At Verse & Vision, language, literature, and ideas come to life - often with interdisciplinary influence! Led by Dr. Elan Kesilman-Davin, or Dr. K, the channel aims to broaden knowledge and spark discussion. Let's learn and grow together!
I think his manual is realistic and therefore reflects that what is actually most problematic is the concept of having rulers in the first place. The concept of man's authority over other people is arguably the most fundamental problem which we are dealing with today. If you look at the confusion in the world, I think it is largely related to Machiavellian tactics being used against the general population constantly. This ultimately ends up being harmful all around, and in my view the ones who end up becoming the most damaged are the ones in power. I think the concept of leaders and heroes are flawed, faulty concepts and reflective of infantile thinking. If you put someone on a pedestal, expect to get kicked in the face.
That's an interesting take, and I agree that Machiavelli’s ideas can expose the inherent flaws in leadership structures. The power dynamics he described are certainly still relevant, and I can see how those who chase or hold power often end up losing the most in the process.
@@DrElanK Yes, the dynamics he described are relevant and I think precede his writings and are still in use today. If I recall correctly one part of The Prince describes how those in power can use information to divide the population and make them confused, so that when they try to discuss certain topics they will not understand each other. I think that is something one can observe at the present, certainly. I agree with your video title - being 'good' is overrated, I mean this in the Jungian sense, so being 'evil' is also undesirable and unbalanced in the other direction. The pedestal part of my comment is a quote I stole from Michael Tsarion.
The midwits can't handle the truth. Or are too occupied by the social game, appearance and conforming to political correctness; insincerity is staple in society in general and in random office.
It is worth noting that Spinoza's pantheism also resembles a fundamental tenet of 1st c. BCE Advaita Vedanta Hinduism. The vulgar idea that Hindus worship a bewildering variety of gods ignores the fact that all those deities are understood to be themselves merely contingent and temporal manifestations of ultimate reality: the Omnipresent Omniscience they call Brahman. As Katha Upanishad insists: "Brahman alone is - nothing else is." Kaivalya Upanishad affirms: "By seeing the Self in all beings, and all beings in the Self, one goes to Brahman. That is the only way." The Bhagavad-Gita claims Sri Krsna Himself observed: "True knowledge is to see one changeless life in all the lives and in the Separate, One Inseparable." All that said, E=mc² elegantly expresses the idea that all observable material reality in the universe is nothing but energy constrained by natural law.
@@DrElanK It encourages me that a syncretic and inspiring global human culture can indeed be built; and is perhaps a necessary precondition for ensuring our descendants' descendants' descendants' longest possible survival by populating the stars.
Reading in the description how "Sartre had a disdain for inauthenticity and the masks we wear", I feel that I can relate to this. I have for a long time had a dislike for what I call "fake people" and feeling like I'm often the only one who seems to be real in that I don't try to be something I'm not even if others don't like the way I am. I don't know how to NOT be the way I am and I don't like trying to be something I'm not. I don't like hate and I try not to feel it towards others, but I find that there are very few people that I am able to care about either. At this point in my life, I have no actual friends and I don't associate with anyone I am related to except my mother and the only reason I have anything to do with her is because we live in the same house. Everyone I have ever thought of as a "friend" has either betrayed me in some way or just stopped wanting to have contact with me in any capacity and I have had to learn to accept this. I was abused as a child and even as an adult by people I have trusted, including family. This has led me to keep my trust to myself and not even try to meet other people or make friends, but I am actually ok with keeping to myself and not having to deal with other people. I am content with being alone. Sorry for my rant. This video brought up some issues I deal with and I felt the need to express feelings on this topic. Thank you for posting this video and for reading my comment.
I don't stay on top of the channel's comments as well as I should, so I apologize for a delayed reply. Thank you for sharing your experience and for being open about such difficult feelings. It sounds like you've been through a lot, and I can see how Sartre's thoughts on authenticity strike a chord with you. It's hard to feel isolated or betrayed, especially when it comes to relationships and trust. You exhibit strength in your honesty about where you are and how you've come to terms with being alone. While it's okay to find contentment in solitude, it's also okay to seek connection when or if you're ready. Thank you watching and taking the time to comment. I wish you peace on your journey.
Spinoza had a major, yet under-appreciated, influence on the leaders of the American Revolution. May I recommend Matthew Stewart’s Nature’s God to anyone interested in why and how Spinoza’s philosophy undergirds our modern world.
I’ve watched several other professors tutorials on Spinoza. Yours so far is the best. Now, please don’t take offense; you see, I am a 79 year old retired photographer. Can’t help but see through an artist/photographer’s eyes. I’ve noticed in a lot of these tutorial videos the speaker is at their desk looking down at, I assume, their computer/ laptop. This results in the viewer seeing you from a lower angle. All camera lenses have some distortion, thus the chin and nose are more pronounced. If you could place the laptop/computer on a box/stack of books so your camera lens sees you from an angle just a small bite above your eyes this old photog would be very happy. BTW, the angle I’m describing is a traditional portrait angle. Something called Rembrandt lighting would even more improve the your attractiveness.
Like usually, the parts of the philosophers work that are seen as contradictory to other philosophers, or, that deny the existence of things, like free will, come about only because the philosopher defines them differently than other philosophers do. His approach, while insightful from a certain perspective, fails to incorporate the other perspectives into a whole, and creates therefore the illusion of an incompatibility. This makes it difficult to compare it with the work of others, because the differently defined words serve a different function there, than in his own. Which creates the impression of a necessary competition between the philosophies, instead of encouraging to unite the parts that do work with one another. I guess it can't be helped...
Enjoyed the content. You made me want to read Spinoza for myself. However, if your goal is to build subscribers, you should consider some changes to your video setup. The camera angle has you looking “down your nose” at viewers, which translates as a sense of superiority, as if you are lecturing us rather than having a conversation. Similarly, your somewhat clipped speaking style comes across as a bit haughty, when your goal should be more intimate and welcoming. Please forgive me if I come across as nitpicking and overly critical. My intention is to give helpful feedback. Good luck with your channel!
Covid is a terrible example to use. You uploaded 6 days ago, so surely you have already seen that much of the Covid guidance was incorrect, and in many cases they knew it was. The public sentiment that the guidance was corrupt was largely correct.
Spinoza’s universe is most logical, reasonable and closest to what we actually observe or experience. How else could it be? It’s natural, it’s real, it lives.
Doesn’t ethics require free will? Otherwise ethics devolves into nothing more than a deterministic description of how nothing couldn’t be otherwise. Ethics are completely incompatible with determinism.
But how can deliberating over what food causes sluggishness and then making a conscious choice of avoiding healthier food be a result of deterministic worldview. In fact, if the deterministic worldview is absolutely correct, there should be no possibility of course correction. One act should logically lead to another act of the same species, like the way it happens with animals, who will act in the same way, until a substantial change is introduced in the environment, which will force the animal either to adapt or perish. But in the case of humans we say that he can choose otherwise, and even exert an influence over his environment.
It's too bad But this woman Talking to the camera It's obvious that she's looking down and reading it and it's very disconcerting they should have put it up you know eye level or something But it really distracts from what she saying it's just too bad too Cause if you're really get by the distractions it's interesting Iballs Eyeballs looking down Eyeballs looking down and reading ha ha ha
I had to read Spinoza over 30 years ago. I recall he actually did not support "pantheism", but "panentheism" -- The latter referring to the idea that the entire universe is made up of an elementary "god-stuff", but there is more god-stuff outside this universe. And that extra stuff is capable of thinking and observing the universe. [By analogy, this "improved pantheism" is kind of like saying that God took his leg and turned it into the universe.]... If I recall correctly, in his theories of Philosophical Aesthetics Spinoza also said, "Beauty is food for the soul", so he still had his duality... Spinoza also said that when we learn to interpret art, we gain an understanding of the art and the artist's intentions and beliefs. And so when we look at the universe (that is made of god-stuff), we gain the insight of the "universe artist" that is God. Some of these insights may be the interpretation of my professor... Also, the "Free Will"/"Determinism" debate insists that these positions are opposite and incompatible. (The determinists say that free will is a self-delusion, and we don't make decisions, any more than grass bends to wind.) The way Spinoza's Determinism is presented here is simply the insistence that the universe is consistent, like a giant machine put in motion, and cause and effect continue to operate over time.
Not quite... He didn't postulate "extra stuff" outside the universe (whatever that might mean), but a single substance that can be viewed in different ways. This is Spinoza's theory of attributes. And he said that this substance (of which everything is composed) has infinite attributes. But we (humans) are only aware of two of them: thought and extension (i.e. how compositions of this substance occupy space). It is a matter of controversy what some of these other attributes might be, but an analogy might be: looking at things from many different angles.
I don't know if we can call him the most hated as he wasn't forced to drink hemlock. That said, what I have seen of his work I have found pretty plausible. I have heard some suggest that Substance (god or nature) is energy, which could be.
Isaac Asimov and so many other sages warned that democracy has degenerated into meaning that Peter's ignorance is just as good if not better than Paul's knowledge. It's what's ripping America apart and will in all likelihood finish it off as the beacon of the world.
I have just discovered this channel. Another philosophical gem to explore in detail! As for Sartre, I find it a bit incongruous that a communist would put all the responsibility on the individual. As a communist, he could blame economic conditions or social inequality for not achieving what he wants. Or maybe I misunderstood Sartre. Anyway, I love this approach of individual responsibility.
Like most people on this planet, you misunderstand Communism. Sartre understood, and made it the core of his life here for admirable reasons he made clear. As with Christianity, we've never seen Communism in practice. All we've seen is the phoney version run by psychopaths.
Interesting information, thanks. Spinoza is also mentioned in a book I'm currently reading, Aldous Huxley's After Many A Summer. It contains this interesting Spinoza quote: 'A man may be excusable and nevertheless tormented in many ways. A horse is excusable for not being a man; but nevertheless he must needs be a horse and not a man.'
Doesn't the idea that you can have a good life by doing what he says contradict the idea we have no free will to do it? So, he doesn't believe the no free will thing. Spinoza can drive you crazy.
I cannot unthink the thought if he was born in our time... Could he have ended up with the singularity that Nature is everything and leave out a deity component embedded in his theories. I don't see why the deity component is necessary. But hey as you understand I don't believe in deities as I see it as projections of human mind and not the opposite. The point is that most of his ideas work equally well without the concept of a deity imho.
One of the biggest challenges for intellectuals is that a large number of them are prone to arrogance and outright dismissal of the values that the not so smart or enlightened group brings, the temptation of bypassing the rights of others to have a say in their own destinies. To make rationality a religion, the final arbiter of existence, instead of using it to improve the lives of others and decrease the suffering around.
That's true but it's made even more challenging by the fact that the way they are treated by others out of envy makes them more prone to look down on them and push them further in the direction of feeling above the crowd. It's like negative feeback loop that starts when they are young and they don't know that people are envious of their intelligence so they just openly act how they act and other kids resent it and that's why they so often get picked on. This reinforces their hatred of less intelligent people as they continue to be treated badly by them through the years which makes them even more arrogant causing people to dislike them and treat them badly, thus reaffirming to them that the crowd are horrible idiots who don't deserve respect and on and on it goes...
Society does not encourage wisdom because wise people cannot be exploited. The people at the top want their own to be smart, not the masses. They do value intellectuals who can be paid-off or black mailed. They don't like free-thinkers that don't go along with the status-quo, but I don't think they are too intimidated either, as Fauci said during the pandemic something along the lines of 'you think this is a conspiracy? Write a book about it.' I think this is a way of mocking people because the fact is this kind of corruption has been going on for many generations. Truth has already been communicated by many of the great thinkers through the years. Pretty much everything that needs to be said has been said. The answers to a better society are already there, but have been ignored. As long as the majority of people aren't thinking things go on as usual, and because the schools, media and social institutions are controlled this hasn't been too difficult for them. Those at the top have their own agenda, they are only really threatened by people not following orders or individuals taking specific physical actions against their plans. I think it is good to not worry about these things too much, to see things as a process and not worrying about anything out of one's control. As Nietzsche observed, we don't grow as individuals if we don't face challenges. We can learn to not fear and even appreciate adversity that comes our way, and the more wisdom one has the better equipped one will be to handle it. Everything changes, and all of us have blessings and challenges whatever our situation. As far as problems related to the intellect I think things balance out, a smart person has particular challenges and less intellectual people have their own specific challenges. In some ways it is easier for simple-minded people to be happy, but they are more prone to learning hard lessons through accidents. There is a danger in thinking too much, because many of life's mysteries become less clear the more one knows about them and thinks about them. I think it is important for intelligent people to remain wholistic thinkers, using the intuition and the heart and not becoming too left-brained. In regards to how the smart person is viewed in society, they often stand on shaky footing with the public, but the wiser one becomes the more one generally enjoys solitude.
Everybody is somebody's "other people", we must admit. But still, what is most maddening about most of the human race is their amazing capacity to passionately believe utter bullsh*t, whether that be their religion, or politics, or prejudices, or whatever.
because that is My scope and I write these weird demented texts people don't like... god Is everything modal process that can be ontologized in the mind... I don't like it he calls them monads with nomads and same thing revealing an unclearing through being
@@Impaled_Onion-thatsmine - I'm a Christian. But guess what? Those words "modal process that can be ontologized in the mind" are words which communicate virtually nothing whatsoever to sane individuals. BE PLAIN. If anyone has communicated PLAINLY, then it was surely Christ himself.
I want to share an apology, that no one would ever have known was necessary to make. When I saw a white lady with tattoos, I wasn't impressed and that is to my eternal damnation. Now on this, my second video learning with her (her name still unknown - and I apologize for that as well even though I looked for it,) I noticed her tattoo was of a library shelf and then realized that she is an authentic scholar - I would like to know her name and how to contact her. I had no right to this feeling since I am no one's scholar myself. All I can say in my defense is that I came here directly from an ugly social media site that had me thinking in that way. So, that all said, she and the material she is reading from, are the first to excite my interest in Spinoza, despite my KNOWING beforehand that one of my heroes, Einstein, that I wrote a paper on in college spoke highly of. The information presented here will further my reading of and about Spinoza. For that alone - I thank the producers of this video and their excellent spokesperson that I referred to above. Would love some contact information for her so that I might apologize for my vapid disrespect for initially.
I enjoy how you both weave together and tease apart multiple disciplines. Even though I have to listen multiple times to grasp the basics. Subscribed 🎉
"When community leaders discuss community interests behind closed doors, you can be sure they are not discussing what is in the community's interest" (Spinoza). No wonder they hated him!
