Out of respect for the subject matter of this video, we decided not to work with a sponsor. If you want to support the work we do, take a look at our Patreon page. Get access to exclusive content while you're at it: ▶ www.patreon.com/WeltgeistYT Thank you for watching! This video was a bit different, but hopefully you enjoy it. -WG
Thanks for confirming what I already read from the clickbait video title. Saves me some time. "Out of respect for the subject matter of this video, we decided not to work with a sponsor." the uploader wrote. But respect for the audience? Nah.
After I had read and understood Nietzsche, I became seriously depressed for months, and it was hard to recover my spirit for life. Philosophy can be dangerous!
@@timangar9771 Not necessarily so, he opens the door to existentialism, and that particular branch of philosophy can be absolutely soul crushing. You also need to remember Nietzsche went mad at the end of his life, so reading him presents very similar dangers to what he faced.
I would say even scientific truths are not truths because those truths are based on natural arbitrary laws that might change in the future or will change after the big crunch or while the heat death is far less comforting and supposed every time place have same arbitrary limits. Thus you can't take scientific truths to your grave after life long research.Its as meaningful as finding out Mario physics....
I think the obsession with finding the true nature of the universe is degrading to the mind. Realize that sometimes just living in the moment is much healthier on ones sanity than constantly overthinking. You almost be a prisoner to yourself the more you question your existence.
It's interesting how Kleist equated the meaning of life with some kind of ultimate metaphysical truth. And it made sense in the old paradigms, but I think the destruction of metaphysics that started with Kant (or even earlier) was a necessary step for us to learn to live without some externally-given meaning. I think that today, more than ever, philosophy has reconnected itself with its founding question: ”How should I live my life?”. The greatest mistake of philosophy was, in my opinion, to assume that in order to live well and meaningfully, you need to access the ultimate truths about the world, the soul, ethics etc. Sure, it was a reasonable assumption at first, but it took failure and failure and disappointment after disappointment for us to understand that maybe we need to disconnect ultimate truth (or lack thereof) from meaning. Nietzsche and the extistentialists played a huge role in this sense. I'm sorry for Kleist. He had the bad luck of living between two paradigms: too late for traditional metaphysics, but too early for the alternatives.
I’m intrigued by the alternatives you speak on. If you don’t mind me asking for some insight, what philosophies or belief do you follow? I like your thought pattern
Been thinking that ever since I started philosophy as I fell in love with it back many years in education. Only it has been getting stronger and more violent lol.
@@chaosdweller same here. The kind of thinking existed before I discovered it and finding it meant falling in love with it and it has been like a toxic relationship. Both the giver and taker of happiness and disquietude. Still though I can never answer if it is ‘better to be Socrates or a pig’. Perhaps only at the end of my life, which I have already narrowly avoided several times, I will be able to remark upon its being welcome or not in my life. Lyricism; writing and reading literature and language has provided the means to reduce the despair that philosophy often reveals. But that is just my own medicine. And I am yet to find the medicine for happiness. But it’s one I no longer look for.
This is the reason why I am quiet about these philosophical stuff that I watch on youtube. Although I would absolutely love to share and discuss them with other people, I always end up thinking of what it did to me and how it changed my life and world view. Even though I have managed to find the path where nihilism became existentialism and absurdism, it just no longer has that innocent glow and spark of pure hope which it once did. I think that even though discussing and introducing it to other people would be intriguing, I just don't think that it would be right to just shake their world view out of the blue and make them lose all purpose in life just to violently shove into them another meaning in life. Sometimes, it's just better to be blissfully ignorant of all these philosophical gibberish, and just experience those times when your beliefs were innocent, and meaning was in abundance.
What were the times you were innocent to these? For me finding these philosophies did not shake me or change me it affirmed something what is already inside me; internal questions you could not ask yo anyone around you. At least that was my view of this. I am still the way I am.
My philosophy when from innocent to nihilism for about a year and now I am back to being an active nihilist with a happy worldview again. I came full circle without hiding from knowledge
@@justsomerandomartist7503 Well the times when I was in my childhood and very early pre teens. I was very oblivious to the chaos which silently existence
@@namidawhamida5958I am in a similar situation. The choice was to stay happy with a mystical experience which really gave me a positive state of mind but I rather dared to question the state itself where things started to fall apart. I realised that I was Adam who could have avoided the forbidden fruit and lived with ignorance. The fruit gave me answer but it was meaningless.
@@premprasun1516: 😇अहिंसा परमो धर्म 😇 ahiṃsā paramo dharma (“non-harm is the HIGHEST religious principle” or “non-violence is the GREATEST law”). Therefore, only a strict VEGAN can claim to be an adherent of the eternal religion (sanātana dharma).🌱
@@UniversalMysteries343 I took this quote to mean the complete opposite. I would rather be blissfully unaware of any meaning (or lack thereof) in life and happy than be miserable and aware of life’s pointlessness. Can you explain why you believe happiness is overrated?
Philosophy can discredit your sustaining beliefs. This has a destabilizing effect, but also the possibility for superior adaptation given that, assuming what is discovered really does reflect a more complete picture of "reality" a new sustaining belief system founded on it will be more sophisticated. More accurate. If you fail at a new skill, it is easy to fall into despair, but if you can persist in spite of it, such an experience will often lead to greater success. We can see this process in how long established religions sweep aside indigenous folk religions because they can more effectively fulfill the psychological needs of the society in question without necessarily being forced upon them. A thought like this is perhaps what led Nietzsche to say, "What does not kill you makes you stronger": assuming you can survive the horrific existential consequences of learning the truth about life, you will at least have the benefit of knowing that truth for the future. Since the success of a belief system is contingent on its ability to sustain its respective society, religions, philosophies, ideologies, and belief systems can themselves can be views as organisms with their own strategies of survival and adaptation: Hinduism is powerfully adapted to the environment and society of the Indian subcontinent, and so it has survived for thousands of years even in the presence of other highly developed theologies such as Islam, Christianity, and Buddhism. But because of this particular mode of adaptation, it is not able to spread effectively overseas because other countries do not share the geographical context of the India. But there are other religions that take a more viral approach, such as Buddhism and Christianity which are derived from Hinduism and Judaism respectively but are "stripped for export"; the belief system is remodeled so that it will speak to populations regardless of social or geographical context. Christianity is essentially a religion of the disenfranchised. This ironically makes it appealing even among the elite. When a belief system is discredited and in danger of extinction, it, similarly to a personal philosophy of one's life, tends to come back stronger if it can adjust it's mode of adaptation, leading to a new form of the same belief system but with a more encompassing theology. The result of this is that theologies have stages of growth like the rings of a tree stump. A good example of this is how the development of science threatened the destruction of Christianity, but Kant managed to forestall this process by creating an intellectual loophole that made metaphysics inaccessible to scientific scrutiny. Thus the post-Kant era of Christianity is distinct from pre-Kant Christianity having assimilated this new understanding and defenses against the encroachment of scientific rationalism. There are also easy religions and hard religions, such as Protestantism and Catholicism respectively. The strategy of Protestantism is rigor, morality, and frugality; if a person commits a sin, they must right it themselves in practical terms and exercise restraint and introspection to avoid sinning again. Given human nature, it is an extraordinary undertaking to be this morally consistent and rectitudinous, and for that reason it appears credible. Why would anyone adhere to something so difficult unless there was really something to it? This is the appeal, or perhaps the ploy, of ascetic traditions which have easy and obvious parallels in yoga and Buddhist practices of retreat and meditation. The fear of God is thereby the beginning of God. At the opposite end, the appeal of Catholicism is theater and glamor. The point is the show, not the substance. If there is any part of the Christian story of damnation and redemption that doesn't appeal to you -- you can just skip over it. Say it bothers you that God sends evil people to hell; you local priest will happily clear up such a misunderstanding by pointing to God's infinite mercy and will dig up a theological escape clause that will show that arriving at the pearly gates for judgement is practically equivalent to being admitted into Heaven right away because all sins are forgiven; Hell exists but you are free to beileve nobody ever actually goes there unless you especially dislike them. In fact you are privately allowed to beileve anything you like so long as you do what the Catholic church says while in public. If you commit sins, Jesus will show up in person at the confession booth and practically apologize to _you_ for being saddled with such personal guilt and will take them away for you post haste. He is after all Atlas bearing all the sins of the world. What's a few more? So it may be said people beileve in Catholicism because its so much more enjoyable than Protestantism, but the moral constraints of the belief system is are nonexistent; like the aesthetics of the churches and the rituals, only skin deep. The Buddhist analogy would be the Buddha Amitābha. All you have to do to be admitted into the pure land after your death is to repeat this Buddha's name, and in such a situation enlightenment will become so easy for you that being there is practically equivalent to nirvana. Schopenhauer's philosophy of pessimism is perhaps best compared with Theravada Buddhism, in contrast to Mahayana Buddhism. The critical distinction between these two is that the former is an aristocratic faith that holds that only the rare few who are at a high stage of spiritual development will be able to become enlightened in this life. Whereas the latter asserts that anyone can become a Buddha. The consequence of this is that adherents to Theravada Buddhism beileve if the efficacy of ascetic practices without having the slightest motivation to actual engage with them unless they are part of the clerical class because it is taken as a given that success in them will be impossible, just as Schopenhauer was largely unaffected by his own pessimism and was quite a cheerful personality all things considered. Knowing that they there is nothing for them to miss out on by not meditating at regular intervals, they simply enjoy the thrills and pleasures of ordinary existence.
I think the fact ya`ll lose your minds at the thought meaning cannot be objective is one of the most cynical and ugly aspects of religion, to plant that seed in your mind as a child. Even if god existed meaning wouldn't necessarily be objective, its an assertion it must come from authority when in reality its something personal and as such can only be generated by you specifically.
Thanks for the vid. As a note: In English Kant's name is usually pronounced with a long vowel sound. Otherwise it often ends up sounding like something else
Very well produced video. Thank you very much for bringing the human story of Kleist to attention. Someone I never knew until now but who’s striving and strife I know plainly and intimately. I know too well the suffering of being obsessed with the truth that philosophy promises, and being disillusioned in the discovery of its illusion. Though I can, so far say, I have survived an impasse with Kleist’s fate, the predicament continues. Kant and Schopenhauer make reason out of this despair and it is Cioran and Pessoa (as fragmentary speculative metaphysical-concerned lyricists) that provide solace from this horrific human condition.
Cioran and Pessoa are literary mystics. Mysticism is behind everything, especially the unconcealment of Ludwig Wittgenstein. See his Notebooks from June 1916 ff.
@@markantrobus8782 Do you mean Hegelian Unconcealment or common sense/OLP unconcealment? Certainly found the Tractatus juxtaposingly mystical and yet transparent. Am reading PI now (~premise 37 in Part II ‘Psychological Investigations’) and haven’t found much mysticism in the PI so far. So looking forward to the Blue and Brown books / Notebooks when I get there if they are as mystical as you say! There’s an alluring element of the natural mysticism that ends up in a Philosophers more hidden and final works, even the most direct like Wittgenstein, or the Critique of Judgment for the otherwise demystifying Kant. Finally Parerga & Paralipomena of Schopenhauer has some of his most absurd and mystical fragments. Perhaps once most of the reason and straightforwardness of their early work leaves a hunger to be mystifying. But how much is the failed conveying of thought and how much is sounding mystical to be profound for the sake of being taken wise…?
I cannot say I’m well versed in philosophy, so forgive my ignorance on display. As someone who has devoted their professional life to mathematics and physics, I wanted to address the apparent similarity metaphysics has with pure mathematics. Pure mathematics is of course entirely comprised of abstractions of logic and generalizations of patterns. It extends far beyond our physical experience and most of the time we wonder how a new theorem or proof of a long-standing conjecture will have any real-world applications at first, just to find out later (sometimes hundreds of years later) that there is/are some particular instances perfectly suited for it’s application in our reality.
Great video. Your videos always leave me thirsting for more. I just wish all this knowledge was already in my brain. It's so interesting to see these connections between these different philosophers and their ideas and how they develop over time. Philosophy is truly a neverending well of fascination. Thank you for making it more accessible through these videos!
I had the same reaction as Kleist to the discovery of abscence of metaphysical meaning. It meant everything to me and the discovery that it was just fantasy nearly killed me. Now I am asking where this desire for metaphysical meaning comes from in the first place. Turns out indeed my parents foolishly planted this idea in me. But I also wonder to what extend it's part of our genetics.
It is statistical global that people seek meta phisical truth as if the they exist to be found. But although I hold many metaphysical truths that corresponds with reality, I would their is a factor of uncertainty because of our limitations. Knowing those limitations, kept me from being over bearing on others of my beliefs and also the hard fight against direct competing ideology that serves the body in short term like hedonism, solipcism etc .
When you say the discovery almost killed you, was the shock in discovering that your reality was in fact a lie or was the shock due to how there was no metaphysical meaning in and of itself. Also, how can one go about preparing to cushion the blow of such a discovery.
I'm at 1:43 and I thought of a pretty funny comparison with this. (using philosophy as a means) To search for happiness is like an insomniac forcing himself to stay awake so he can become tired and more easily fall asleep. Or choosing to hunt when you have a meal set in front of you. There's always the chance to find happiness in everything, even if so small. You can find happiness in a person, an interest, a pet, a place, anything. Trying to attain it like an Xbox achievement is stupid. Anyway I'm gonna continue the video.
Yep so can the strongest and least sensitive with the whole world on there back ironically enough haha, but I guess anyone knows that with the straw and camel quote haha.
First of all, I have to thank you for uploading a video about Kleist, he is truly not very well known outside of Germany and I'm happy to see you rising some awareness, especially as a student of German literature who has worked a lot about Kleist. The Kant Krise of Kleist which you focused on, is indeed an interesting suggestion for the despare of Kleist, but it is widely debated in science and many point out, that Kleists Understanding of Kant was very basic and actually not very correct. The letter you cite, is actually a letter to Kleists fiancé Wilhelmine von Zengen and many scholars interpret Kleists short interpretation of Kant to his fiancé ruther as an exaggerated excuse for their breaking relationship, one of the more realistic reasons for Kleists gradual demise. Wilhelmines father wanted his daughter to marry someone with a proper employment, but Kleist struggled with the idea of such a formal and respected lifestyle and started to fancy pursuing his dream of becoming a famous poet, like his ancestor Ewald Kleist. By choosing to follow his dream, he basically demolished the foundation for a sustainable marriage with Wilhelmine. The later following backlashes (and there were many) in the world of literature and publishing ultimately pulled the trigger and ended this geniuses young life.
Very interesting, thank you. About his understanding of Kant: I actually think he was correct in his understanding.I haven’t seen a good argument as to what *exactly* he misunderstood about Kant’s philosophy, it’s always general and surface level. Kant DID, for many people (esp. At the time) destroy the possibility of metaphysics.
@@1214goonerSchopenhauer based compassion on a metaphysical insight into the unity of all things and the illusory nature of representation. You can consider it insufficient, but he did give justifiers.
Kant was still a believer in the soul. He just argued that we are forever in a dream illusion (says Schopenhauer). Kant believed in the Other World (as Nietzsche scoffed). But it wasn't made of space and time (as Donald Hoffman and Bernardo Kastrup argue).
Great video on someone I hadn't heard of! I wonder if you'd ever consider doing any videos on the other pessimists, such as Mainlander or Eduard Von Hartmann?
"There is nothing in the world, I venture to say, that would so effectively help one to survive even the worst conditions, as the knowledge that there is a meaning in one’s life. [Though, u]ltimately, man should not ask what the meaning of his life is, but rather must recognize that it is he who is asked. In a word, each MAN IS QUESTIONED BY LIFE; AND he can only answer to life by answering for his own life; to life HE CAN ONLY RESPOND BY BEING RESPONSIBLE. [So, w]hat man actually needs is not a tensionless state, but rather the striving and struggling for some goal worthy of him. What he needs is not the discharge of tension at any cost, but the call of a potential meaning waiting to be fulfilled by him." - Viktor Frankl Who else wants Weltgeist to do a video about Viktor Frankl, the father of logotherapy?
Did dude read Kierkegaard…? There were potential antidotes/mitigators in existence. Philosophy has saved my life repeatedly-including that of some of the thinkers discussed. I suppose the same drugs affect different people differently.
Hegel destroyed Kant’s noumen when von Kleist was still alive. I did not know such a great author (von Kleist) was that fragile. But he was a romantic. Hegel teaches us that the world is what we make of it. Mysteries are infinitely powerful, but devoid of concept, unseizable out of their material consequences. That’s why Nietzsche ended with Zarathustra’s concrete philosophy.
We need not forget to mention Otto Weininger when it comes to suicide because of philosophy! Plus he was a strong schopenhauerian and kantian. I'm sure, if you read him (if it's not already done), you will find some elements to make a great video. His philosophy of time, microcosm-macrocosm, genius, gender as ideal type, etc., is great!
When dying painfully, enduring pain changes the whole world in a conscious need to escape the pain. Some will realise the pain will never end and decide to sleep without waking up.
Yer name? lol! ..., interesting hmmm....., you made me think of my mom and her relationship with pain , I saw it change her in numerous ways ofcourse a lot of that's a part of age too I guess?
Could you do a video covering Otto Weininger? A fascinating 19th century idealist who's philosophy arguably led to his own self destruction at the age of 23.
He seems like a self-loathing, incel with a misanthropic and dichotomous "philosophy". I think Weltgeist would be doing a rude disservice to the viewers if a video was on him, what he has to offer the word isn't very important or even relevant to this channel.
After reading several books about Kleist (and also his own works of course), I can tell you it's completely wrong to think that the reason why he killed himself was the shock (which he indeed had) bc of Kants philosophy.
@@CosmosWorld Yes. But this video gives a wrong image of it. And that is inappropriate, especially because we're talking about the suicide of one of the greatest german poets.
@@hellucination9905 personal issues. Everything he tried didn't work...in love, in jobs, and his works weren't popular. A little bit like Hölderlin, it seems like Kleist could not be happy within this world...so that deep depression that didn't really have a reason and that was with him most of his life was probably the main reason for his suicide.
PRAISE BE! Somebody else who does their reading. There’s a stunning lack of nuance with barely a glance at Kleist’s personal turmoils. For instance, a quick google search of “The Gay Love Letters of Heinrich von Kleist” will reveal his penchant for moribundity, sadomaschism, and Romanticist melancholy. Not a great combo for one’s mental health..
I don't understand why meaning has to come from something transcendent. Why can't it be imminent? I am meaningful to myself; there is meaning. People are meaningful to each other; that's where meaning is. Wherever meaning is found, that's where it is. It is grounded in itself; it doesn't need anything outside itself. Nihilism is the ugly underbelly of theism and isn't worth sacrificing one's ready-to-hand meaning to. I wish Kleist could have realized this.
Because if it cannot be found in the transcendent when the immanent has no objective answer or understanding it will always lurk in the back of your head during trying times. During a cultural golden age it is easy to get lost in the Diogenes festivities. But wow, it is extremely painful when Diogenes is asleep and you can find nothing of substantial cultural value that draws you in. The struggle for meaning can only be postponed and shows up to anyone aware when times get painful/boredom.
@@BioChemistryWizard Meaning is its own answer for itself. To deny it is to do so from its own position. There is no ambiguity, no uncertainty. Uncertainty comes from a false premise that meaning isn't its own ground, but needs some external reference.
In the end death is coming for all of us,so why do you have to push the river,it flows all on it’s own,so don’t be in a rush,you are going to die,you might as well enjoy the ride and be curious to see what’s going to happen tomorrow,until there are no more tomorrow’s.
Would've been nice if you mentioned that Kant only destroyed metaphysics as it was understood in his day. There have been numerous revolutions and new introductions to the field since then, and the 'triumph of science' seems more illusory and ideological by the day.
I come that conclusion as well , The discoveries of science , truths that people thought they could take to their grave ,, are are based on natural arbitrary laws that can change in the future or are different in different time and space and as.If it doesn't change heat death or big crunch is awaiting which is more absurd that arbitrary numbers not changing is super natural if you think deeply enough. Now mankind can't do further major scientific breakthrough because of our limitations. So it is like knowing Mario game physics and hoping other games with have same logic and physics but can't confirm while the best hope has the worst possible outcome as an end which makes it absurd.
@@epiccabbage6530 Totally. I didn't even want to go there cause it'd be like a whole other discussion but yeah there seem to be some implications in the video about dichotomizing science and metaphysics as if science itself didn't arise from specific metaphysical assumptions
Kant sounds like he's just redescribing, The One, being the superessential metaphysical ineffable thing, that we lack language to even talk about it and therefor can't even think directly upon it, and if we do, think we think, then that is wrong, as it would be an idea of something else and not the thing itself.
Kinda but that ineffable thing, reality, can’t be known and can never come in contact with it. So it’s kinda the limit to our experience/knowledge. But! Kant leaves room for faith.
I love all these pretentious comments saying “ignorance is bliss”. No. Not being mentally ill is bliss. Information and knowledge is emotionally neutral, stop romanticizing your pathology!
Unfortunately this Kleist fellow drew the wrong conclusions - Nietzsche might have saved him. Limits enable freedom, chaos must balance order, the unknowable must bound the known, there can be no Theory-of-Everything except in truly understanding the symbol of the Tao and transcending words (see set theory and Russell's Paradox). Infinity is hell. Despite my disagreeing with Kant on the topic of morality, he looked deeply into the state of things and exposed a lot of flaws in traditional Western thinking. Trying to save morality exposed his intellectual Achilles heel. Nietzsche, the greatest philosopher of the West, would have hated Kant I think. Reason has limits. Empirical observation has its limits. Did Kant anticipate the limit on information that we call Quantum Mechanics? There are some things we may never know. Look at the failure of string theory and M theory as candidates for TOE. Don't let that fuck up your life. A proper understanding of the existentialist program enables you to create your own meaning instead of searching for or submitting to, an externally imposed grand 'meaning' to life (who the hell would want that). YOU were PUT HERE for a reason now go and find it Pal and the clock is ticking and it better align with absolute truth and blah blah blah. What a pile of garbage. Philosophy saved me precisely by giving me the critical thinking skills to supersede Western religion (especially Christianity) epistemology, metaphysics and morality and to embrace the Eastern tradition of direct experience. All you need is Wittgenstein, Nietzsche and Zen (reason, courage and openness). Here's a Japanese style poem for you. "A raindrop on a flower, the smell of coffee, go and wash your bowl" -DL (ok I'm a shitty poet - LOL).. But being in space and time does not require the incomprehensible nonsense of Heidegger, just try to smell the coffee and delight in consciousness at every moment. No past baggage, no future worries (that's CBT in a nutshell by the way). The search for an Absolute truth, a nonexistent god (I prefer goddesses - I could worship Kate Blanchett), an ultimate meaning etc. - will give you Schopenhauer's hair-do, or worse. Make freedom and presence a habit and you can transcend all the BS and suffering. God forbid you might be happy (until the church or government or corporation finds out and gets you back to suffering again). Freedom comes from seeing, from awakening. In the beginning was NOT the word, it was silence. Why is the Buddha smiling? Cheers.
I only use RU-vid for your channel. Hopefully someday we will meet. If I make it that far carrying out days after days through this meaningless despair that embraces me . I am Arunava from India.
Are you calling Socrates, Hitler (debateable, maybe he went to Argentina), Seneca, and so many other great men of history that killed themselves failures?
@@dainadaino678 I like your philosophy it actually makes sense also I believe in quality over quantity, I remember in The Book of Ki that one Ki practitioner ends up killing herself when she's really old and dying anyways, and how it writes at length about how the Japanese care more about quality of life than duration of life. I also have had to experience the personal horror of the quantity mindset with my parents keeping my brother alive in a vegetable bed-ridden drooling retard state for three decades before he finally died of aspiration... what was the point of that life where he could never move or talk or do anything but shit, piss, and vomit on himself and then die? My parents both supposedly religious but sure as fuck don't act like there's an afterlife, they're completely terrified of death.
This is why i dont discuss philosophy with religious people. They need meaning to exist. I don't feel that I have any right to take that away. I know when to keep my mouth shut and let the party go on.
What makes you so sure you have the power to take meaning away from them? through rational arguments? Very badly Hiding your arrogance in fake sympathetic restraint -"I don't feel that I have any right to take that away" LOL
One does not exclude the other. However, those that are deep into both philosophy and religion tend to mix traditions into one worldview. Perhaps you haven't met such a person just yet.
@@Premiseandconclusion it's what happened to me, why wouldn't it happen to others? Either they just refuse to entertain anything I describe, and double down on their zeal, or they open their mind a bit and start down an alternate path of knowledge that leads to the inevitable Kant wall. I embrace truth, which is why I had been a Christian. I thought it was the truth. When I found too many discrepancies I went on my own philosophical journey and hit the Kant wall. I became very depressed, considered ending things too. But I swallowed my pride and accepted meaninglessness. In some ways it actually made life easier than when I was Christian, but I do so miss the promise of a good afterlife to make everything I suffered worthwhile. So when I look at religious people I am looking at my past self, and choosing to not disturb their dreams. If they want to wake up, better they do it on their own so I can keep my conscious clear.
@@OneLifeJunkJack I've met plenty of people that use religion as a guide on the best way to live but I don't consider them to be religious. When I refer to a religious person I mean someone who believe the entire pie of their religion, replete with afterlife, hell, and a god that will explain everything when they die. They need that faith.
@@Endymion766 I'm talking about people who use religion as a background for either philosophy or art, but, at the same time, do believe in God and/or reincarnation. People who like to talk about Plotinus, Jakob Böhme, Hegel, van Gogh, that sort of thing.
Pessoa - “361 The search for truth - be it the subjective truth of belief, the objective truth of reality, or the social truth of money or power - always confers, on the searcher who merits a prize, the ultimate knowledge of its non-existence. The grand prize of life goes only to those who bought tickets by chance. The value of art is that it takes us away from here.” If Kleist kept on sedating his disquietude from the absence of metaphysical meaning, he might have continued to write transportative and unique literature which would serve to be a solution for others of the same problem.
5:20 How is science saved from the argument of Kant about reason? Even mathematics uses logical reasoning and pattern recognition to come to certain conclusions. And these methods of coming to conclusions are human ways of thinking. We are certainly limited even in our quest for scientific knowledge because we cannot look at nature beyond our already known ways of thinking like logic. Science is like a black box, we know how things work on surface level, but on a deeper level we don't know what the fuck is going on. And we can't really deduce exactly what's going on because we are limited to our human perception and our ways of thinking. There has to a better way of looking at the world, like better than logic i think. Only an alien species could think like that
I don't know, but even science is not interested in asking or solving that very question. Scientific systems work in their own area but not outside of that. The bad thing is, that many people take science as the absolute truth, they think it's an answer to metaphysical problems, but it can not get out of the world of phenomenon.
The Nietzschean perspective of this channel is evident in the framing of this discussion of von Kleist, in that Kant is a sort of intellectual supervillain who drives people mad.
schopenhauer and both kant is basically bhuddism in most of its aspects i so enjoy how many philosophies diverge in an aspect or perspective that concludes the same answer. very cool video
As someone well versed in Kant, Schopenhauer, and Buddhism, I don't think Kant is really Buddhist but Schopenhauer is in his own way. In fact, Buddhism isn't even aligned with itself really. The philosophy of Theravada versus Mahayana traditions is utterly different. You'll find a lot of discussion of the non-duality of subject and object and the nature of consciousness in Zen, but hardly any such thing in the Theravada beyond brushing off viññāṇa (consciousness) as not-self as it's one of the five aggregates. In recent years, Luang Por Sumedho seems to talk about consciousness a lot though. Otherwise, it's just not a central feature like it is for Zen, it's presented way differently, and there are huge disagreements rooted in the Abhidhamma versus Nagarjuna debate. The Buddhist world, from what I can tell, never developed a distinction like Kant's phenomenal versus noumenal. They have the subject/object distinction, but this is different than phenomenal/noumenal. Subjects are those who perceive and objects are what are perceived. Both sides of this distinction belong on the phenomenal side of Kant's distinction. The noumenal is the world of things-in-themselves without reference to perception. Now, it could be argued that the whole Abhidhamma/Nagarjuna debate culminated in a rejection of the concept of dhammas, which the Abhidhamma seemed to equate with being the noumenal. But I might contest that too, as dhammas were supposed to be the smallest possible unit of perception, only experienced by one in deep insight meditation focused on the body. Schopenhauer was heavily inspired by Buddhism and agreed with it in a lot of ways. He agreed with its soteriological purpose and the means of accomplishing it (renouncing the Will - desire being a will toward things and aversion being a will away from them). He misunderstood the First Noble Truth though, which he took to mean "Life is suffering" as a lot of people misunderstand it. It's better rendered, "Life can never ultimately satisfy."
I feel like often with pessimist philosophers, the negativity of their interpretation is somewhat arbitrary and more an outward rationalization of severe depression that they're suffering from. If life and suffering are meaningless, why does it follow that you must have a hostile stance toward it all? Can't you just as arbitrarily live life with a positive outlook toward the world despite the supposed meaningless behind it? Death is coming for everyone either way, so why would they rush themselves into suicide rather than accept their profound ignorance of the world and try to forge something meaningful from it regardless.
The issue is that the sense of meaninglessness is not an intellectual matter, nor is it something that can be fought with the logical mind or rationalized away. Sure you can conceptually know the world is meaningless, but the real problems arise when you truly FEEL it. It’s something akin to a religious awakening, only negative in character. Once that happens to you the real despair starts, and life becomes an endless looping hell of tediuos robotic actions.
@@Eversti_Sandels see, I would just call that a rationalization depression and its associated anhedonia. That deep feeling may seem like a profound philosophical awakening but I don't think humans really work that way. Feelings are often much more simple than that, IMHO, and as much as we like to intellectualize our existence, we are fundamentally silly little half bald monkeys at the end of the day. Both hedonic pleasures (endorphins from exercise, eating good food, having sex, etc) still move us, as do eudaimonic pleasures (solving problems, helping others, growing virtuous, contributing to the future of humanity), regardless of how much we can try to remove ourselves from the subjectivity of these experiences. Mainlander, the poet who died by suicide after publishing his treatise and loved Schopenhauer, said that he saw the end of life as preferable because he saw no further use for himself to humanity. I see this as such: he had put so much into objectifying his reality and trying to philosophically 'conquer' the world that he was blinded entirely by the tragedies within the human condition and of our ignorance, but failed to accept the fundamental counterbalancing comedies within it all. Life sucks, but it can also be funny sometimes and a single laugh heals a million sorrows.
I see it differently when it comes to the so called "pessimistic philosophers " . For me going through life with blind optimism is what leads most to depression, because life at some stage will bring suffering to every one regardless of background, race or sex. The philosophy of schopenhauer for me at least trys to deal with that by seeing that life is hard for us. But that we can look at it and try minimise that suffering in ways that are personal to you and find the simple pleasures of life. And that to me personal was a important message that I got from his philosophy. But I also understand that not everyone will think like that and that's the beauty of life we are all trying to give it meaning in our own ways. Peace and happiness to you .
I see this issue in a reverse order. I don't think truth flows from one's depression, I think the depression flows from recognition of the truth that life is ultimately unsatisfactory...AND from the failure to recognize that there's a way out of the unsatisfactoriness. The second part is equally important and what Schopenhauer, although he recognized it, should have emphasized far more. Schopenhauer misunderstands Buddhism's First Noble Truth when he treats life as suffering. A correct understanding renders the First Noble Truth closer to, "Life is not ultimately satisfying." The Buddha was trying to point out that because phenomena are under constant change, any attempt to root your happiness in the phenomenal, conditioned world will be impermanent and therefore unsatisfactory. This is a real problem. The Buddha would go on to say that the people we essentially term "optimists" are rooted in the poison of delusion because they refuse to acknowledge this problem. Their failure to acknowledge the problem indefinitely condemns them to the cycle of suffering. You have to acknowledge the First Noble Truth in order to get to the Third: that there is an escape, and the Fourth: the way out. I think there's a lot to critique in Buddhism, but a pessimistic philosophy is the beginning of wisdom. I utterly disagree with Nietzsche and the subsequent line of thinkers rooted in him in this. The proposition "life is not ultimately satisfying" is completely correct and is the beginning of wisdom, as its acknowledgement is the first and necessary step toward a final remedy of the problem. Nietzsche's critique is essentially the same as your's: that the philosophy of nearly every philosopher before him flowed from a particular mental disease, and that there was a sort of unspoken conspiracy among the wise that life was a negative thing. It led to him developing his view, called Perspectivism, which first examines the mental state of a philosopher before getting to their philosophy. But Nietzsche did not believe in truth at all. His first major work is, "On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense," which is an entertaining piece that basically argues that "truth" has a history and is therefore not an innate property of the world. Which, maybe that's so, but it's almost like Nietzsche didn't understand Kant's Critique of Pure Reason at all. For us to have minds or perform any sort of mental activity we must make certain assumptions, and one of them is going to be that some ideas are true in some sense and others are not. In the end I'd diagnose Nietzsche with a mental disease of his own, and I don't mean the neurosyphilis he suffered from late in life. I mean, it's a sort of delusion that fails to recognize that his "Will to Power" is ultimately and necessarily a failure in 100% of cases. You can only delude yourself that your power is going to be a source of perpetual happiness or pleasure. Old age and death takes us all. His idea of eternal recurrence (living your life as if you had to live it over and over for eternity) is just a thought experiment in the end. It's divorced from the reality of our situation and therefore provides no real solution to the problem.
Great work. I was left wondering how all these great philosophers would have done if they’d used a tool like meditation to go beyond the mind and have personal experience of the metaphysical . Trying to use the intellectual rational mind to understand metaphysics is just using the wrong tool for the job. The thinking mind is by definition, limited. There is a higher mind that intellectual thought obscures, and a stilling of our thinking mind reveals. And does it matter that we can’t know if our reality is real? It sure feels real and it’s all we have, and to deny and not accept what’s right in front of you is a recipe for unhappiness. So many of these philosophers had miserable lives which doesn’t stop me admiring their intellectual brilliance but tells me they not the kind of people you seek to emulate.
YESSS MUST COVER EMIL CIORAN! Passions aside, his metaphysical hyperbolic postulation and fragmentary writing gives a speculative and lyrical solution to the destruction by German idealism. Thinking (with reason and logic) erodes all happiness, and unreasoned and illogical creative pursuits treat the despair.
Kant uncovered a truth difficult to observe because it displayed the vulnerabilty of a perception that haunts everyone still. So beautifully remarked by Kleist 13:40. But he fails to even believe fully of Kants affliction of truth. But could not rest with the truths in separation of physical phenomenon and metaphysics of the neumenon. He was brilliant because he was distraught of these truths. The brilliant are often weighed by truths conflicting.
the higher your viewpoint on life 'vibes' the better for your life -> look at the map of consciousness (David Hawkins). Each philosophy is on another level at the scale
I dont follow people who are led by fear and loathing and when it comes to philosophy, i prefer to discover how these people *lived* to determine whether or not their words are worth absorbing. More often than not, they arent.
Zen Buddhists absolutely destroy this line of thinking. They'd say something like, "You're the kind of man that, if I were to point at the moon, you would look at my finger instead of looking at the moon. Look at the moon!" The issue is that you're looking to be led by someone else instead of taking personal responsibility to find the truth for yourself.
@saintsword23 Read my comment again so you can understand it. And Buddhism was founded by a man who feared suffering from loss. It's a beautiful religion, but full of denial and fear like the rest.
I'm pretty sure I understand it. The entire comment is about the philosophers and not the philosophy. You're concerning yourself with the fingers and not the moon because your first concern is determining who you're going to allow to lead you rather than the truth itself. Look at your own thinking here. Your comment was not deep or hard to understand. It just exposes your mentality.
Without "the abyss",nothingness, randomness,none of us would even exist. Von Kleist committed suicide literally for nothing.What is the point of defying, by surrender to non existence,the very principle that gave you life in the first place?
Philosophy has slowly killed me. I read Ernest Becker "Denial of death" and then Schopenhauer "The World as Will and Representation" and those books took the wind out of my sails. I can say that the ttwo books had an enormous impact on me. I now am looking forward to death.
Did he have a form of Romantic Social Contagion/ unresolved attachment? In another Universe he created Absurdism and escaped self oblation by walking a middle way without his temporary female other.
Here is my advice - if you are not in a mentally solid place, don’t introduce yourself to philosophy through Shopenhour and the likes. I made that mistake and six years later, I am still struggling to see the whole life thing as anything but meaningless suffering.
Life is a series of games we are playing. Playing is inherently meaningful. Kids play. They don't diverge into existentialist questions - which is playing a game, too.
Then remind yourself that the perception of life being meaningless is also meaningless. It’s so funny how certain thinkers can argue that they can escape the epistemic necessity of faith while grounding their whole paradigm on a Reason that has no reason for being.
Considering von Kleist lived before Nietzsche, the accusation of mutual ignorance is unfair. That blame is reserved for Nietzsche. That said, how come Nietzsche never mentions Von kleist? Since von K' was his predecessor, Nietzsche was naturally inclined to give recognition to a "kantian-victim" of dissolution. Nietzsche was one himself ( although Nietzsche's previous worldview was shattered thanks to Schopenhauer). Pardon me, it's just strange, if not to say Disheartening...
Cioran and Pessoa mystics in the robes of pessimism. Beckett admired Zen, and its "ablation of desire". They take the tedium of pessimism to its natural salvific conclusion. As does the years of ascetic and monotonous contemplation the anchorite undergoes.
