@@Ranidine26 Man, when you actually want to engage with Thomas is actually saying and not just push on us your nonsensical mysogenistic talking points, let us know.
I have a theory about the 55 in his name So the Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus was written in 1942 but wasn't published in English till 1955 and as he is a big fan of Camus, I think he added it as a reference But hey that's my theory, noone except Sisyphus knows lol
Two of my absolute favorite age fellows from completely different continents altogether making me thank modernity and the perks it brought in the form of the internet whom I can build these one sided friendships and virtually grow alongside with. Cheers Alex and Ben🥂
I think broadening what it means to be each gender would be helpful. I'm a female and yet I have a lot of traditionally masculine traits and am in a traditionally male career. However, I do identify as a female and I only felt bad about my gender when I felt I wasn't fulfilling my assigned role. Now that I know I don't need to be pigeonholed into such a structured role, I am more 'free' or settled into my role in society. We need to be able to accept what ppl identify with and know that it won't always be in the role they were told and that's okay. Part of the problem is the assumptions of what ppl should be and them just wanting to be told who to be as though that will fix normal human experiences.
I think we can acknowledge biological sexual dimorphism without assigning behavioural and personality traits to either of them, especially not in a strict way. If a girl is tough, she's a tough girl, not a "tom boy". If a boy is flamboyant, he's a flamboyant boy, not a "girl trapped in a boy body". The fluidity shouldn't be in IDENTITY, but in descriptions. I.e. all adjectives can be used for all people (interchangeably between sexes), but the sexes themselves are not interchangeable. If gender is a social construct, it is one CONSTRUCTED UPON biological sex. If biological sex is not spectral, then neither is gender.
I'm currently going through a bit of an opposite phase: I always been a tomboy, I liked more boys toys (although I did I have my collection of barbies), I'm in a male dominated career etc... And I never struggled with that. But in the last couple of years I'm changing towards being more feminine, buying more dresses and jewelry, desiring to paint instead of dealing with computers all day long... And I'm struggling to accept that change, I'm struggling to accept the feminine side of me... Internalized misogyny maybe that sees everything that's feminine weak?
@@nigelnyoni8265 I mostly agree. I would say both are spectrums, just like nearly everything else in the world. Being able to see the ranges allows us to look at typicals and nuance
@@FedericaGalli89 I think that makes total sense. We're not all one way, even as individuals. Developing, having different sides, perspectives, desires, and facets to ourselves...I think that's all very human, yet not always very accepted - either by society or ourselves. But to see the journey of our existence as not one or or another and instead more flexible and without the role rules I think is what I strive for. To be able to put on on uniform and be physical... Then also be able to enjoy my feminity too
Male here. My experience coming out of a religious setting makes your final sentence above seem really central, at least for me. There was an assumption that if you were doing godly masculinity right then you would be thriving. When people ran into difficulties the strategies were to either identify something wrong or deviant in/with the struggling individual or to reframe the difficulties as God training you in masculinity. Looking back it's so frustrating. The assumption is that the the model they were providing is perfect. You were the only one who could mess it up by not following the program. In this way, as you said, 'normal human experiences' get framed in the above binary and that only serves people really well in a relatively small set of cases. Seems like a pattern that repeats: inflexible model overpromises and stakeholders blame failures of the inflexible model on individuals to protect the model.
The idea that unionizing your workplace and cleaning your room are interchangeable actions is difficult to accept. While unionizing your workplace might have larger apparent long-term outcomes, gaining a sense of agency by enacting order in the smallest sphere of your life would be far easier to attain quickly and thereby empower yourself to do more.
Agreed. I’ve heard Peterson talk of ‘walking with your chin up’. Good posture is an instantly attainable goal and may well literally alter your outlook. My problem with JP is he doesn’t carry any of this good advice forward. He has complete distain for anyone organising in order to re order power (such as collective action at work, becoming involved in institutions or government).
Clean up your room is a metaphor, as demonstrated by Peterson's messy room in some interviews. Perhaps change the metaphor to 'clean up your workspace' to make the link to unionising more obvious.
I honestly cannot understand how so many people find anything particularly valuable in this episode of the podcast. The guest's takes strike me as either very trivial or blatantly one-sided or even wrong. He did a really bad job at grasping the rise of the manosphere and doesn't even consider power dynamics between men and women especially in the dating game as a cause of SOME of men's struggles.
Alex, you're telling me you've never even thought about the fact that supporting a team was all about the community and the human interactions, not about the players and even the sport?
I honestly never really considered that until a few minutes before he did, when I remembered that FC means "football club" and that the club is probably the fans
This was a fascinating conversation. I consider myself a nihilist much in the way Alex was describing. I have innate desires and aversions. I want to improve my opportunities for adventure and discovery. I want people to thrive and not suffer. I even resist my hedonistic urges because I want to increase my ability to comprehend and remain healthy as much as I can despite aging. However, I do not think any of my subjective desires (even those shared by most humans) are objective truths or provide any insight into the meaning of the universe or my role in it. I think all meaning is subjective and created like a story from the fabric of the human mind or perhaps other conscious minds if they exist. Even if there was a creator I would most likely remain a nihilist unless they could prove to me how evolution and determinism can lead to some kind of intrinsic meaning or even teleological purpose for individuals or conscious agents within the creation. And if there is no creator than it is even more likely there is no meaning beyond my subjective desires which are only creations of my local matter states.
@@myhatmygandhi6217 I'm a philosophical nihilist in that I don't think there is any objective meaning or purpose. And I think there is no intrinsic objective meaning or purpose. At an individual subjective level I am an ideological pragmatist/absurdist/egotist but I do not think these are objective philosophies only ways in which I have chosen to view the world in myself.
@@tmstani23 what about the fact that we live in a world with causes and effects that are traceable and objective, governed by natural laws that determine how in alignment with (the continuation of) life, your causal choices are? In other words, all of your choices are causal and the quality of their effects may contribute more or less to the wellbeing of all beings. You may not need a creator to belong to something larger and integrate objective meaning in your life
@@tonyburton419 Not really. Sartre’s, “Existence precedes essence” is primarily a critique against idealism and Cartesian dualism. Even if we’re ordered towards a certain point, which, if taken to its logical end would undermine the entire epistemic enterprise, doesn’t negate my freedom and responsibility. My existence isn’t the sum of thoughts.
Peterson very clearly explained that his "clean your room" thing is about taking responsibility for a single thing that you can control, and then when you have that down, you can take something harder. Her clearly stated that his point is that you can't change the world if you can't change your home. He's saying to keep cleaning your room until it becomes easy to do, and then move on to something bigger. It's not about having a clean room, it's about practicing personal responsibility for things you can control so that you can more easily accept the things that you can't control
The issue is viewing your individual problems and societies problem as mutually exclusive or unrelated. Solving problems that are within your control includes making social, collective, and political changes because these are all things that shape your life and very being. It isn’t wrong to tell people to do better and take responsibility. The issue is when you reject any social critique or analysis of oppressive conditions by saying individuals should simply do better and take control of their own lives.
@@geraldikaz1981 no, the issue is that you can't affect societal change, if you are incapable of affecting personal change. If you can't get your own love together, you have no place trying to fix an entire society.
@@kjs8719 again. I reject the dichotomy between the personal and the societal in the first place. Say I have a personal issue that’s largely due to the fact that I don’t make enough money. Is this personal or societal? It’s both. So my solutions involve both the personal and the social. For example, I could organise with my coworkers and bargain for higher wages. If successful this is a personal problem I’ve solved through the political. You seem to imply people who want to make society better for reasons totally disconnected from their lives and what they see as important. Sorting out one’s own life requires looking at political and collective solutions. You have fallen into the trap of hyper individualist neoliberal thinking that insists there are no structural barriers external to us and everyone will be fine if they just self optimise under the current conditions.
Sports & religion are somewhat similar. People go to sports events for a sense of community & comradery. I know people that aren't necessarily religious, but they go to church for the same reason people go to sports events.
The comparison is accurate. In fact, the question alex wrestles with is very similar to asking for a clear definition of God. In some sense defining the essence of what sport fans support is not unlike defining the essence of God that theists support.
This is crazy, I wasn’t expecting this at all but it’s a topic I’ve been thinking about. It’s becoming a bigger problem and to see Alex speak about it with someone is incredible. P.s love Sisyphus 55
@@thucydides7849Then they weren't talking about it or you live in a rural area where they don't need to know about the red pill to justify being a misogynist.
@@thucydides7849 I really don’t believe it’s a minority, I’ve heard stories that some schools are dealing with more sexism from Tate fans. An a major increase in harassment to female teachers and students, so they are handing out suspensions for anyone associating with the Tate mindset. Also if a manospehere RU-vidr has a million views there’s no way you can say they are minority even though you can’t see them in real life. I know for a fact it’s getting bigger.
@@Ren-0It is getting bigger but the point is that out in the real world, away from all social media and other online things, the majority of people are normal and reasonable.
@@beaverones41 I still don’t believe that, relating to my other comment my cousin said kids are talking about being alpha in his school. Also very religious people have been talking about concepts like these for awhile, having very traditional gender roles and not respecting women etc. I just think it’s gotten worse because of people like Andrew Tate, hamza.
It's funny how Alex took long to get to the answer that supporters are the most important aspect of the club when, for supporters, this is trivial. They're the protagonists
@@ollikoskiniemi6221 Absolutely not, I'm just being ironic. I thought it's a funny number considering how some people confuse atheism with Satanism, and that there might be someone who actually sees it as a sign of the Devil's work
@@questionnaire8157 If you understand satanism then you realize it's a philosophy/belief system/way of life that is atheistic, and in a way the logical conclusion of atheism - you can be as your own god.
@@ollikoskiniemi6221 Alright. I was pointing to people who claim atheists are actually Satanists and who also think anything related to Satan is morally wrong, and therefore pay excessive attention to coincidental things such as the number 666 in the subscriptions to justify their views.
38:24 This is the exact sentiment expressed by Pliny in letter 9.6 - "And if during the running the racers were to exchange colours, their partisans would change sides, and instantly forsake the very drivers and horses whom they were just before recognizing from afar, and clamorously saluting by name." It's extremely short; might be worth a read.
just read the letter, this has been my exact experience, complete bewilderment at the enthusiasm of adult sports fans. I've made a concerted effort to try and find any joy in viewing sports, as I was the only kid not into sports I knew of, and I've failed to find the excitement. It really do seem like a binary, those who cheer for their team and those who find it all infantile and tribal. Makes me feel less alone at least
@@FinallyAlminoIt helps to have actually played the sport. It's an art, and true fans of sport have no problem watching other teams and appreciating other players. Sports aren't just about your team, that's simplistic.
Id love to see an American football game where the players were swapped halfway to test the competence of the coaching staff. You score the players and teams separately and find out which teams are carried by the talent on which side. You'd just be completely giving the players credit for all the coaches effort in practice and gameplanning between each side of the teams would be a nightmare. Still, it'd be a cool exercise.
Now I just want one of those performance artists to try and do something like that, but not inform anybody except the people who really need to know. It would just be funny during a halftime show with a football game for the performing artist to get on the field and say OK everybody switch uniforms now.
I wouldn't call it stoic or narcissism. Many of those drawn to the mano-sphere describe themselves not having a true sense of self. They adopt and act according to these personas. The old greek, classical, Stoics said wealth, health, happiness, well-being are not virtues. Living the good life was what was important and those that followig a good-life was a virtue. Yet, wealth, health, well-being, a sense of achievement, are the things the mano-sphere followers say that they feel while following "stoicism". These kind of achievements are not the same as living a good life. Living a good life is something that you believe when you are 80 and not 20. Everyday you are born a different person. The self is not real. It something imagined. We have known this for centuries. All men are self-made but the self-made man doesn't exist.
And according to Nietzche, stoics were the most misguided of people, since it is stupid to assume one can live according the wholly uncaring whims of nature, when people survive despite of nature, in contrast thereof. So what?
I find it so interesting that a Nihilist believes in something called “dehumanization.” What’s the point of treating humans like humans if there’s no meaning or purpose to human existence?
Only if your definition of nihilism is that meaning does not exist at all. What people mean by this is that there is no objective meaning to anything but we can still have individual or collective meaning.
@@OmniversalInsect i understand what you are saying, truly. But either there is meaning or there is not. 1+1 cannot equal 3, no matter how badly one may subjectively desire it.
I think it is a fascinating idea that any community or a group of people who support or appreciate a particular team, are essentially in support of themselves as a community or a 'club' which I hadn't considered myself until Alex brought this up, even though I have been a sports fan of a particular team all my life. I don't believe that this idea is as conspicuous as it might appear to be to some people unless you have profoundly considered it. I also appreciate the parallelism that Alex has drawn between being a sports fan and nationalism, as both are about maintaining the spirit of the people themselves rather than support the arbitrary notion that they appear to support from the outset. P.S. Having watched the segment about meaning and definition and being enamored with it, i would like to learn how others perceive meaning or how they define it.
Love the channel Alex and i am going to check out Sisyphus', but i can't help but feel a little underwhelmed by this particular conversation. There wasn't much back and forth. Perhaps that was intentioned, but i found it challenging to maintain my attention in a single sitting. Respectfully,
I would claim that the value of sports teams fanaticism is about creating stories. A great comeback story from the underdogs, a great story about the undefeated streak and so on.
While I hold a commendable level of respect for your esteemed guests, I can't help but feel that the show occasionally morphs into a snoozefest, despite the inherently fascinating topics. It's like someone's reading a philosophy textbook aloud, and trust me, most of your audience isn't racking up Ph.D.s in philosophy. Spice things up, throw in some relatable anecdotes, and let's make these interviews as engaging as the subjects themselves, please!
What's always bothered me about some internet "nihilists" is the smug reductive reasoning: "playing guitar is just flicking strings", "it's all just chemicals in the brain" etc. The cynical use of the word "just" says way more about these statements than how accurate they are. Not to mention the fact that this train of logic can be broken down further until it contradicts itself
Around October I told Mum I needed vitamins for deficiencies and said if she doesn't know what to get me for Christmas I'd be really happy with that (because figuring out what to get people stresses her out and I needed the vitamins so I thought we both win this way). She told me she wasn't planning on doing presents this year, but that she'd happily buy me the vitamins. Lovely right? But then Christmas day came and she gifted me beautiful bougie hair products and proper hairdresser's shears for trimming my hair at home. I'm so lucky.
44:55 "What is Chelsea?" The word "Chelsea" is meant to capture a part of reality. "Chelsea" can capture the idea of the current team who named themselves Chelsea. In some context, you can use the word "Chelsea" to capture the reality of a football team who used to name themselves "Chelsea" in a specific time and place. Just because "Chelsea" is not used to capture a static or constant part of reality, doesn't mean there's no reality whatsoever.
After half an hour, I think Sisyphus is still grappling with why the solution to sadness isn't as simple as 'be happy.' To be fair, no one in recorded history has found the solution, and the best advice we get are methods of graceful acceptance.
Various religions seem to have solved this, from Buddhism to Christianity. I wonder why philosophical schools of thought that adressed this didn't garner huge longterm followings?
@@PanopticonMindI don't think they've solved it given the hundreds of millions of followers of those religions with depression and other such problems. Unless you think they have solved it in theory but not practice, but if that's the case what is the point? Nobody cares about how you can be happy if nobody can actually do it.
@@ihx7It's actually 100% brain chemicals. Sometimes we can force those chemicals through decision making and a "fake it til you make it" mentality, but depression and chemical imbalances are a real thing that no amount of placeboing your brain and no amount of logical thinking can ever get you out of, which is why what you're saying is bad advice. It may work for many sad situations, but sometimes, people are broken and need real help.
1:12:26 - he's describing the 'picturesque' in the classic Romantic sense of the 18th century. A awe / beauty from disorder and terror. First used in Britain to describe the Lakeland Fells / Herefordshire Hills in England by poets of the period.
I read somewhere my favorite definition of nihilism. Someone earlier mentioned observation... Nihilism is the observation that what should be, is not the case and what is, should not be the case. I guess nihilism is shoulding all over yourself...
I've thought about the sports issue several times over the years 😆. First off, just watching how passionate we get about it is strange when considering our serious predicament of being human animals on a planet in a vast, seemingly uninhabitable universe. Secondly, team loyalty is interesting. I live in Southeast Alabama, and you're either for Alabama or Auburn. It wouldn't matter how bad your team is doing, THATS YOUR TEAM. Finally, I can't help but compare that dynamic to politics (in this area, it doesn't matter how repugnant your party has become. They still support it 😒).
In Scotland people tend to support the football team their family has supported passed down by generations, which is usually dependent on a religious background between either being Catholic or Protestant. Sectarianism is a massive driving force in Scottish football. Rangers fans support the monarchy, British rule, a United Kingdom etc whilst Celtic fans who were originally Irish immigrants support anti-colonialism, anti-imperialism, The Palestinian struggle etc. Another thing is that sometimes people just support the team that are the best so they can always be on the winning side. It's more fun to win every weekend. This term is called 'glory-hunting'.
Thankfully there's also Partick Thistle "whose fans are known for being a fiercely independent, non-sectarian (even atheist), underdog counterpoint to the other two Glasgow mega-teams, the Celtic (mostly Catholic fan-base) and Rangers (mostly Protestant fan-base)." - quote from Jon Rubin the artist who made their "You Don't Know Who You Are!" Existential Scarf Design for 2015/16 season
Strongly disagree that a nihilist would be passive. Just because there is no meaning or purpose doesn’t mean we should chose to do nothing. There being no purpose frees up humanity to do whatever they want. And if you can do anything, why not choose good? Yeah nothing matter, but pain is still pain in the moment. So why not work to reduce humanity’s pain?
I’m unsure why life even needs to have a meaning or purpose. It’s to be experienced. So we should do what we can to produce as many “good” experiences as possible for ourselves and others.
@@geraldikaz1981 this! I never understood man's desire for meaning. It feels to me like a sort of decision paralysis. Having too many choices makes life hard so they want some higher being to decide for them.
I think the point Sysiphus was making with the pencil and football teams is that they are Empty Signifiers. They signify nothing but we attach to the sign itself despite or possibly because of that
As a nihilist, and someone that's suffered with depression my whole life, I get out of bed because there is no alternative. Even though nothing has meaning outside of what we assign meaning to, I still don't want to die. To me it's the realization that we are nothing more than primates that figured out complex communication. Realizing that all the rules we as a continual society have constructed have shaped our perspective, good and bad. Seeing the beauty in how it works for good and also seeing how it can be so wasteful of the limited time we have here. Nihilism to me is the ultimate realization of the truth of the universe, the horrifying truth that we're wasting our time doing anything that doesn't matter to us because we just end.
What's your point? Surely Alex and Sisyphus could've summed up their discussion in 5 minutes as well? Scientific articles have summaries/conclusions, should they simply only publish the conclusions?
This S-55 guy seems to be missing many points IMHO. The J peterson clean your room meme, for example, is not telling boys (or anybody) to come home tired from work and then work more at a meaningless menial task. If you have allowed your life to become chaotic. And if that chaos is causing you suffering, Begin with good basic habits. Don't let up on the simple good things you can do. And order will follow. It kind of reminds me (in a humorous way) of the Karate Kid master teaching his student to do simple repetitive tasks such as waxing and polishing a car in order to gain physical hand skills which (unbeknownst to him at the time) will aid him later on as a karate competitor. Back to J.Petersons meme, many young men are in such a dire place they don't know where to begin to fix their chaotic lives. Jordan was giving them a starting point.
The clean your room idea is actually metaphorical and meant to discourage focusing on social change. It's just Peterson's way of promoting individualism and trying to preserve the status quo. It's moronic and harmful, either way.
@@truthbetold8233 If you listen to him. Or if you read the 12 RULES, you will see that you are quite confused about this. He is clearly giving advice on how to organize a chaotic life. It is both specifically saying "Begin by cleaning your room". And also advances metaphorically and specifically to doing the same with any clutter in your habits and daily routines. His advice progresses to putting in order your mind, your values, and your relationships. If the current status quo is a society with many weak unhappy people, Peterson clearly does not want to preserve this. He, in the 12 RULES, was trying as best he knew how, to help those people who find themselves stuck in a rut that are nevertheless still reachable and saveable. The social change he promotes is a society with many strong intelligent healthy people. People who can become great parents, great friends, and productive properly compensated workers. People capable of helping their fellow man.
@@truthbetold8233 JBP himself seemed to neglect cleaning his own room before telling other people how to live their lives. He didn't follow his own rules because of course, his own ideas are too good not to share. Rules for thee but not for me is hallmark of conservative thinking after all.
38:46 In America, this often called “rooting for laundry.” Relevant for college sports, where most players aren’t interested in academics and aren’t from the state they’re playing in. Also professional sports trades. Also very common for college sports fans to have never attended the school they root for, but hate rivals from the same state.
This was written about by Pliny in letter 9.6, remarking that sports fans have allegiance only to "a piece of cloth", giving the same hypothetical as Alex: "And if during the running the racers were to exchange colours, their partisans would change sides, and instantly forsake the very drivers and horses whom they were just before recognizing from afar, and clamorously saluting by name."
I'm confused - wouldn't Jordan Peterson agree with pretty much everything that was said in this supposed criticism of his views? 1. Equality of opportunity (unlike equality of outcome) is important and men and women should be free to do any job they want (e.g., it's good that women can become firefighters if they want to and if they have the requirements and competence for the job) and 2. one shouldn't be obsessed with identifying with one's gender because it's just a social construct, a list of stereotypes, or a "performance" (unlike biological sex) and instead focus on finding meaning elsewhere in a more healthy way. I'm pretty sure there would be no disagreement from Peterson here...
Masculinity doesn't differ across cultures. Fashion differs across cultures. But there's no culture where masculinity means not being a man other men can rely on in an inner group conflict.
Good podcast although to be very honest It didn't feel very back and forthy. The questions that were asked were fine but I felt that there could have been more engagement with the big portion Sispyhus was talking about the manosphere. The gender question following that was fine but it felt like his detailed descriptions of the manosphere itself were a little glossed over when there was alot of meat and potatoes there. Elsewise great collab & cool vid!
I'd like to assert that "over identifying with your gender" is where you put the action dictated by "what do I do as a man" or "what should a man do in this situation" or "how do I be more manly" ahead of other's, or self's, obviouse wellbeing, safety and dignity, especially when "what do I do as a reasonable person" obviously offers a much more considerate and healthy alternative.
@@MrYelly That depends heavily on the definition of "man". The overwhelming majority of people associate "man" and "woman" with sex. By the normative use of "man" and "woman" it infact does not apply.
@universecreator988 isn't that flexible and fluid if we're in the trans mindset? Isn't that just, "I feel I am, therefore I am" when we're talking about the definition of man and woman from a Trans perspective? If one feels like a woman today, but feels like a man next week is it not true and correct at both times?
@@MrYelly Are you suggesting that trans-identified people, like the manosphere, are too focused on conforming to the social expectations applied to males and females rather than universal moral principles? If so, I completely agree, though I'd go a step further and argue that since trans-identity is based around the idea that to be a man is to think/feel/act one way and to be a woman is to think/feel/act another way, the entire concept reinforces sexist social norms and should therefore be challenged. I see no moral value whatsoever in behaving in a way that's socially/culturally/ biologically typical of men/women (i.e. being masculine / feminine). That's not to say that it's always wrong to behave in a way that's typical of your sex, but rather that whether a behaviour is typical of one's sex is irrelevant to determining whether it's morally acceptable. Of course it's difficult not to care about the social norms applied to one's sex, but that should be the ideal (again this doesn't mean always defying them but rather making them a non-factor in one's decision-making). Both the manosphere and the trans movement push the opposite.
@JEDUBBELLE sure, but the vaste majority of trans people act on thier identified gender for their own mental health and at no threat to anyone else in any way. That's why it's so ludicrously stupid that anyone is transphobic.
i first watched your youtube channel back in the early 2010s on my family's dell pc, when you wore jack daniel's t-shirts and just made videos in your room, so i was really surprised to discover recently that you are still at this. That said, seeing a video about the ''manosphere'' is a little ironic on this channel, since it feels firmly grounded in it. It takes a good bit of strolling to find any women featured on your channel or any more gender-probing questions addressed. Maybe it seems difficult to find women participating in these conversations, but i would then ask 'why is that? and how can i shift the conversation to make it less insular/androcentric?' At the same time, there is a renaissance of female commentary and philosophy youtubers going on at the moment, so there is really isn't any excuse if you are just failing to pay attention.
hey alex iam a new to philosphy,i would really appreciate a video for philosphy for a beginner like me,answering questions such as the sources, methods to study philosphy and its branches,is it possible study or understand philosphy on your own without having a Academic degree,ways to interpret philosphical texts, understanding philosophical doctrines, its application in real life and so on.
You can definitely understand without academia! Most philosophy classes I have taken are just reading followed by discussion. Pretty simple to replicate.
I recommend the podcast philosophise this, think it’s on RU-vid and Spotify but it gives a good into into a lot of different philosophies while going through the history, really great content
You can certainly learn about philosophy without a degree. Pick a subject that interests you, watch some online lectures on it so you become familiar with the language, and then buy a well renowned book on that subject. Just make sure you don’t start studying philosophy as a way to better defend things you already believe. Many people do this.
44:00. Interesting to recognize similarities between sports and religion. Often people inherit their belief in a particular religion from their parents. Even when they learn of terrible things done in the name of 'their' religion, it seems possible to excuse and rationalize those actions. Most people don't originate from, or have any historical ties with the founders of 'their' religion. The identification with, and often aggressive defense of, 'their' religion appears to have little connection with the founders opinions, tenets or philosophy.
These 2 aren't just on different levels of understanding but also in articulating their point of view. I bet many times throughout this conversation Alex thought why am I wasting my time so he resorts to throwing out hypotheticals to others while not caring what Sisyphus says. All this being said Albert Camus is my favorite philosopher
If nothing has any actual or true value, then nothing has any value. I reject this because as far as I can observe, actual or true values do exist in the world.
@jesserochon3103 I'm confused - you seemed to be able to speak about value confidently in your first comment... Regardless, being that I hold value is ultimately subjective. I would define it as something like "personal significance or affinity for something." But presumably, you would define it in some way that lends itself better to objectivity?
@shassett79 objective, actual or true value is value that can never change regardless of human opinion on it. For instance, if every human ceased to exist, gold would still be valuable. The grounding for this is in an eternal God. That is to say, if its in the nature of an eternal God to find gold precious and valuable, then therefore its precious and valuable and no human opinion or otherwise can alter that fact unless the very nature of an eternal God changes. As a Christian, the Bible claims God never changes. Therfore gold was, is and always shall be valuable since its creation by God. God loves gold. This can never change and is permanent because God's nature never changes. Therfore gold is not subjectively valuable. Its truly valuable.
I think teams are like brands, and when you buy into a brand you’re getting access to its history and all the stories attached to it. Clothing brands can change designers and owners and movie studios can change owners and directors and actors, but when you’re looking at the brand you’re looking at it as separate from all other things. All different people are responsible for the brand’s past but the brand is all of the work done for the brand.
In modern times sure, but this absolutely was not the case historically. You sort of needed men to be willing to sacrifice themselves for honor, family and country so parroting these as manly was extremely useful
I think free will would be a good example of how you can have a philosophical conclusion that doesn't necessarily align with behavior. The "illusion" of free will is such that it seems nearly impossible to separate how you feel from what you think. Just because someone denies the existence of free will doesn't mean they're never going to engage in the process of "making choices". Even a nihilist is subject to the evolutionary constructs embedded in our biology, which manifest as orientation towards or away from different things. Just because you can't escape it doesn't mean you believe it has any inherent purpose or meaning.
All I know about the manosphere is what I heard here, but it sounds stupid to me. I’m a middle aged guy so maybe too old to get the appeal. I’m getting the impression of whiny losers blaming women for their life. Although I’d normally learn more before judging it, I’m not interested enough so I’ll reserve any more judgement.
The manosphere would never settle by calling themselves that, as it includes a portion of men's rights, which can, at times be quite valid. Other than that, completely right. Please check out "incels" too, and how that holds up alongside the "manosphere". There is no clear definition or seperation for what seem to be hurled insults at the exact same demographic of pubescent boys.
This guy is so wrong about the clean your room thing. The point is that…under any circumstances is something you have control of. No matter how overworked and underpaid you are, you can start by looking after the few things you do have. Whatever it is that happens next, fighting the oppressive regime or just getting up and out of the house…you have a far better chance of success and motivation of you have already organised your own space/taken the first steps in personal responsibility.
yea, I got the sense that Sisyphus has terminal politicsbrain when it comes to some of this stuff. he has a narrative about the manosphere and what it's all about, and he's trying to fit every piece of data he comes across into that narrative, whether it fits or not.
The fact is the things making people’s lives worse or harder are social, political and collective things that shape the individual and their actions. So shaping it as “solve your problems by taking responsibility and self improving THEN take on the external social world is incoherent. Because you can do both. You can improve yourself AND recognise that your problems and possibly even the difficulties you face despite self improvement are political and social. They require collective action and change.
I reckon the 55 just represents two of the letter S like the first and last letters of Sisyphus 🤷♀️ Especially knowing it was a kinda kid-brained decision and thinking back to how I would interpret it as a teen lol. That's my best guess with Occam's razor in mind anyway 😅
This helped me figure out why I've had issues with Jordan Peterson's advice for men. He does have several good points, but he does stop too early. He lays it at the feet of already mentally struggling men, and that reinforces isolation. We're a social species. We do need one another. Obviously, this would require someone to maybe take the whole message out of context, but that is incredibly common in our species as well.
16:53 derived from the massive social changes in society. If meaning isn’t to be derived from family and providing value to others, then that needs to be taught not just hoped for.
Sisyphus55 is definitely in the French Postmodernist camp. He'll grow past this point once he starts to see the human experience from an epistemological point of view. Notions such as purpose and value are essentially introspective and say nothing about the world. As such, they cannot be decided from a hypothetical objective perspective and this is very much a topic upon which Kant's, but also Hegel's discourses are enlightening. Value and Purpose are the teleological, inescapable ends of Reason as a faculty of sentient beings.
"Notions such as purpose and value are essentially introspective and say nothing about the world." Are you saying that people and their purpose and values are not part of the world? Because that is the only way I can interpret this nonsensical statement.
"If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do." Im a nihilist (35F) and not at all a immobilized or not doing anything or depressed. Without any inherent meaning in the universe, we are left to form and shape our own meaning. And live for that. For me, it's my parents and loved ones. And I try to be of use to others and future generations. Nihilism gets a bad rap.
@@spikesecho724 the discussions are esoteric but the conclusions can have real consequences. Well I'm definitely not a nihilist, but I also love my family, yknow. What has it then added to your search for meaning? As far as I can tell it only has negative implications, but if you're happy to ignore them then what's the point in being a nihilist?
@@a.i.l1074 I don't search for meaning. I don't believe there *is* any inherent meaning in existence. Doesn't change the fact that I indeed am existing and things matter to me. Namely, my family/people I care about. Their well being and happiness. So I try to be of use in the world, I try to earn money so my parents don't worry about me, I spend quality time with my family, etc. I choose to have that as my priority and driving force in all my actions. With some more hedonistic motivations worked in as well (what brings me joy/pleasure/what interests me that I want to spend my time on). If there truly is no inherent meaning or grand design, if nothing truly matters, and you take that notion as far down as it goes, then it leaves meaning to be defined by you. You can either choose what matters to you and shape your life around that, or you can choose to check out of existence (also very valid, there's nothing morally wrong with that). And as for "what's the point in being nihilist". For me, truth matters. And I don't like the notion of tricking your brain with positivity when circumstances or conditions shift to the terrible or are extremely painful and damaging. I lean into it. I feel it helps me cope better and ride out the next terrible turn of events. The only thing that would plague me and plague my mind when things are terrible and completely nonsensical, is having a belief that it makes sense in some grand scheme of things. That to me, would extend the trauma. So, things are terrible *because* things are terrible. There's no purpose for this trial you're being put through. It just simply is. And there will be another. It's a 50/50 chance at any given moment.
@@a.i.l1074 this actually reminds me of when you pose the non-existence and fictionality of God to a religious person who's been indoctrinated to believe in a cosmic justice system and a point system for getting into heaven vs hell. They always try to fire back "well if there are no consequences, then everyone would be killing and r*ping". And it's really sad to me that they think that. That some afterlife consequence is the only thing holding them back from being horrible, harmful people. I certainly don't need that to be a good person. And I'd be suspicious of anyone who does.
This man is like a modern Diogenes, he is talking total nonsense about neoliberal logic and fordist production applied to the manosphere, in the goal of showing people how ridiculous and nonsensical modern "philosophy" is. Genius of the highest order!
19:00 I really hate this example of the manosphere and the pickup artist community. They are a subset and not a standard I think most men are going for. I don't think we should use the extreme cases to make the point about men generally.
The dude equated violence to masculinity. At some point it just turns into an ugly ploy as to diminish men's rights. And that is a detriment to all, "Femoid sphere" included.
