Does SCIENCE = TRUTH? (Nietzsche + Mega Man) - 8-Bit Philosophy 

Nietzsche introduced the term 'Übermensch' (over human) ->Megaman Those clever bastards!

Palace Of Wisdom Well I got my mind blown

Something tells me Stan wasn't a hit at parties...

'Why' would the absence of 'why' implicitly mean that there is no meaning of life? Humans have created institutions that actually do have a why. And those institutions are as real to life as nature is us.

The perceived indifference comes from the expectation that effort translates into a particular type of reward. The structure of things is much more subtle.

I think that's been the problem from the beginning. In the event that we desire to supply our own light, when we truly look within us, there is no sufficient light to be found to extinguish darkness.

@@ParkerSmith0212 There actually is, it just varies from person to person. Some find more meaning in life than others.

+givemetruth YES! Let's be rocks! Much easier!

+Human Resources Ahh I see. Makes sense why people would gravitate away from that. Thanks for the well thought out reply.

+XEspadaSaDiosX Nietzsche had some... interesting views. The first book of his that I read was 'Ecce Homo'. I picked it up because of the chapter titles. "Why I Am So Right", "Why Everything I Say is True", and things like that. I found out later that it's believed that book, his last, was written when he was already being affected by the syphilis that eventually drove him insane and killed him (after spending 11+ YEARS paralyzed in a bed, a world record at the time so far as we know). In that book, he goes on at length about why Germany can never produce anything of true value because their food causes indigestion, and one cannot think properly when they have indigestion. Overall, I think it was a great book to read as one of the very first books I ever read by a philosopher. It was hilarious and extremely absurd. His other books are much more reasonable, and though I haven't read all of them, I don't think the things presented in Ecce Homo can be said to show the beliefs he held for much of his life. He certainly had some views that were, for his time, mostly unique, and some of them indeed ring true. I forget exactly which book I read it in of his, but in one he discussed the idea that 'to be most like ones parents is the greatest sin' (paraphrasing, but I believe that is very close and might be an exact quote), pointing out that if one is just like their parents, humanity has not progressed with each generation. One of the things I love about philosophy, and why I went for a philosophy minor in college alongside my majoring in Computer Science (an unusual combination apparently), is the wide variety of viewpoints and how really accessible most of it is. Reading older philosophers are especially interesting to learn about how people thought in the past, and why they thought that way. Especially anything which purports to be about 'human nature' or 'the fundamental nature of the world/life/etc' are about timeless subjects, and any truth to their writings would remain as true today as it was when they wrote it if indeed they figured out something true. If nothing else, learning about the extremely wide variety in peoples thinking opens ones eyes to what is possible, and to the idea that almost nothing about our lives or societies are fixed, and are instead within our control to at least attempt to change.

Another angle: "Why?" means "For what purpose?", and that carries a presumption--that there must be a purpose. There is no reason to presume a purpose. To ask the question is already an act of faith.

theb1rd Woah

Maybe it's for our own curiosity. To see all of life happen and to dance with it all. To help, be helped and go through all manner of experiences. Only to come back to 'what is'.

just is because that's the only way it could be.

Shut up, Stan! I hate you!

As someone who grew up playing this game and a Nietzsche devotee, I couldn’t agree more 😎

Eh, I dabble more than know a lot. The first, third, and fourth sets of definitions can be found in a dictionary, I'll refer you there. Truth is somewhat more esoteric. It's based in fact, but it requires context and a certain amount of personal judgment to define.

Here's an example of truth vs. fact After the Vietnam War, a saying started floating around: "you can't win a land war in SE Asia." Now, the fact is that you can many powers have, but due to many geopolitical reasons, the US couldn't win a land war in SE Asia. So, while not strictly factual, the saying is true. Does that help any?

Well, facts exist independent of an observer, 2+2=4 etc. Truth in this conversation is something that requires an observer to contextualize a set of facts in order to achieve that greater, more platonic Truth.

It's got to do with truth requires a continuous mind. A truth has to be known to exist, facts exist independently of that. A rock can't know that along side 3 other rocks they are 4 rocks, but it's a fact that they do. A rock can't know that Lenard Skynard'a Freebirdd is a long song, but it's a near universal truth that it is. Truth is really just a well founded opinion. Also, keep in mind that I am by no means an authority on the subject

"Well, facts exist independent of an observer, 2+2=4 etc." Facts need to be proven if not, by definition, they cannot be considered facts. Facts can be disproven....not Truth. Facts need an observer to prove that they have the status of being factual...you confuse facts with Reality (or the Raw Data of the universe).

No need to study it in an institution to enjoy knowledge. That's the beauty of it.

No one like this comment it has 69 likes

Unfortunately it is often wise to avoid the comment section to any video that has to do with religion or lack there of. It tends to attract the piranhas of both sides.

But did you see that it was called "gay science"? Hehehe he said gay ='D

Do you need a step ladder getting down from that high horse of yours?

Forget it. People just want to crack the wisest joke for likes. It sums up most of RU-vid comment sections.

Dragonwing16 I think that's the best thing science has going for it, a clear criterion for evaluating right and wrong to converge to a state of accuracy. For any field to progress, it needs a clear notion of "better" and "worse" that everyone participating in can at least reasonably agree.

Angel Zakeroji Thanks!

+Wisecrack please make a HOUSE MD episode

I couldn't disagree more passionately. This video continually implies that purpose in all things is a given, and that's not just stupid, it's disgusting. What is the purpose of children starving to death? What is the purpose of Josef Fritzl locking up his wives/daughters in his basement? What's the purpose of tsunamis and people dying from lightning strikes? And what of people born with no feet who wear athletic prosthetics and run racetracks? Are they DEFYING their purpose of being a legless person? If a woman has large breasts and decides to never have children or become a "wet nurse" is she defying HER purpose? Maybe people are just people and life is just life and that's good enough.

Unanimous Delivers you don't understand Nietzsche. At all.

Where does Nietzsche, or this video state that purpose are built into existences? Certainly N doesn't think that, and I didn't hear it stated in the video.

"Archaeology is the search for fact... not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall." -Henry Jones Junior

Thank you. That's the quote I was thinking of, but couldn't quite remember.

As MisterOjete (i kwow what that mean :P ) said. That's the point of Nietzsche.There is no ultimate meaning or ultimate truth, its all contextual and mostly individual.

luis hernan tobar cortes Not that you're wrong, but you are kind of wrong:p Nietzschean thought does not tolerate relativism in the flaccid, neo-liberal sense that we're used to thinking about today.

I don't really give a rats ass what Nietzche said. He was hardly the superman he wrote about. He was a small, sickly little man, who accomplished next to nothing in his sad short life. And, it should be pointed out. He was insane.

Why do you believe or think a dolphin interprets or thinks? Humans invented those words to define or give a meaning to things they write or to toughts they think. A dolphin doesn't have hands to write or create words. Checking the brain of a dolphin and seeing his brain doesn't mean anything to the dolphin and the explanation you recieve by checking his brain is in human understanding of human understanding of his own existance but if humans doesn't truly understand their existance how can understand other existances?

+chris pease Well not really... Science is universal. There is least interpretation possible. The ocean, no matter the units or the method used, Its volume, density, temperature, etc. would be the same as us. Even if they would measure it in square sand per shell, we would simply have to make the conversion.

"There are no facts, only interpretations" -Nietzsche

Huh?

+Omar kyon Postmodern garbage, pal. Neumann pretentiously declares that he sees no attempt by scientists to describe and/or interpret events, but merely brush off said events with the construction of generic models. This is merely a failure on Neumann's part to understand what science is and probably has a lot to do with his dissatisfaction of simplification, favouring instead the more deconstructionist approach (which ironically seeks to obscure or pervert observations). Science doesn't describe observed phenomena, it objectively measures present phenomena (or absence of). And Neumann can scrap the "mathematical construct" and "verbal interpretations" jargon. It's science, not literary studies... As I said at the start, this is postmodern garbage and it deserves every ounce of contempt and ridicule it receives from the scientific community.

Skeptik That made me chuckle a bit. You basically just made a bunch of statements about this and that.

Omar kyon "statements about this and that." are enough to get a chuckle out of you, yet fail to provoke any type of legitimate response? So much for standing by your quote! :-P A well-read, quote pasting smarty-pants like you should have no trouble understanding what i said! ;-)

Skeptik I didn't think I could get a legitimate argument from you considering how your original comment was just opinions and statements with hints of hubris so I didn't even bother. Also statements don't warrant a thought out argumentative response because they are conclusions without premises. They have no basis to stand on. I do however feel tempted to post your comments on /r/iamverysmart

Omar kyon "you basically just made a bunch of statements about this and that"... You accuse me of jumping to conclusions without a foundation for said conclusions, but how would you know? You never inquired any further, but instead seem to prefer outright denial of my argument. To this you will likely respond with: " what argument? You don't have one." You won't define a set of conditions under which you would accept my argument either, giving me nothing to work with. You have nothing but the very thing you accuse me of having: hubris. You dropped a shitty quote from some hack postmodernist, and, in the spirit of postmodernism, you will never take an objective stance on it, preferring instead the strategy of continuously moving goal posts and speaking vaguely in the hope that I will give up. Then you make this weird combination of a threat and appeal to authority: "I'm going to post your comment on some lousy subreddit that I believe is full of smart people who will laugh at you"... Post away, oh inept one, but don't forget you have yet to respond to a single point I made. You may dismiss this engagement as being unfruitful (which is a reasonable excuse to leave), or you may flee for lack of ability to respond. Just know that even if you claim the former, the latter will be assumed. Cheers

Wisdom.

Only 3 rules

Albert Camus; Why Shouldn't We Commit Suicide

"If you believe an existence after this awaits you that is superior to the life that I know in this realm why don't you commit suicide." I'm not religious but most religions hold that you carry forward your "soul" from life into the "after-life" so someone who is shunning life would also be unhappy in death. From Dante's Divine Comedy, Inferno: "Inferno Canto XIII:31-78 The Wood of Suicides: Pier delle Vigne Then I stretched my hand out a little, and broke a small branch from a large thorn, and its trunk cried out: ‘Why do you tear at me?’ And when it had grown dark with blood, it began to cry out again: ‘Why do you splinter me? Have you no breath of pity? We were men, and we are changed to trees: truly, your hand would be more merciful, if we were merely the souls of snakes.’ Just as a green branch, burning at one end, spits and hisses with escaping air at the other, so from that broken wood, blood and words came out together: at which I let the branch fall, and stood, like a man afraid. My wise sage replied: ‘Wounded spirit, if he had only believed, before, what he had read in my verse, he would not have lifted his hand to you, but the incredible nature of the thing made me urge him to do what grieves me. But tell him who you were, so that he might make you some amends, and renew your fame up in the world, to which he is allowed to return. And the tree replied: ‘You tempt me so, with your sweet words, that I cannot keep silent, but do not object if I am expansive in speech. I am Pier delle Vigne, who held both the keys to Frederick’s heart, and employed them, locking and unlocking, so quietly, that I kept almost everyone else from his secrets. I was so faithful to that glorious office that through it I lost my sleep and my life. The whore that never turned her eyes from Caesar’s household, Envy, the common disease and vice of courts, stirred all minds against me, and being stirred they stirred Augustus, so that my fine honours were changed to grievous sorrows. My spirit, in a scornful mode, thinking to escape scorn by death, made me, though I was just, unjust to myself. By the strange roots of this tree, I swear to you, I never broke faith with my lord, so worthy of honour. If either of you return to the world, raise and cherish the memory of me, that still lies low from the blow Envy gave me.’ Inferno Canto XIII:79-108 The fate of The Suicides The poet listened for a while, then said to me: ‘Since he is silent, do not lose the moment, but speak, and ask him to tell you more.’ At which I said to him: ‘You ask him further, about what you think will interest me, because I could not, such pity fills my heart.’ So he continued: ‘That the man may do freely what your words request from him, imprisoned spirit, be pleased to tell us further how the spirits are caught in these knots: and tell us, if you can, whether any of them free themselves from these limbs.’ Then the trunk blew fiercely, and the breath was turned to words like these: ‘My reply will be brief. When the savage spirit leaves the body, from which it has ripped itself, Minos sends it to the seventh gulf. It falls into this wood, and no place is set for it, but, wherever chance hurls it, there it sprouts, like a grain of German wheat, shoots up as a sapling, and then as a wild tree. The Harpies feeding then on its leaves hurt it, and give an outlet to its hurt. Like others we shall go to our corpses on the Day of Judgement, but not so that any of us may inhabit them again, because it would not be just to have what we took from ourselves. We shall drag them here, and our bodies will be hung through the dismal wood, each on the thorn-tree of its tormented shade."

How'd it go?

@@franzkissel1369 mostly ok. I only taught that elective for one semester, but I use a ton of that info in my pre-ap and language & composition courses

@@theheebs100 sweet

InMaTeofDeath I forget who said this but there was one philosopher that said something along the lines of "Humans cannot *think* of anything that doesn't or cannot exist whether it be concrete or abstract" (sorry I can't think of the sorce) but my argument would be because the word "why" exist in the first place it proves that why must apply to something

darkmario720 Does that mean because the words flying spaghetti monster exist that also proves it applies to something? Seems like a bad argument imo.

InMaTeofDeath well when you put it like that at first thought it would be no it doesn't but let's look at it from a different perspective: technically we *can* think of things that don't exist but without a single doubt no matter what we think of that thing will always be made of things (or concepts) that already exist so in a way it does apply to something when you consider the things that is made out of. In the case of the Flying Spaghetti Monster it is made up of 3 parts 2 are concepts (flying and monster) and 1 is an object (spaghetti) therefore the fact that the words "flying spaghetti monster" exist it applies it's self to the idea that a monster made of spaghetti that can also fly can exist in some form, in this case fiction

darkmario720 Yeah but what you're doing is changing my answer. In truth you also showed how it's possible to make the words mean whatever you want and that is not a good argument for anything. By your logic if I make up a word like "Rinedine" that must mean somewhere out in the universe it applies to something, do you really believe that every single made up word ever uttered by humans has a real counterpart out in the universe or relates to something? Seems far crazier than most religions imo..

I think Nietzsche's discussions of "why questions" occur at a psychological and not a metaphysical level. He agrees that teleology is a projection. But he takes projections, myths and religions very seriously. They have a value for giving life the *sense* of animating purpose whether true or false. Thus he speaks of necessary myths for most people. Only a few can deal with a world drained of mythology or religion which is why he is concerned about an age in which nihilism will become prevalent. The truth has value sometimes, but it is the will to truth that destroys myths, illusions, most of all in the West it destroys Christiandom which science cannot replace. He would like to imagine that he and a few others can overcome nihilism by "creating" their own values and purposes. Though I find this self-creation less then satisfactory as an answer to a cultural, even civilizational crisis, the point is that he never said things inherently have meaning or purpose "the fire exists because X" is not true. But mythologizing and anthropomorphizing nature can have advantages for cultures by giving them a sense of meaning and direction. In everyday life too we find that illusions can be useful (if I inflate the importance of my job I'll probably do better work, if an athlete thinks he's better than he really is he will often perform better than he would with a realistic appraisal as research has shown.) N. thought it was sometimes better to honor truth than lies and myths if it helped us to affirm life; but at other times (esp. when the myths-- like Judaeo Christian ones-- are stifling and against this life and this world) truth is important to destroy the myths. But after the myths are destroyed only a few people seem to avoid nihilism or the sense that nothing has purpose. In fact, for N, everything CAN be given purpose by you as you "color the world" in one of his phrases. We can create our own values "will a self; give style to your character" etc.

Holy shit, me too! People i argue with always get confused when my argument is "Life doesn't need a meaning. Neither do Existence. They do not have a asbolute end goal other than arguably preserve itself." And people think i'm a lunatic. Omg!

Congratultion you're both nihilists

MrCooper I am not a nihilist. I believe in subjective purpose. That I can create my own purpose. Nihilism is more about if performing an action is worth something. I am a nihilist when it comes to death. We cannot do anything about it. I have accepted that. Though my nihilism stops there.

nihilists also reject subjective purpose. This guy is an existentialist

Jakob Carøe I don't really think those labels aren't being used correctly, or if they even can be used in my or Apple's Case. I don't actually contemplate the reason for existence or try to elaborate about it. I just actively argue that Existence does not serve any function besides arguably preserving itself.

Yes. I always thought that if you can't defend an argument using scientific knowledge by understanding it to, at least, a fundamental level, then you're in no position to defend it. "Because science says so" is just as meaningless as "because the bible says so."

They are not complementary. Religion bases a lot of its core beliefs on "faith." Science never acts on faith as faith is what you get when you believe something with no good reason. That is anti-science and should never be practiced.

Pretty P+ I disagree! All science needs faith all these ‘facts’ and theories you have to put some faith in to just assume all that technobabble actually means something and that doesn’t seem meaningless. And the whole no good reason thing. Believing in science is.. well I just explained that. And religion, while I can’t speak for myself but some people need meaning in their lives and that doesn’t seem like ‘no good reason’ But hey it’s not really my battle to fight. Personally I don’t care about science or religion but I see the value in both!

Ok. i could say the same thing....that's two times a young man has introduced me to fascinating concepts or vidz! (connoism and now a thug teaching science?) #AWEsome! Thankx lil dude - that was pretty cool. . .

Billy Elliott hahaha, I love the internet... the only place where that is possible. No problem, man!

lol so now you think science is a religion? do you believe anything ppl tell you?

Grinsekatze Cheshire when did I say that? O.o are we about to play that game?

Jadden Norman "TIMES THIS SERIES CHANGES MY LIFE." I just asumed it. I think this video totaly missunderstood science.

ethan45ful www.icr.org/article/bible-believing-scientists-past/

ethan45ful so am I

ethan45ful Because; Then there'd be no free will, and God by his word decreed he would allow free will, God cannot go against his own word

ethan45ful The price of sin had to be paid by somebody who had no sin; you cannot pay another's dept when ye are also in dept, so, he needs to pay the dept in pain, who to send; God the father can not dwell in the presence of the unclean(like anyone could hurt him anyways) and the holy ghost posses no body of which to be harmed. so; Process of elimination; the answer is C; Christ, why did the dept need to be paid; Justice, that's why!

ethan45ful Goodness; This is circular, Ok then, he also predicted the many who would get eternal Life! , also knowing somebody would do something DOESN'T MEAN YOU MADE THEM DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!

Couldn't be because they are created within our universe.

You may have heard of this little movie called Tron.

Science does explain how, but also for most things it also explains why through pinning down cause and effect. E.g. it explains WHY we don't all just don't float off the face of the earth. You might argue that is just a rephrased HOW statement, but WHY and HOW does have that relationship. If by WHY you mean it can't answer questions like "Why are we here?" it is because you assume a supernatural or special reason for your existence. You assume you have a predefined purpose here. Take that assumption away and science can explain why you are here just as it can answer the question of why a termite is here. [No offense to your or termites intended]

That's a THEORY... that we are here by chance. But that's the point. Neither science nor religion can answer definitely "why are we here".

Haha... I didn't exactly say chance, but without getting bogged down in the details lets call it chance. It is a theory indeed, one with a staggering amount of evidence for it, the opposing theory has no evidence for it but relies on faith. The problem with these discussions is in your use of "definitely". Are you definitely 100% sure you don't owe me $1,000,000? I know there is no evidence you do, but have you never forgotten something before?, you may have forgotten you owe me the money, you may also have forgotten you spent it or stashed it somewhere. Does the fact that you can't be definite mean it is a credible possibility? as we will never know lets compromise, just transfer me $500,000. Knowledge isn't proving something 100%, if that is your definition i don't see how you function because you have no knowledge at all. This is clearly not true as you are still alive, so maybe you should reevaluate what you consider necessary evidence to call something fact

AlSween Gravity is also a "theory". Electromagnetism is a theory. Do the light bulbs in your room work? Well, it's "just a theory", maybe angels make it glow, rather than the alternating current that's passing from the neighborhood transformer-substation to the house. The word "Theory" doesn't mean the same thing in scientific literature that it does in everyday speech. Something doesn't get called a Theory unless there is tons of testing, experimentation, repeated independent testing, independent confirmation, and peer review involved.

Science is not a religion to be "worshipped". The very core of science, that observation and testing are what is needed to determine truth, goes against the inherent quality of religion: In religion, truth is something revealed by a divine power of some kind, and immutable. In scientific research, truth is something discovered by observation, testing, and proof. A good scientist will believe something only as long as the preponderance of the evidence and proof support it. If new information is discovered, a good scientist will take that information into account, test it, and modify his understanding of the world if the new information supplants or contradicts what he previously thought. And no, text in a holy book does not count as "proof" of anything.

I am a christian. I believe that God created everything and gave it order. Then shredded the instructions and dropped us in it to figure things out as we go. I love science and scientific theories. I love to find out how thing work even to the smallest level we can find. I don't see why science and religion can't peacefully coexist. The problem to me seems to arise when people try to either prove or disprove God's existence when neither can be done. The things that we have definitive proof for in science, as far as I know, don't conflict with what I and many others believe to be true from the bible. If we would stop going at each other to prove one another wrong, throw out past prejudices that may exist we can have a peace between science and religion.

But without purpose or meaning, how can you recognize what an 'issue' is? An issue seems to imply something is less then it should be, hence its existence demands some kind of valuation, a meaning. Do you not, by acting, try to fulfill some wish? Isn't solving a problem some kind of fulfillment? What constitutes a better life?

+nivolord Whatever YOU feel constitutes a better life, is what constitutes a better life. After all, you're the only one living your life. No one else can do it for you. So a problem can exist in the sense that it interferes with YOUR objectives, when others might see no problem at all given the same circumstances.

"Whatever YOU feel constitutes a better life is what constitutes a better life. After all, you're the only one living your life." Which is interesting because we all are living like "gods" compared to those a few generations ago built on the backs of those who came before and they had their own feelings on what constituted a better life, etc.

The Last Sophist Science doesn't answer everything.

Why not create it in flash, so therefore you've got the smoothness and record it with a recording software?

Noxus Axios nice mustache

flash cost money and i would rather not pirate it

FlipTheAngryAsian why don't you pir-- oh. Why are you even on the internet? (Jk jk.)

information and entertainment

Time to pass the pipe.

Amor fati Nietzsche answer to the problem of suffering, its worth a Google search.

pit it that way science is so concerned about IF they can do this but rarely think if it should

+Ayman Ayad Scientific institutions have ethics committees that must unanimously approve an experiment before it can be carried out. There are scientists whose entire job is to consider whether they should. Again, got any real world examples of major breaches of scientific ethics that were motivated by "knowledge for knowledge's sake" as opposed to money, politics, etc?

+Ghost Panel how abiut a couple years back when a soviet scientist attached a second head to a dog or more recently the cloning experiments with that sheep given the amount of unethical experiments have dropped significantly in the past few years

+Ghost Panel Should there be a real world example? Imo Nietzsche just warns for a possibility that people see science as a general unchanging truth that is worshippable, because it is so "perfect". The knowledge that we gain isn't and doesn't answer any of the "ultimate purposes" and therefore people shouldn't pretend it is.

+Takowski If you're gonna state something as concrete as"worshipping knowledge for knowledge's sake can lead to dire consequences" you should probably have a real world example of what those dire consequences are, yeah. He didnt say that "dire consequences" was Nietzche's opinion, he stated it as if it were a fact.

The criticism Nietzsche is making is not that there must be meaning in life, but, that people treat science as if it were a religion. In place of a religion. Which many people in this day and age very commonly do.

walruspictures who does this?

Pretty P A lot of people, go to r/atheism on reddit and that describes almost everyone there. Also, just a large swath of the "progressive" liberal crowd. I don't have a problem with people not believing in a God, I just strongly dislike it when people treat that as a religion.

We may have two different definitions of the word religion. And using r/atheism as the basis for an argument is hugely intellectually dishonest. A large portion of people who submit posts to r/atheism use it as an outlet for frustrations they have with religious action around them. They express themselves there because there may be no other place for them to express themselves without getting ridiculed or persecuted by those around them. Science is not a religion because it has no dogma. And non-belief is the same way. Both science and non-belief have no creed, no dogma, and no belief that cannot be changed when new evidence presents itself. You may dislike r/atheism and that is ok. It wasn't made for you.

if you read Nietzsche you would know that he absolutely didn't believe in absolute truths

gOdislove

Harrison Nancoo gOdislife

LonelyBread What is fact and reality though?

The White Rat Reality is what our brain perceives, each persons reality is different to another's. Also deeeeeeep

+LonelyBread therefore google = source of truth

There in lies the contradiction within your own argument. what does it mean to make life better? how can u harness something to do something else if you do not examine what that something is? Science cannot explain why something ought to be done. Doing so is the is/ought fallacy. The question is not literally surrounding the meaning of fire, but fire's telo's or reason for being. And what the ultimate purpose of fire is. And on a larger scale what is the purpose of reality.

Kevin Donaldson Look, don't get me started, because my arguments will start to get insultive by nature, and I am really not trying to insult. I am not a philosophy hater, it was going to be my major in college, but I was (rightfully) convinced that if I wanted a job after college, philosophy was not the way to go. I was very enthusiastic for the subject back then. And yes, I understand that the "meaning of fire" isn't the point, I was being dismissive. Ultimately the "meaning of life" is itself meaningless.

alice x. How do you know I haven't already gone there and circled back around? If you think I'm a kid or uneducated, you are very wrong on both.

alice x. There is nothing to "give up". Just a lot of mental masturbation by people so insecure with their own lives that need it to mean something.

alice x. That's a pretty simplistic way to look at it. Looks you're the one that has a long way to go.

***** If I may add on (but not to negate the "emotional appeal of existentialism) so does (post)structuralism which I'd go as far as to say is more influential to current Western philosophy as the linguistic based stuff in (post)structuralism is taken into account by *both* the Continental school (big on experience,consciousness and cultural issues) and Analytic school (big on reason,logic and language) that have been the mainstay after the turn of the century vacuum in philosophy Nietzche left.

The werdz i am redn dont flow into tha 8 bit word en wich aye live.

Actually, the idea that "God is dead" was a trademark of modernism not postmodernism.

Stuie Borenovich it's a trademark of both, since postmodernism was a reaction to modernism. You don't have one without the other. But really, it's just something that Nietchze said, and he wasn't really talking about God, but instead about the popular belief in God being dead.

Xavier Diaz Sanchez I would agree, Jean-Francois Lyotard in his critique of overarching, "grand" narratives makes use of many of the points illustrated in this video, to argue for a dialectic which is not contingent upon scientific suppositions and consensual concessions (of truth claims) but rather, favors dialogue to make sense of and clarify topical issues.

The 8 bit music kinda ruins it for me