1 year ago
Great video as always, Mr. Binary. These philosophers were extremely important people, especially with their formation of major schools of thought like Epicurean belief and Stoicism. Keep up the fantastic work!
youngbloodfantasy91 1 year ago
I laughed so hard at the "pulling your head directly out of your ass" comment that I totally missed the rest of the video. Looks like I'll have to watch it again! :3
ACxCrazed 1 year ago
Sigh, can't believe you left out Epicurus' Trilemma!
Oh well, awesome video though :D
And please do one on Macchiaveli or Hegel! Definitely my two favorites!
burdenuponsociety 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THREE MiNUTE PHILOSOPHY???? PLEASE MAKE IT 5!!!
TheCleansound 1 year ago
Love the NiN logo in the video <3
IcWUTuDIDthar313 1 year ago
woohoo im so excited for more yay!
hansanity 1 year ago
i love you: please be my boyfriend!!!
73kdt 1 year ago
Brilliant, as usual. The best thing on YouTube.
ahope1 1 year ago
I would like to see you write for CRACKED again. That was much win.
thewatcher580 1 year ago
How bout some eastern philosophy?
dumbhead3 1 year ago
you changed your style so much :(
AK1292 1 year ago
Nicely done video! This is good for people to get a first idea about philosophy.
It seems there are basically two different kinds of philosophy: the one that tries to explain how the world works, and the one that deals with values and goals. The first falls flat today when we have real science, but the second is still relevant.
Grasslander 1 year ago
@Grasslander I see Philosophy at it's core to be composed of those who build up systems and those who break down systems.
MrTheodicy 1 year ago
@Grasslander You are wrong. Epistemology / Philosophy of science are still very important branches of philosophy. From where do you think scientists get their methods and structures of work? An you forgot other branches like metaphysics and logic.
merzer131 1 year ago
@merzer131 I am talking about philosohers two millennia ago saying, "I think the world is a big and perfect bubble." Or, "Everything is a reflection of the Perfect World of archetypes that exists behind that big dome with stars above us." Wrong, wrong. These philosophers went way beyond thinking of morality and purpose, and instead went into guesswork to impress their students. Where scientists get their methods? From the scientific principle of theory-experiment. Not from, say, Immanuel Kant.
Grasslander 1 year ago
@Grasslander While I agree with the first part of your comment, the part about the guesswork to impress their students (which doesn't make it less interesting, though ;)), I think you underestimate the influence of later philosophers in areas as for example (especially) science. I could pick up the one you scrapped yourself: Kant. His philosophy had a great impact of peoples perception of science, and convinced people that empirical studies of the earth is the right way to get knowledge.
merzer131 1 year ago
@Grasslander To give another example, even closer to our time: the two most used methods of back-checking the scientific and factual value of different branches of research are the methods of validation (Comte and positivism, philosophy of science 1800's) and the theory of falsifiability (Popper and critic rationalism, philosophy of science 1900's). So the overall structures of scientific work are, in fact, inaugurated by thinkers and philosophers.
merzer131 1 year ago
Nicely done video! This is good for people to get a first idea about philosophy.
It seems there are basically two different kinds of philosophy: the one that tries to explain how the world works, and the one that deals with values and goals. The first falls flat today when we have real science, but the second is still relevant.
Grasslander 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For Friedrich Nietzsche, go to Scribd (dot) com and search for "Thus Spake Zarathustra Abridged". It gives you a summary of Nietzsche's most famous book, although he also later wrote books that were easier to read, like On the Genealogy of Morals.
Orbitron24 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For Friedrich Nietzsche, go to Scribd (dot) com and search for "Thus Spake Zarathustra Abridged". It gives you a summary of Nietzsche's most famous book.
Orbitron24 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For Friedrich Nietzsche, go to Scribd (dot) com and search for "Thus Spake Zarathustra Abridged". It gives you a summary of Nietzsche's most famous book.
Orbitron24 1 year ago
344 like 1 dislike NICEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
DallusDaPwnage 1 year ago
Very good impression of Yahtzee. And I enjoyed it, btw.
Icarus1919 1 year ago
NEW VIDEO YEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH BOI!
ChadMStevenson 1 year ago 12
I prefer the old ode to joy music, but maybe thats just because I dont like change
elchileno74 1 year ago
Lady Gaga @ 2:29 - My hat is a turtle. Your argument is invalid.
ScorpionKZ 1 year ago
Comment removed
ScorpionKZ 1 year ago
Epic 3 minute philosophy as usual. Us youtubers can only consume media in 3 minute chunks so this is perfect.
Ormaaj 1 year ago
@Ormaaj If we're the YouTubers, where are you? There's a philosophical poser for you.
Volterator 1 year ago
Awesome.
Refragatio 1 year ago
Have you done Thales yet?
Not personally.
MrTerryKay 1 year ago
3 Minute Philosophy. My second favourite thing on the internet. Don't feel second rate though, the first is kittens.
XelleohelleX 1 year ago 61
@XelleohelleX porn?
vemu333 10 months ago
@vemu333 Philosophy > porn. Oh yeah, I said it.
XelleohelleX 10 months ago 155
@XelleohelleX I was once about to open a Kant book and I climaxed too early :( happens to everyone right?
ABdadaSURD 4 months ago
@XelleohelleX @vemu333
Philosophy > or = porn
LIFE SOLVED.
Madpolis7 3 months ago
@XelleohelleX are their kitten philosophers? do these tastes go together? I'm foreseeing a choc late and peanut-butter combination :D
KDPhilosophy 10 months ago
Keep up the good work.
nobodyisname 1 year ago
don't wanna be a hater, but not as great at the past ones. Still good...dont hate me
Kingaxel1 1 year ago
F'n sweet dude
callenification 1 year ago
Bethovens 5th I think
austinlikesred 1 year ago
What was the classical in the beginning? Its on the tip of my tongue. :P
StrongSpawn 1 year ago
Aaaah, calling them boring is mean. :p
Nice video though.
mollie2810 1 year ago
This channel has 0.7% of the number of subscribers that Michelle Phan's makeup-tips channel has....
And people wonder why elections are such a circus.
Orbitron24 1 year ago 4