if people can even imagine a world that is ALL good, im assuming this is judged by them also, either way this person that can imagine a world with nothing but good, why cant they believe in the God that already is!! i dont know if evil is a necessity, i think we could live on earth even as we do without it, but then we would all be the same, look the same , n think the same. we may all have some similar thoughts deemed evil by one person or maybe more. evil is not evil to its own family. i guess even serial killers kind pf have families n crazy fans n such. i mean, look at that right there, then one day, i saw ALL things in life, and in order to have all things be possible, that ALL things need be possible .. besides Jesus did die for ALL sins, the one sin He cant die for is your unwillingness to accept his blood on your sin n others
so since morality is subjective you can justify anything like "yeah sure i destroyed this house via Arson, but that's good because if there's less houses there's more occasions for carpenters to earn money, and they need it more" and therefore there's no reason to try to justify it ? Just like how murder is seen as bad there has been a lot of "moral" deaths like the Aztecs thinking it would save everyone else or during war ?
I wish to challenge you to move away from your current perspective to entertain what I consider to be a more foundational point of view. There is a reason, and that is that you failed to address the question. "Why?" To answer, "why", will clarify all the topics that you brought up. So, Why do things have value comes first. Why does a garden have value or why does your garden have a lower value; is directly related to the effort of the gardener. In the same way, God said what has value in Genesis. After each day of creation God said that what He had done was GOOD. That is a determination of value. After creating man, God said it was VERY GOOD. Again, a determination of value. Value to whom? Value to GOD! We must attempt to look at these things from a point of view that is of God and not a point of view that is of self. All of the debate is directly attributable to different people holding to an inferior selfish personal perspective. But if creation has value because God created it and said it has value, that perspective severely alters the arguments. News flash... mankind is a part of nature. It is only a human perspective that we are separated from nature. None of the bugs realize that we set ourselves apart. Back to the topic. Why is it important to realize that value comes from God? You brought up art. The artist creates and is known to others by his creation. People define people by what they do. People connect through songs and feel a connection to the band, or thru pictures or movies or sport or architecture.... we study these things to know the artist. Likewise we study nature to know the creator. God made man to be in relationship with Him. He gives us the book of nature and a book of revelation (the bible). If your relationship to nature is such that you seek to understand God through it, then why one thing is profitable or unprofitable becomes discernable. Doing things for man's benefit is myopic. I do not say it is bad, it is just less than seeing the hand of God that is right before you, and the wonderful mystery of it all. We treat nature as if we understand all things. Because we have separated ourselves from God and from His creation. How is it possible to do anything well, when we have done this?
Succinct, clear, unbiased, and informative. This would have made an excellent master's thesis. I've been loving your content, doctor! Please consider starting a podcast 🙂
Good art has truth in it. Its either exposing a truth or making you consider it the reality of the piece. Woke art is propaganda it is basically shouting at you what you should think. People can see when they are being fed bullshit vs if its something honest.
Hey there, speaking to you from across the aisle. I disagree with your premise (and I have no urge to debate this in the comments), but I greatly appreciate that you stay on topic, make accurate references, and don't resort to villainizing. Hope your channel does well and that life treats you kind.
Hi @williamjamesstack, I have a lot of respect for this kind of comment. It's rare to be able to disagree respectfully--thanks for your well wishes. I hope my videos evince a similar diplomacy and charity.
As long as i can remember there was woke messages in every medium from gaming to movies to tv. What i think happened is they started adding non-white, non-straight, and non-binary people which is why so many whine and go back Sleep. It's painfully obvious as a Straight White Male that I'm not seeing myself as much as I used to and I'm okay with that. Other people exist. Also, art is subjective. Not objective. You lost me there.
If you go about life walking around aimlessly, you’ll eventually end up going nowhere. We were put here on earth to learn certain truths. Outright rejecting these truths will definitely hinder whatever progression will be made after our death. Post modernism is a somewhat cancerous death, to society, and definitely to all art.
I am on the side that is opposed to sexualizing children and calling abortion "Parental care". The side that doesn't divide the people by race, color and sexual preferences. I oppose those that think socialism and equity are better than free market capitalism, civil rights and responsibility for your own life. Equity makes everyone poor but those that dispense it. I am also opposed to vulture capitalism and corporate globalist control freaks.
Yeah, and they would definitely have a point. Conservative comedy is even cringier. A lot of it has to do with the fact that anything strongly ideologically driven is not funny. But I think there's something about the contemporary progressive viewpoint that is incompatible with art in general. So maybe the comedy point was a little distracting, in fact.
If you want good comedy, you need to watch funny RU-vid channels like Squire,Lazerpig, Ailaughatmyownjokes, Vicky Boss, GradeAUnderA, or Ryan George. Great comedy is still out there, just not run by mega corparations.
I've seen the title and had a disgusted inpression, but saw it as a challenge for my world view to watch this video. Now the most convincing part of this video were about 10 min why Jeudo Christian Moral in fact is (in nietsches View ) a slave morality. In conclusion I will say: It's a logical 33 min neutral explanation (from his point of view neutral) of Nietsches Concept of Slave- and Master- Morality. After that... puhhh The wild claims in the title squeezed in the remaining time, lack of any form of justification and misrepresent "the political left" morality. And about Jeudo Christian Moral not being Slave Moral? Two biblic Statements and it's finished. Both not being very connected to the topic. I'm half way through on my first Work of Nietzsche "menschliches allzu menschliches" so I'm at Beginning of my "Nietzventure" but so far Nietzsche would never support the diconnected claims in this title.
30 seconds into this vid... agreed, and the simple answer is, IMO: feminism. My reason: women are natural creators, men need to work to perfect skills to make anything. Women lost their place in society when they went into the workforce, it deetracted from their natral abilities. (IMO)
Yeah, I wish I'd touched on this too. This would be true of ANY political "art"--strong ideological agendas instrumentalize art and that undermines its purpose.
@@FederalMenace of course it has, but not to this degree and not this ubiquitous. I’d say 25 years ago there were select films that tried to influence the culture a particular direction. Now it is literally all movies and shows that make it to the mainstream.
How are you not more popular? You’re walking around the goddamn field hitting every mark and such an organized format effortlessly. You come up with brutally accurate examples and effective answers for all of them. This has honestly been a great Listen for my commute to work..
Nice conversational feel. I concur with these thoughts, were just having a similar conversation with my extended family last week at a gathering. Unfortunately this emphasis on woke or as I prefer to call it 'degenerate art', is pushed by by influential NGOs, studios, art galleries, talking heads etc since the late 60-70's. Just another vector for the dumbing down of society and expression, imo.
Interesting--I'm intrigued to figure out just how exactly this happened. I don't know as much about that as I do about the philosophies that influenced it. I've been reading this, which has been good so far: www.amazon.com/Cynical-Theories-Scholarship-Everything-Identity_and/dp/1634312023
There's a dimension missing in this explanation. There are many qualifying questions that aren't being asked. Good and bad are relative to any particular point of view, or motivation. Not only that but outcomes are rarely straight forward. Many people can look back on events which seemed to be bad at the time but later turned out to have saved them from an even worse probable situation. Nietzsche seems to me like he's using the "master" morality do describe hatred of weakness rather than strictly might makes right. "Miseasthenes," is surprisingly obscure considering how common the trait is. I think it's quite natural to despise the weaknesses we find in ourselves, and easy to project that disposition towards people we recognize share our weaknesses. If a recovered alcoholic recognizes the signs of alcohol dependency in another person, they could choose to use that knowledge in countless ways. Did they offer them resources to find a community to help them recover? Did they sell them a case at a markup? Is the recovered alcoholic an ancient middle-eastern tyrant who drowns the other person in a vat of beer and gets away with it because nobody more powerful than him cares? Morality is entirely about how we as outsiders judge the actions of the recovered alcoholic. I bet most people could assign some kind of value between -100 and 100 to those scenarios relative to one another. I think most people would evaluate them according to the point of view with which they they relate most. Nietzsche would argue whatever benefits the most powerful individual is the most morally correct, right? Personally I don't think the Judeo-Christian ethical tradition would conclude that drowning a drunk in alcohol is morally correct. Wouldn't that put it at odds with the "master" morality in that scenario?
Hi @richm368, there's a lot here, but I wanted to pick up on this comment: "Nietzsche would argue whatever benefits the most powerful individual is the most morally correct, right?" I see that reading, and it's a natural first impression of Nietzsche. But there's a solid scholarly case that Nietzsche doesn't actually ENDORSE the master morality. He is just saying that this was the first stage, before the slave revolt. He's not advocating a *return* to the master morality. Some evidence of this: (1) there are places where he praises aspects of the slave morality. He thinks this is where we got our sense of guilt, and our sense of an inward life even. And Nietzsche seems to think those things are really important to human life. And (2), if you read Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Nietzsche has this parable about a lion, a camel, and a child--some scholars argue that Nietzsche is saying humanity has progressed from master morality to slave morality, and that now we should progress to "the child"--whatever that is! At any rate, if that's all right, then Nietzsche isn't really a total fan of the master morality, and thus wouldn't endorse the "what benefits the powerful is the most morally correct" view. Of course, some people think Nietzsche is just a moral nihilist, and so wouldn't say ANYTHING is morally correct....but that's another matter. I wish I could have touched on this topic in the video, and you comment makes me sad I didn't!
@abshirb1 Then you are an idiot that is missing signals. Or you are lying. There is so much to do with such little time, so we MUST judge by covers or be idiots that waste time. Me personally, I'm not wasting my time watching videos of someone constantly talking about the political left in a negative light because the video is likely to be bias and a schizo rant of trying to tie everything bad to the left lol.
@@ChipmunkGuyGamerGaming Because I wanted to publicly disapprove of such an absurd title. Someone making such distant connections is being a paranoid schizo that is seeing patterns that don't even exist. But hey, if watching bias videos is your cup of tea, that's okay. Just don't be that uncle at parties that makes those weird schizo rants.
Lots of current evidence shows that in fact no Aryans came in from the outside. Sanskrit and Indian philosophy is an intrinsic part of the geographical space. Also, I think the concept of Moksha would be much more succinctly captured by making reference to the shastras itself. The attempt to draw on everyday life experiences is creating confusion. Nonetheless, thank you for the attempt. South Africa.
I believe there is an editing mistake when discussing Socrates’ Question: the whiteboard footage is mirrored and thus difficult to read. Enjoyed the discussion regardless
The version of monism you're referring to is known as *existence monism,* but there's another important version known as: *Priority Monism.* Priority Monism holds that only one being is fundamental to all the other beings that exist. This allows us to accept a plurality of many things existing while still embracing monism because all things are one: everything is a part of a single fundamental whole.
I used to live a hedonistic lifestyle, and even now, I continue to do so. However, I recently experienced a period of calmness and inner peace. During this time, I had no goals to pursue and no ambitions driving me. This newfound happiness lasted for a couple of weeks, or perhaps even months. Unfortunately, now that I am leading an idle life, some health problems related to my previous hedonistic choices have emerged. I find myself at a crossroads, torn between embracing a healthier lifestyle that may not offer the same immediate pleasures, and sacrificing my current way of life for the sake of a more fulfilling future. I'm stuck at this life dilemma!
My opinion on this topic is in line with the Catholic Church: 2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him. Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens. (Catechism of the Catholic Church) I believe people have a right to migrate, especially those who are less fortunate, live in a country that is currently at war, cannot find enough resources where they live. They have the dignity of human beings and it's immoral to deny them a chance of better existence for no good reason. Of course, they have to obey law of the foreign country, some regulations are necessary, regarding safety of the citizens.
13:00 Fallacious argument. 1 makes a non sequitur from happiness to rationalism and 2 does not even explain why 2 is false. Furthermore I'd assert that everything lifeforms do is, be it rational or irrational, chase pleasure/happiness and avoid pain. This is downright instinct. That includes things not conventionally regarded as hedonistic such as religious experiences(1), discipline and delaying gratification -- a delayed gratification is still gratification. There is no paradox. Your entire premise is false. (Well not _yours_ you didn't come up with it but you did show that fallacious logical argument I had to put up with) (1) "Ultimately it is the [religious] attitude which is self-interested and hedonistic, since the aim is to always get away from the painful struggle of earthly life and find peace in some kind of Heaven or Nirvana." --George Orwell
