making china modern looks sketchy. i did a quick review of the author, his academic connections, etc. demonising the british out of context is so passe. it's like that BS about the «evil zionist conspiracy» or the «absolute evil of communism» while ignoring the brezhnev era. or perhaps it's like reading «orientalism by edward said» ignoring the authors warning and getting the wrong end of the stick. the modern european approach to historiography is absolutely necessary before diving into history books. too much post facto propaganda floating about.
this falls under the general topic of "the great game" in central asia (which continues until today). i would urge anyone to read a few different primers on the great game and build a broad historiography before delving into the specifics.
Oh, please, the diseases coming from the animals, including COVID, and not from genetic engineering in Chinese labs. Thanks. Now I know I am NOT buying this book.
You seem to be interested in economics. Have you read the one titled " veblen: the making of an economist who unmade economics" by a sociologist named Charles Camic?
The amount of things which i have learnt from reading articles,books is unmatched. i want to push my self to end of whats instore in subjects which i love . i like how reading makes me feel dumb.
I mostly let my life circumstances guide me toward the books I read. After finding myself in a bad economic situation due to the COVID pandemic, reading Captial Volume 1 by Karl Marx helped me think about my place in the economy and how I could attain more value from my labor. When I found myself around disagreeable family members due to life circumstances, I studied psychology and politics to try to understand my relationship with them, both of our separate identities, and the beliefs that they hold that are different from mine, in an attempt to reach an agreement with them (which, since they were disagreeable by creed (being avid Trump supporters) proved rather frustrating). When I found myself stressed out at work, or being too emotionally provoked by my coworkers (nothing too extreme, mind you, just too provoked for MY liking), I picked up books on stoicism and Buddhism in an attempt to try to deal with my emotions and try to have more harmonious relations with my coworkers. When I made a lateral move and found myself mostly on my own, I sought out existentialist and phenomenological writings to guide me in a search for an identity and to gain more knowledge on my position in the world among other people; these writings also helped me attain greater satisfaction with the bare phenomena of existence and consciousness and to become more acquainted overall with the possibilities that a life - after being "thrown" into this world - has to offer. At times, due to scoring high in openness, I will pick up any book that sounds interesting; and due to being highly neurotic, I will pick up a book that seems like it could help me down an abstract, unlikely future path; but the books that have influenced me the most and have been the most fulfilling to read are the ones I've been drawn to by my life circumstances. Sure, I'll read things that are simply intellectually interesting (Deleuze and Guattari, Slavoj Zizek, or some of the Oxford Handbooks come to mind), but the books that have been the most meaningful to me found their way into my life by providing a solution to - or at least some insights into - my life circumstances.
I read both non-fiction and fiction. I read fiction both fantasy and sci-fi for entertainment and lessons around how to live with virtue or just to so that I can \view things from different perspectives. I read non-fiction to find information I can apply to get better results in areas of life I deem important. Like health, wealth and relationships. I have not read any biographies or history books yet, but is something I will do. Now it is mostly fantasy/sci-fi, self development books and philosophy.
I read for a mixture of reasons. Im a naturally curious person and like to learn about the world i live in. I also like to know the facts (our as accurate of information as you can get) of the stuff that goes on in the world around me (like politics and history etc..). I also like knowing the different sides to things so i can understand people, that way even if i dont agree with them i can at the very least try to be tolerant and/or agree to disagree. I guess in general i like to be open ninded and mindful.
Those are good reasons. I feel like when I was newer to reading I read more because I was anxious about my lack of knowing stuff. But now, it is definitely more for exploration and curiosity.
I see that the heart of man is so wicked that they can’t comprehend the reality of true compassion I get no pleasure out of giving my goods away or anything I don’t do it for validation I do what is right
You do what is right because you want to, you could just don't do it and even if you don't do it then you don't do it because you don't want to so either way you are selfish, you do what you want.
@@questionminecrafter how I? I can’t comprehend that . I do what I can when I can not for validation or some internal joy or gratification. Simply saying would you want help if you was in the other person shoes . If you can’t think pass your self then you are selfish. I would want help if I was in a the other person position so why would I refuse to help someone. I don’t go about my day trying to fix everything or everyone problems but if opportunities cross my path and I see an opportunity to help if I can I will.
@@Scrooge1801 The word selfish has bad reputation in the world and that's how you are looking at it but what i am saying and what the guy in the video is saying that being selfish doesn't mean you are the bad guy it just means that you do what you want, a mother cares for her child because she WANTS to, a person helps the homeless because he WANTS to he doesn't expect anything in return but helping the homeless fulfills his desire to help the helpless, you drink wanter because you WANT to, you care for your family because you WANT to that doesn't make you a bad guy. What i am saying is it's impossible to not be selfish, anything we do, all our acts are for our self, to fulfill our needs and desires and wants, it doesn't mean you are a bad guy, it is a more philosophical take on the meaning of the word "selfish", it's different to the meaning that you are assuming and what is generally assumed. If you can find a scenario where a person does anything that they didn't want to do then let me know, it would prove my definition of selfish(all and any act done by self regardless of the nature of the act makes the person selfish) wrong.
@@Scrooge1801 Questionminecrafter is understanding the point. I think you are looking at the word selfish as if it were a bad thing. Helping people is selfish, and I am glad you help people. Your good actions aren't negated because they were selfish.
I don’t fully agree because some people are truly just and have a just moral compass not cause they want to but the sense of knowing what is right and just having a heart to help someone who maybe in a worse situation
I don’t fully agree because some people are truly just and have a just moral compass not cause they want to but the sense of knowing what is right and just having a heart to help someone who maybe in a worse situation
@@questionminecrafter because they have instincts knowing it is the moral just and right thing to do. Most of the time it doesn’t cost or change anything in a person life to help someone when they don’t help it’s out of being selfish if they help someone it’s not going to cost them a life fortune or take time off the life clock maybe time off the day but not there life span. By not helping is not going to make there life any better or worst . They don’t help because they’re selfish and the ones who help just know it’s the right thing to do
@@questionminecrafter The right thing is the only thing that truly matters we can’t take nothing to our grave but what we stood for and done in this world. Is it selfish to not want to be selfish?
Yoo I have been thinking exactly this for a while that everyone is selfish. Even if someone was ordered to do a charity, they did it because they WANTED to follow the order hence, selfish and if they don't do it even then it's selfish because they didn't WANT to do it. So either way it's always selfish and I can not find a way around this. Nice video ideashit, poopling here.
Just finished the Count of Monte Cristo at 1243 pages and Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde at 54 pages. Both excellent. Best wishes with what you choose to read. Happy reading.
I view as philosophy as the same way I view religion. I can see as helpful to ground up the harder life questions but not the solution to everything. I believe ego is some early cultural imprint that’s practically for the groups safety maybe this is a selfish definition but idk
LOL, my man came in with a discourse on why to read only big books, opens with Oxford's books on political psychology and epistemology and then straight up downgrades to Jordan Peterson and Pinker :((((
@@createscapes5197 But is there a specific issue that you have? I don't want to read a cliffnotes, haha. I thought maybe you had something. I understand people don't like his politics or his opinions on psychology; I have disagreements with him as well. But "absolute garbage," is not something I could agree with. I have read all of Peterson's books, and they are definitely better than books like "ikigai" or "the power of now". And even those books are not, "absolute garbage". I think you are being too harsh here.
In a standard worldview (from a personal view), everyone is ONLY selfish and egoist. All actions are for "receiving" something, some form of pleasure. Even if it seems like "giving" externally. From the absolute reality view, everything is altruistic, as everything runs to get to some balance, to arrive to some optimum. So everything goes to a system-wise better point.
I think I understand what you said, lol. But the second half was a bit hard to understand. Are you saying every individual operates from selfishness, and that in the context of society that selfishness becomes altruism?
@@IdeasInHat If you see the life from a standpoint of your body, that there is you and there are others (i.e. dualistic worldview), all units (each individual) wants to receive (egoist). I replaced the definitions of egoism to “ the will to receive” and altruism to “the will to give”. Each unit or individual is like a point that only wants or sucks energy from the environment or universe. But if you think that in fact there are no units and there is only Oneness (non dualistic worldview, as in Advaita Vedanta), all the units are fictitious and virtual and there is only giving, i.e. Love (not love as a standard understanding) the giving force, One thing. In full unity there is nothing who can receive as it is nondual. Check nonduality…
Ghost Wars has some obvious misinformation. I can't tell if it's biased and done on purpose or just really badly researched. The info isn't even controversial, which makes it really odd.
''Why Violence Has Declined''? It declined maybe for anthropocentrists and human supremacists, who believe that humans are the only beings whose suffering is relevant. Did Pinker in his book make the comparison between the number of innocent animals we slaughtered yearly now and 500 years ago? We were never as horribly violent as we are today.
Since you appreciate the Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, check out the five-volume series on Moral Psychology edited by Walter Sinnott-Armstrong and Christian B. Miller: it not only offers a range of perspectives and research on moral psychology but includes counterarguments and rebuttals, granting a sense of different ways to interpret the data or follow the reasoning.
Prescott's the Conquest of Mexico and the Conquest of Peru. Probably not what you normally read but it’s fascinating hearing the personal accounts of those involved in Cortez and Pizarro conquest of Aztec and Inca civilizations respectively.
Hi, can you recommend any good books that explains all political ideologies like left wing, right wing, far right, secularism, communist, democratic etc
Oxford handbook of political philosophy, somewhat does it. But I have not come across a book that has explained modern leanings. On top of that, those terms will vary by country. You can check out a history of political philosophy, as well as on politics, those are likewise good books.
I buy books on recommendation from people that read a lot. So the size the book is not really relevant. However, I won't pay $20 or more, for anything less than 300 pages.
Europe: A History , Norman Davies. It was a great introduction to the causal forces that led into each era of Europe’s history and allows the reader to branch off at all historical eras to do further research. He has great facts and opinions to share on the subject.
Justice for hedgehogs by Ronald Dworkin! I know i have suggested this before to you but it really is a masterpiece and completely changed my life and how i view truth, philosophy, interpretation, law, politics and how to pursue a good meaningful life
Ok so if you want to help someone you are willingly contributing to their wellbeing and to yours at the same time, making this act somewhat selfish but what about someone who gets absolutely no pleasure in helping others or someone who won't feel empathy towards others, if that person decides to tip generously or donate to charity, does it make rheir act more alteuistic than if it was done by an empathetic person naturally inclined to care about others?
I wouldn't say so. Because they still choose to do something they wanted to do. The problem I always struggled with, and still do, is I don't know how to describe intentional behavior without using the phrase "I want to x,". For instance, in your example, the person would say, "I wanted to donate to charity, even though I don't get pleasure from helping others".
I feel like this comes up a lot when people are critical of politicians. Take for instance, their acts of charity or anthropology. In some way, they may be doing something simply to bolster their campaign or to improve their image, but they could also just be doing it for purely altruistic reasons. Critics will argue they are committing charitable acts for selfish reasons, but the intention of the politician isn't actually known to anyone but themselves. I think this is classified under consequentialism? (Whereby the selfishness of people's acts are judged by only their effects or consequences, and their intentions, whether selfish or not, are irrelevant). I have personally found this issue come up on the issue of having children. In relation to my family and their values, I am being selfish by not having children, but in relation to the rest of society, I would arguably be less selfish by donating my money to people who really want to have children, but can't afford to. Likewise, I've found many people who have kids to be selfish in relation to other people with the defense being that they need to hoard resources for their own children. I guess the main point of what I'm trying to say is that I've found characterizing an act as selfish easier when in relation to a specific person or group than in relation to society at large. Is someone's action selfish? Yes, if it is against someone else's welfare or desires, but since people's values vary so wildly in a large population, it would be very hard to characterize some acts as having any definite orientation on selfishness. Some people say that raising kids benefits society and is morally altruistic while others think it taxes the system and is morally selfish. Characterizing an act as selfish or altruistic at all relies heavily on the values of the person making the judgement and who is going to be affected (and whether or not the effected person is themselves a selfish person seeking their own gain against any benefits to others). Edit: my auto-correct keeps correcting "characterizing" to "characterized", despite the tense being incorrect.
Likewise, I feel like a scenario in which a selfish individual feels that their own moral values are being threatened by someone acting altruistically, they could easily label an "objectively" altruistic action (if such a thing exists) as selfish, because the altruistic person is acting against their own selfish morality (and promoting their own altruistic one, thus acting in their own self-interest).
You bring up a related but slightly different point, and I agree with you. Many people will rely on their own relative understanding about the outcomes of actions and completely ignore the sacrifices and intentions associated with producing the outcomes. And the reason why is because they want to beat you over the head via moral grandstanding. They call you selfish when they dislike your outcomes, but will call you altruistic when they like the outcomes you produce. Similar to the idea that rich people will say, "it is good to spend and live a little," while poor people will say, "it is good to realize not everything in life is about money". It's just a way of construing philosophy to make ourselves look better than we are.
@@weezerdog3 I also agree about throwing around the word altruistic and selfish for personal benefit. I mentioned in the video that some people will use selfishness as an excuse to never be good, or as you said, to undermine the good that other people will do. That is something to look out for. My notion of selfishness is meant to be aa neutral as possible. Neither a good nor a bad thing; in the same way that consciousness is neither a good nor a bad thing. I think humans are by definition selfish, but that isn't supposed to be a dirty word. I understand that culturally it is, however.
There is interesting research actually that shows low income people give our larger percentages of their wealth; and, not only that, are better at considering the well-being of other people!
@@patriciacole8773 I am not an expert on the psychology of each class, but from what I have read, poor people engage in more behaviors that could be called "products of empathy," and they are more charitable. This holds true on average for the entire class. Meanwhile, rich people give away less of their wealth and are more likely to engage in behaviors that are the product of a "lack of empathy".
@@patriciacole8773 I am not certain about the crime statistics; however, it would not shock me if those in the lower socioeconomic status do have more crime. I would only add that such a statistic does not entail mutual exclusivity. Someone could, for instance, go to prison for possession of drugs, donate large amounts of money, and have higher empathy than a wealthy person.
That would be, I think, the simple and ordinary notion. Someone who is altruistic does not want a reward for costs incurred. But some philosophers would argue that an egoist could also not want a reward for their costs incurred. They did their act for the same reason that the altruist did: personal want. I ultimately lean towards the idea that everyone is selfish because I cannot fathom a way of characterizing altruistic behavior, intentional behavior that is, without relying on some kind of personal want.
@@IdeasInHatI think it’s an idealistic philosophy like for example my mom told me always give people your best but if I take this literally I would want something back or I’d only give them something I didn’t value . Like if i wanted to give my cousin something I’d have to walk all the way to his house which I value being comfortable in my own house so I’d need a reward equal to that. A true altruistic person would give their life or organs up to a dying friend in an extreme example but I guess alturism for my life would be maybe doing more chores or something.
@@Januaryof28 Hmm. So I think to understand the point I am making, you would have to ask whether this question is applicable to the person giving up the organs or not: "did that person WANT to give up their organs," and, "can someone's choice ever be a product of anything other than their WANT to make that choice". That might clarify where I am coming from. I agree, people should care for one another; however, I don't see how we could escape our wants.
@@patriciacole8773 I think you are still talking about outcomes that benefit others rather than yourself. If you want to understand the real problem, then ask yourself if it is possible to make a choice that you would not choose. As far as I can tell, choices are made because we WANT one thing rather than another.
Compared to other mammals yes but I don’t hang around dolphins enough not everyone has the same morals but personally I only use them to live in comfort
Facts !! It is a lot of nuances but because self preservation is the first law of nature we all can be some what selfish but it’s depends on what is a individual definition of selfish
@@Januaryof28 I think you are making a different point than me. In the video I tried to clarify this. Some people will discuss outcomes, while philosophers are discussing philosophy of mind. Humans do whatever they want by definition, since a choice involves a want to fulfil that choice. Ergo, by definition, humans are selfish. Does that clarify it?
@@Scrooge1801 Yes, and as far as I can tell, the only definition I can find of selfishness applies to every choice a human makes. Humans are pleasure seeking machines, even when it is pleasure from helping others.
@@Scrooge1801 Let me fix that sentence for you, so you can understand the point being made: "people who WANT to do things for others expecting nothing in return are"...selfish.
The hardest non fiction that I have ever read is my Maths book back in school.. Joking - Personally when I started philisophy then the books like: Beyond good and evil, being and time, critique of pure reason - these really went over my head the first time and it was severly difficult to get through.
I got a bit of challenge for you. Lets say somone gave have $150 to buy books for them to read, and each book has to be of different genre, you also have to get as many as can while still maintaing a good balance of quality and affordability. What books do you get?
Wow that is not an easy question to answer lol. Makes a good video though. For 150 my guess is you could probably buy 5 or 6 good nonfiction books new. But if you are living in the united states, you can buy used nonfiction books for literally 1$.
