The ego is the voice in your head that keeps telling you different little stories about everything. The story of who you are and who other people are. All the time, the ego is evaluating and judging itself and everyone else. And the ego reacts strongly to everything that is not the way the ego wants it to be. The ego reacts strongly if a negative uncomfortable feeling arises in the body. The ego will do anything to immediately experience pleasant feelings again, so the ego activates itself with something or puts something in the mouth for short-term satisfaction. The ego maniacally seeks validation from others so that the ego can feel that the ego is good enough. The ego gets its value through others' approval of the ego. The ego is a false self-image (a brand) that the ego polishes all the time and shows off to others how good the ego is. The ego stands for inner insecurity, lack of trust, envy, jealousy. separation, fears, conflicts and drama. The ego constantly lives in a fear of not being good enough.
Thank you for being able to put what I do but haven't understood into words. This is very useful to help me scrutinize myself and understand others better.
The ego is an essential part of who you are, it's a satellite of the self. A sub-system, and your persona. It's necessary if you wish to function as a fully integrated being. You just don't let it rule the roost and convince you that that's all you are. Delete the ego entirely and you're on the path to a miserable journey if you're not truly ready for it. There's a reason why faiths have rules for layman, rules for initiates, and rules for monks and advanced practitioners. "If you can be talked out of yourself, you deserve to be" - Alan Watts
The real secrets to self awareness and how to awaken the true self are not easy to find. This guide explains it in simple terms. An eye opener for any spiritual development practitioner, the full breath by james Francis
I'm Greek, I know how greek people speak English, his accent is Greek asf and so wanted to learn if he IS Greek. Got to his channel description, and it was confirmed 😭
game theory excludes like all good colonist excludes. indigenous people/tribes who did not subscribed to this idea and lived for thousands of years without killing each other.
OK, he is checking the monitor that has his speech scripted too much. Very distracting and unprofessional. It's called telling a story, not reading a story.
There are people like Socrates today you won’t think that wars create Nobel men and men who think for a better future guiding the masses away from governments control I’ve met a Libyan man once who told me wars for governments is like a match on a PlayStation for young kids you are literally living in an unjust world where truth makes you look stupid and it doesn’t even matter He said and I will never forget this (I was born a Muslim in a Muslim society we feared allah and he blessed us and we have morale and people where pure and shy what happened to us ? We became the lowest of mankind) I asked him why do you think this is the case he responded (because we allowed the stupid and corrupt to rule over us) he reminded me a lot of how our government perceived us we are mules to the system just like any other system every country is a farm and has an owner who enslave their people for the own needs
If I want to describe ego I think ego is a matrix or personality that we think we are and it's our mind not our soul. Our minds try to deceive us into thinking we are who we think we are but ego will be destroyed after death but our soul and energy don't have a mind or personality.
This video doesn't sit right with me at all. It's this interpretation of Hegel that is so "common sense" that it strips away the very essence of his ideas. Hegel is very much the philosopher who fought against so called wisdom in the form of aphorisms and sophistry so I very much doubt you even more when you say you've been a Hegelian at heart even without prior context of his works/influences. Why do I say this? From the title of your video, you say reading Hegel is dangerous and I thought that was intriguing, cause I agree. It's dangerous to *misread* Hegel. I'd even say that a grave misreading would lead to the development of reactionary and fascistic ideas that uphold nostalgia for traditional values. And it's not even that I'm saying you out right don't understand him since idk the full extent of your knowledge, it's just that you provided a very lacking video that allows viewers to profoundly misread his ideas, making the premise of the video very ironic. I don't think it's a good sign when your viewers start talking about Jung on a Hegel video. I think to really understand what Hegel did, you need to provide context on the development of German Idealism. There simply is no shortcut since you first have to dismantle this romantic idea that is so deeply rooted in our "common sense", namely transcending into the Absolute, discovering the Truth, going from low to High, etc. etc. Going way back to Plato's Allegory of the Cave where there exists a binary between illusion and reality, we have been so used to this type of reading of idealism that it's hard to really demonstrate how radical Hegel really is.
Additionally, Hegel as, supposedly, the philosopher of nothing and everything is, imo, problematic due to a major idea of his about false universalities. Perhaps the only all-encompassing idea we could learn from Hegel is that the mind is very treacherous when it comes to teaching you "everything". The very foundation of Hegel is that all existence is built from negation. To account for everything is imminently treacherous. Think of what Orwell said, all lives are equal and yet some are more equal than others. This insistence on everythingness is what blinds us to our inherent differences and leads us to be intolerant of those different to us. It is those who have insisted on their everythingness who could also lay claim to nothingness as to seamlessly hide the power they have. Yeah, perhaps he did philosophize about the concept of everything and nothing. But I think to really sell what he did, you have to say he radicalized our very conceptions of thinking about everything and nothing in the first place. He didn't examine the content, he examined the form in which everything and nothing makes itself known to our mind, i.e. how we even get to conceptualize such ideas to begin with.
Science and religion alike are confused about the combination of life and death in our realm. Scientists may perceive the Big Bang as a point of energy creating our entire living universe, but the inevitable death of that creative point nullifies the eternity of life. It is arguably impossible for science to deduce eternal life within the current framework of recycled energy-matter. Religion agrees with science about the circle of life and death; however, religion believes that life is embodied or disembodied by something beyond us, and we must become transformed by its power to reach its ultimate state. Both schools of thought leave nearly everything out of our grasp. New Age spiritualism aims to remedy this disempowerment by saying we are fundamentally gods who create and control essentially everything in our lives, but its popular spirit-science simultaneously promotes the golden ratio fragmentation, therefore proving its fantasy. Our current reality has us live in the gray area. This gray area maintains creative life, and the measure of influence we have over our lives can be increased the more we realize how multifaceted and connected we and the cosmos are, separately and together.
It’s about captivating people you meet and talk with. Get them to visualise your story and paint pictures about what you saw how you felt. Draw them in to your world! Transport them into another universe.
For me, consequences are all that matter but the trolley problem and its variants do not pose a substantive refutation of any form of more nuanced and thoughtful consequentialist ethics (including but not limited to utilitarianism). The problem is that the actual consequences are not stated. It is not a simple matter of arithmetic as the dilemmas imply in their "given consequences"; the larger and more substantial consequences are not given and serious consequentialists think about those instead. For example, if we condone pushing innocent overweight people off of bridges to stop trolleys or for any other reason, that poses a massive public safety hazard for any overweight people standing on bridges, and potentially even people of normal weight if their mass might stop a smaller trolley, e.g. Soon no one can feel safe standing on bridges if we condone pushing innocent people off of them in any situation, so we must necessarily treat the person who pushes innocent people off of bridges as a criminal to preserve public safety and discourage others from doing so in the future. The likely, long-lasting consequences for society are far too negative if we don't and condone such misbehavior. For the transplant variant, we cannot condone surgeons harvesting the healthy organs of patients against their will or else we get a similar public safety crisis where even people in need of organ transplants may become too afraid of going to hospitals, unsure whether or not they'll be properly treated or have their organs harvested against their will. For the original dilemma, the real societal safety hazard that impacts the long-term consequences for people who seriously think about the consequences are the workers oblivious to the trolley. The ultimate solution to solve this problem for once and for all has nothing to do with whether or not to pull the lever but to implement methods to ensure that people are kept off the tracks when trolleys are coming.
Hello there. I saw that you`re greek too! Can you tell me this, what are the best versions of science of logic and phenomenology in greek since I`m struggling to find the correct ones.
I been following your chanel for a long time, I really enjoy it, I see that you're trying to reach something higher. Christ is the only way to do that, you can try and you will find some things but you won't reach what you could in any other way.
Manhattan at night is a modern day cave - One day while coming into downtown Manhattan I looked up and felt like one of Plato's cave dwellers. There was, at that moment, no other world except the canyons of buildings and lights of businesses that were there to attract my attention, and seemed to represent reality. But what is it they asked me to attend to? Do any of those light and shadows speak to humanity or our need for community? The signs for Coca Cola and Panasonic represent things that are consumed. I know I can live without them. But Yahoo or Reuters “moving at the speed of life”? Aren’t these ways for us to connect with people and understand the world beyond the cave? I wonder about this cave as I am immersed in this world that bares no resemblance to my home in a small old New Jersey town. Media in general, and social media in particular, serves a real function in our global world where even our own children may be on the other side of the continent or even the world. But how many times have you wondered how your written words may be misinterpreted. The human voice has the power to convey nuances. Likewise watching a person’s hands or their posture or their eyes may tell you far more about their hearts and the world they live in then is conveyed by their words alone. The news is definitely useful for understanding the workings of corporations and governments that help maintain the walls of this metaphorical cave. But the news does little to help us understand the walls of the heart and the motivations of the people inside or outside of society or culture. I could argue that most news functions to tell us a story that really has little to do with the reality of our daily lives. So how does the person in this modern cave come to understand the outside world? By doing the same thing Socrates imagined the freed cave dweller did. We need to leave the cave. We need to see the world from different perspectives. When we return we will still have to speak to the people in the caves, people who may be incredulous of our tales and observations or unable to understand what we describe. They have only known what the shadows of the media outlets have told them. They have no reason to believe the fantastical tales of those who were brave enough to leave. We will probably find that some of our friends and relatives are even afraid of what exists outside the canyon. But undoubtedly some will be enticed to explore. And when enough people return to share their experiences outside the canyon perhaps we will be able to entice a movement.
