I appreciate how you respond to all your criticisms from the comments so candidly and in stride. I also think a huge problem in today's discourse is that people are unable to conceive of someone who merely speaks descriptively without making value judgements. In this case, when you mused that the PewdiePie's reference to the wedding might be to appeal to a female audience, they take it to mean you personally think that women are vapid or that weddings are only of interest to women. This is made worse when compounded with the fact that you are a "boomer". People are so used to following narrative scripts about people's ideology that they automatically begin to project regardless of whether it's appropriate.
My take on the situation is slightly different. I got the impression that the negative response to his comment was driven in large part by taking from it that pewdiepie was intentionally tailoring what seemed like a genuine assessment of a moment of personal happiness in such a way as to better connect with a particular subset of his audience. This implied a type of dishonesty to the followers invested in his profile as pewdiepie and therefore created a negative reaction. Because the comment was short and almost off hand, I think the problem arose through poor communication due to lack of expansion on profilicity implications at that point. This video expands and helps to clear it up.
@@matthewshorney268 I don’t necessarily disagree. But that explanation is only *one* interpretation of how he might have been speaking. My point is that our current way of thinking, in which descriptive speech is almost always coupled with a value judgement, encourages that (false) interpretation of what he said. But if one is familiar with this channel, one would know that the professor’s entire philosophy is built upon “moral foolishness” and the idea of “genuine pretending” in the age of profilicity. The “implied dishonesty” you speak of is only implied if you are projecting cultural scripts on his words, not if you’ve actually been following what he’s saying.
@@jcrews5287 I see what you're saying, I just think it's the most common interpretation that people would arrive at (notwithstanding your point about previous videos), and hence perceive it to be a miscommunication of the actual ideas.
@@matthewshorney268 Once again, we’re not disagreeing. That is the most common interpretation, at least in the Anglosphere. My point is that the common understanding is unfounded. This is the core of the critique of the ever-proselytizing American civil religion.
I think a key factor is the parasocial relationship his viewers have with him, which makes it possible to forget that he’s a streamer with a massive audience and a “brand” to uphold. Pewdiepie is also one of the most extreme examples of this because of how prolific he is, how long he’s been at it, and how his brand has changed over the years.
It is really astonishing how many people do not understand how deep the commodification of life is part of our society for those who are a business person. For many business people every "party" or social event is ALSO a possibility to do business and meet other business people. Its not that those parties have only business purposes - but this is ONE purpose for sure for many people. And its not only about entrepeneurs but also about actors, streamers, scientists, etc. But... often not for "normal" 5x8-workers. That so many people who have not this mindset dont understand this reality and do not understand that we as consumers are the target audience is really interesting. For a business man every part of his life ALSO is business or at least can be business. There is no difference in business and private. Everything is business. The business person defines itself by the business. And often rather on a subconscious layer. They just are who they are. And often grow into such a lifestyle and mindset. Thank you very much ... although you also "sell" your videos of course :) But this is how our society does work right now. And you help to make this understandable. I really learn a lot and appreciate every single video and hope this channel will go on for a longer time.
Thank your video Prof. Moeller, it brought much insight and clarity into your previous remarks. I only have a few remarks which may not be of much insight to you, but I will write them anyway. Although I find your argument regarding the commodification of Pewdiepie's wedding convincing, I am not sure whether I agree on the assertions for that conclusion. First of all, I would argue that although both Pewdiepie and Nietzsche used the word "wedding" (or in Nietzsche's case *Hochzeit*), their concepts ( *begriff*) differed. I would not say that this is mainly a linguistic difference between Swedish (Pewdiepie), German (Nietzsche) or English, it is primary a social one. Being Swedish myself I can attest to what the older generation might call the "erosion of marriage," but what is actually the beginning of a remolding of social roles. In the context of younger Swedish people, marriage is so devoid of any sanctity that the analytical category of "secularization" is too weak to convey what this new social mode of association truly implies. For example, I, along with the majority of my friends, all have divorced parents, and none of us really associate marriage with captivity, nor do we speak of a "fatal hindrance." The "free-spirit" that Nietzsche speaks of has already been completely integrated in marriage, one might say even a condition of marriage, because once we do not feel free, we divorce our partner. I think Swedish culture has largely abandoned the traditional mode of marriage. Everyone is explicitly aware of the commodification and secularization of the ritual itself, to a degree that it does not represent an "initiation" of anything, rather an activity which two people commence for the purpose of celebration. Secondly, I think Pewdiepie, while aware of his audience, is honest about his experience of the wedding in this case. I don't think it is a special choice based on attracting or pleasing a certain audience. His marriage might be true to his profilicity in different ways. Perhaps (or so I would like to think) in regards to the video he made on Nietzsche, his profilicity is different from the framework of the marriage video itself. The "identity making" he is engaging in is rather the case of making a "wise-RU-vidr." Of course, you address this with the concept of "picturesque" but I think it does not capture the essence of the video. Expanding on your concept of the picturesque, I think Pewdiepew tries to remold the "picture" to be one of a "satisfied modern day sage." With this in mind, I would like to think that Pewdiepie's relation to his wedding is different from what you have previously considered. However, my proposed understanding is not an attempt to "call you out;" it has nothing to do with whether you are sexist or not. I think your assessment, based on the assumption that he has a certain concept of marriage together with an consciousness of his ability to capitalize on that very theme, is valid in its own right. Consider this passage from the Genealogy of Morals: "[A]lle Begriffe, in denen sich ein ganzer Prozess semiotisch zusammenfasst, entziehen sich der Definition; definirbar ist nur Das, was keine Geschichte hat." "[A]ll concepts in which an entire process is semiotically concentrated defy definition; only something which has no history can be defined." Trans. Carol Diethe
I have had this conversation with my parents before, both of whom teach students my age: It is fine to mention underlying factors such as gender, because it is undeniable that it plays a role. Just make sure to use the right phrasing and clarify your point elaborately. When you stand in front of a class, you want to keep it light and joke around a little, but because of the age gap, the message is not always clear. A calm response is in my opinion always the way to go. If you want to encourage dialogue among students, then practice it. It reminds critics that they are in a dialogue too, that there is a person behind the words, and there might be more to it than meets the eye. In the age of online education, professors also need to conciously remember that they are conversing with young people, who are new to academic interactions. Nevertheless, I must say that older academics do tend to use quite uncomfortable phrasing and jokes, which I find quite 'boomer', but have learnt to tolerate much more now than I did before.
The concept of the picturesque reminded me of this passage from the novel Gone Girl: "It seemed to me that there was nothing new to be discovered ever again. Our society was utterly, ruinously derivative (although the word derivative as a criticism is itself derivative). We were the first human beings who would never see anything for the first time. We stare at the wonders of the world, dull-eyed, underwhelmed. Mona Lisa, the Pyramids, the Empire State Building. Jungle animals on attack, ancient icebergs collapsing, volcanoes erupting. I can’t recall a single amazing thing I have seen first-hand that I didn’t immediately reference to a movie or TV show. A fucking commercial. You know the awful singsong of the blasé: Seeeen it. I’ve literally seen it all, and the worst thing, the thing that makes me want to blow my brains out, is: The secondhand experience is always better. The image is crisper, the view is keener, the camera angle and the soundtrack manipulate my emotions in a way reality can’t anymore. I don’t know that we are actually human at this point, those of us who are like most of us, who grew up with TV and movies and now the Internet. If we are betrayed, we know the words to say; when a loved one dies, we know the words to say. If we want to play the stud or the smart-ass or the fool, we know the words to say. We are all working from the same dog-eared script."
I just watched a show that has their own point on that, though it's supposed to be through the lens of a teen: you have to experience things on your own to enrich yourself. Specifically it was about the protagonist going to the beach for the first time, even though he lived less than a couple hours from it, because he was too focused on his craft. That and other experiences made him better at what he was doing, and made him notoriusly happier. For example doing makeup enhanced his ability to make smoother eyebrows for his dolls, which is his vocational craft. The anime is My Dress-Up Darling *lol*
@@VashdaCrash Oh that's interesting. Although it would be more analogous if he were watching movies about surfing or something and then goes to the beach, and perhaps finds the experience lacking in comparison. Or alternatively, I suppose, if he watched videos of people making dolls before making them himself.
Loved the responses for two reason, mostly. One being a further explanation of the concepts discussed and leading to further understanding. Second, because in social meadia we never see dialogues. Not only that most creators don't respond to comments ( not that they should) but commentors make remarks on things that are not mentioned, or even implied. I feel that i am in middle of a discussion where people cannit listen to each other and respond based on what they think the other person said.
I feel like a lot of this is just reaching, like a lot of the points are shoehorned. PewDiePie was talking about his wedding specifically - not weddings in general, or their media representation, or their possible effect on the great philosophers -, as a lay person. The fact that he was commenting on Nietzsche is actually secondary to the reading you made: he's own working definition was explicit, even if wrong (so much so that you yourself could make a video criticizing it, which by the way I though was pretty good). Some people thinking it was weird the way you made an off-hand is not a sign of "wokism", it's just a sign that the off-hand comment sounded a bit weird. The third chapter might as well apply to any example which might be given, with no relation to the gendered part of your reading.
It's not exclusive to wokism that people read into what other people say. In fact a lot of communication is based on the fact that we need to constantly interpret what's being meant instead of what being said. It's possible to read that statement at face value as "girls like weddings" rather than "wedding content is marketed at women", and I don't think the correct interpretation is immediately as obvious as you think it is. On one hand the so called "wokism" possibly enhances the tendencies to interpret things this way, but so does genuine sexism. As a woman I do encounter a lot of very casual sexism that people don't even notice (and now I really mean genuine comments that just make condescending assumptions of women), so more often than not, a comment like this would read at face value and thus be interpreted correctly.
What I mean by this is that regardless of whether one interprets the comment as "women like weddings" or "wedding content is marketed for women", both of these interpretations require this extra step of interpreting what's being _meant_. It means that the meaning behind this comment isn't obvious and inherent in the comment "...perhaps to please his female audience".
@@pahvi3 I think they require different sized steps of interpretation tbf to the professor, and an accusation of sexism would always carry a risk unless one is really very certain in this regard, no? I think we all owe each other that much. It's just that taking that pause and mulling it over a bit more rather than jumping straight in is often not easy. There's also context that makes one interpretation more likely than the other to be correct, it should be noted. How likely do we think it is that HGM would make a statement akin to "women like weddings"? The video in question is not the only video HGM has made, and he's written several books, after all. If the reply is that not everyone will have seen more than that particular video of his then I would say all the more reason to avoid a rush to judgment. Digging deeper would be the viewer's responsibility, not HGM's.
@@FauxieDaoJia I don't know him, and neither does every single person who watches his videos. I also think it's fairly clear that the context here is this wider analysis, which would suggest that he meant this analytically as well, not at face value. I think the trap is that the sentence "to please the female audience" is more often than not used in a sexist way. But tbh my comments above are somewhat inconsequential to what he's generally talking about here. Like he said, some of the comments he referenced used "agist language" against him, which suggests that the important context here, to these commenters, was that he is a middle-aged man. But at the same time I think it's a funny stance to take that "how was my comment taken this way, when the writer of this feminist article said essentially the same thing" as if context plays no role at all in how we're able to interpret things. Second of all, just throwing a singular comment like "to please his female audience" isn't the same thing as writing an entire essay about the wedding industry.
@@pahvi3 ppl can and will respond regardless, of course, but I'll say it's better to be as informed as possible when doing so, is all. You can't go on things you're not privy to, so let's set such unknowns aside. Not being familiar with someone's work would make me hesitant about making what are really quite strong accusations, I'd like to think, rather than thinking to use it as an excuse.
That's reasonable. As a male, I've made such mistakes especially during my younger college days when I used to watch Sargon of Akkad who was my introduction to atheism. Eight years later, now when I make media critique for grad school requirements or small newsletter, given my new position as a graduate student in my local university, I feel like I have to walk on eggshells, since I remember the stupid, some sexist, some just ignorant and on the borderline, stuff I used to say that could end up being associated with the more critical (and what I think to be actually pro-social justice) stuff that I write for my tiny circles. Probably no one knows me or what I said in my highly impressionable youth, but I have to look over my shoulder, and be prepared to acknowledge the old errors of my ways and why that's distinct from my more mature views. On a different angle, I've experienced hearing foreigners mimic mockingly my speaking in Tagalog, my native Philippine language, when I lived abroad. Of course, this offends me. But, using my accent in an extremely stereotypical ways comedically usually does not offend me, especially since I'm used to Tagalog English-speakers doing this themselves for lighthearted humor. Taking either case in face value, I have different, specific responses, though I'm sure speakers of other languages with similar experiences may respond completely differently or somewhat the same. Each situation demands a certain context, from which we could infer implied intentions. But, without such nuance or context, a face value assessment by some folks can read certain statements and infer hidden meanings which are identical to ones that they've seen or read or heard before. Precisely, because it's easy to do to recall this than to give benefit of the doubt or make distinctions on the fly.
Pewdiepie mangles Nietzsche into his antithesis. An eternal reccurence of intense bliss is the definition of almost every religious paradise. Also, interesting to see his disdainful views on marriage considering that his 3 proposals were all rejected.
@@TheIdealisticRealist Or perhaps those rejections forced him to think more deeply. After all, it's much harder to devote your time to thinking and writing when you have the burden of marital responsibility (unless your wife is also a freethinking philosopher and writer)
It seems like George was the cause for the misunderstanding. I mean the part where he said it was corny. I would say it is so because of the way he said it i.e he did not say it was corny in a Nietzscheian way. By not saying it was corny because what Nietzsche meant it seemed like he thought it was corny in it self so to say. You can argue that it would be implied, but then you need to know what Nietzsches thoughts were on the matter. TLDR the corny part of Georgs statement on PewDiePies wedding caused a misunderstanding because he did not say it was in a Nietzscheian sense.
yours videos are a great way to develop critical and analytical thinking. the comment section is full of people whose discussions is enlightening too. Thanks to you and to the people commenting.
Professor! Good video, as usual. I'm interested in hearing you speak about Guy Debord's 'spectacle'. Profilicity seems to be a recurring theme in your videos and I and I believe many others would find it interesting to hear you do an examination of the society of the spectacle or the age of profilicity.
I was supposed to study political science in university but I changed my major to Philosophy because I was inspired by this channel. This may be a big mistake, but I'm certain that not studying philosophy would have been even bigger one.
I really enjoyed this video. The way you summarize the quotes and how you deliver your points are awesome. Thanks for sharing your take, always a plessure. It's fantastic I can watch this for free.
Thank you for your content professor, I'm sure your busy with real work, this channel is very much appreciated, long may it hold your interest. Waiting for your video on profile building and the Ukrainian war, if you dare...
I totally understand why so many people were not happy with your comment. Looking down on femininity and things that mainly women are interested in is something very common in our society. Lately, many have realized how unfair and undeserved that is and are pushing back against such things. And this is a great thing. By making that comment without explaining your views on marriage, many probably assumed that you were just attacking femininity, and reacted accordingly.
This entire convo had nothing to do on marriage, i don't even think he needed to mention all that since it had nothing to revolve around it. Those examples that he showed were generally talking about how they find that joke stereotyping women liking marriages and stuff and that men can't do the same. He probably saw this as a good opportunity to capitalise another philosophy lesson by transitioning off something that is popular (so it will get more views and stuff). I find it kinda dishonest to say the least but whatever I guess.
I have a disagreement with your representation of marriage (from my understanding of your video, please correct me if I'm wrong). I don't think that one can only live said experience sincerely if and only if you identify yourself with the historical meaning of marriage. The meaning of marriage has changed, and not just recently. Marriage was (and sometimes, at the same time [era]) a political contract, a form of domination, a ensurer of financial stability for women after their spouse died, a romantic ideal usw. Modern marriages are extremely interesting because there's usually no material difference in the lives of the spouses (no dowry, no moving in together as they usually already do this). They are purely ritualistic, devoid of material and the transcendental (most marriages aren't religious) aspects. I think that the meaning of marriage has been weakened (à la Vattimo) to currently be a placeholder for commitment in a relationship and I would argue, much more than fulfilling a social function (which it definitively does), more fundamentally, by ritualizing a reality (co-habitation, a relationship, many times already a children), it gives it 'matter' (es wird fest). Not everyone requires it, but some do, and for these people, more than a celebration it operates as a confirmation of their reality. Anyway, really though-provoking video. Do you think Sincerity is possible in a social media context, or just Profilicity?
I think this has to do with his definition of sincerity. Sincerity is to be true to or acting in accordance with some external expectation. Like you say the "ritual" aspects... Where you say that for some people "it operates as a confirmation of their reality" I think that might fit his definition of authenticity, where people are true to or act in accordance with "who they really are deep down". Prolificity is just an extension or a new mode of identity building that takes into account 2nd order observation and requires minimal investment in the profile. Its an interesting way to see things because it says that there is no "real me deep down" to discover or uncover, but in fact identity is built and maintained through profiles. Hopefully I'm not completely off the tracks here, but that's what I got...
The word "sincerity" here is used to mean one of the "technologies of identity", the one that relies on societal roles. The colloquial meaning of sincerity has a different definition.
@@sebleblan Maybe I did not quite get what you ment by 'but in fact' but, I do think there is no "real me deep down", not even to discover or uncover. But I think there is an important _diffrence_ between ' _me_ ' and ' _identity_ ', your identity is 'a part' of 'me' or 'you' or "the subject" for that matter. But that does not mean the 'real you' is somewhere 'beneath' _identity_ or above... or anywhere else... So yes mabye 'our identities' are maintained through _profiles_ , but why does that have to _be_ the 'only _you_ ', the 'only _part_ of _you_ '? Or _are_ we only our identities? I think yes, mostly through profilicity, but I think "we" _the subject_ is _different_ from *only* profilicity.
@@LukeDruid That is interesting, the difference between self and identity, I haven't thought much about it. I think Prof Muller says prolificity is not the only mode of identity building, so profiles are not 'the only you' but simply a historically relevant novel technology of identity building used along side previously existing ones.
@@sebleblan I think my question comes from my lack of knowledge about 'Sincerity' and 'Profilicity' as they're being employed here. But from what I understood, both are modes of authenticity. What we represent in our profiles is part of who we are (how we want to be perceived). As DRuID elegantly wrote, there is no real me deep down. But isn´t profilicity - '[taking] into account 2nd order observation' always been a thing? I mean, a lot of our identity-build has been connected with social perception since organized society has been around. During our childhood and later on we emulate the behaviour of our parents, peers, and so on, out of a social norm, developing our desires. And when we rebel against it, well we are still interacting with that same model, just inversely. As I said, I need to understand better 'Sincerity' and 'Profilicity', but Profilicity reminds me a bit of Girard's mimetics applied to the masses: a phenomenon wherein the identity of the subject (and their actions) is a reflex (imitation) of what is socially desired. Btw Girard's an interesting read to understand wokeism.
Lol! This made my April Fools. Philosopher reads mean tweets. “Please don’t call me Hans” Would be a great name for the channel. I’d love to see the out takes of this video. Thank you.
"Nietzsche wasn't married" well yeah but not because he decided to not live with them but because he couldn't, you know he proposed to lou salome, right? twice!
You cater to feminism arguments to defend your point was a philosophical critique and not a sexist remark. However, applying your own views to yourself, how are we to not say that at that point in time you were yourself engaged in an act of profile building? Making a sexist remark, or just being provocative, is a way to generate content for your profile. And as you say yourself, we must interpret you as being honest so… honesty relative to what? In this case, why can’t your viewers then use standard lines of interpretation and call your remark sexist? Why are they obviously “woke” in their comments and you obviously philosophical in yours? After all, your remark is like… one sentence, and it does sound off. It is as easy for your viewers to burn you at the stake than for you to use a classical after the fact defense of “oh but I was only being philosophical”. I don’t want to read you in bad faith so poor me, I will have to think of this defense as authentic and embrace your own paradox. I would simply like you not to think of some of your viewers as just another bunch of “woke drones”. Even if thinking that is such another great way to curate your profile 😉
Foucault looks at a variety of Greek philosophers (Stoics, etc.) views on marriage in Vol. 2 or 3 of The History of Sexuality, and it's quite amusing. Basically the ancient version of, "Do you want to spend your Sundays lost in contemplation or helping your father-in-law fix his garage."
Foucault is a great companion piece to the philosophy of this channel and he is noted for his critique of social systems as ultimate mechanisms of power and control to put it simply.
I think that wedding reality show is really aimed to create a fairy tale. For whom - thats a different story. And I think it's more correct to say that PewPew kinda appeals to this fantasy. And yes, as someone pointed out - Nietzsche made a proposal to a woman.
Interesting video as always. Always imagined i'd call you Hans-Georg if i met you, being from a northern european country where we dont use surnames, but now i know to call you Mr Moeller :). Your philosophical point on different modes of being provokes a couple of thoughts in me, mainly that being sincere is measured on the parameter of how well you fill your role. It resonates well with old swedish sayings like "Skomakare, bliv vid din läst" (Shoemaker, stick to your feet-measuring tool) and a classic my wife (hehe) often says; If its good for grampa, its good for me. Being true to the parameter of sincerity has rather turned into a vice than a virtue for many reasons. One connection i see being between the requirement of fluid intelligence rather than crystallized intelligence growing in importance. Being smart is more important than having a lot of knowledge; the shoemaker simply cannot excel in shoemaking in any meaningful capacity anymore for many reasons - be them based on market or the current mode of being in profilicity, who surely in of themselves are phenomenon that are interconnected. Profilicity is a concept that captures the postmodern condition of informationsspreading and rings true to the Baudrillard perspective on warfare. The vietnam war showed that profilicity of a whole country matters more than the virtue of acting in the role as a vanguard against the spread of communism. From there, social issues began to rise with the freedom rights movement, i am sure Mr Moeller is familiar with the song "The Revolution will not be televised" by Gil Scott Heron, where the artist in my view beautifully, in a way, makes an attempt to revolt against profilicity. . Profilicity has, in my take, been a vehicle for the individual to compete, true to postmodernity, against established authorities. What profilicity once was, a tool for propaganda, profilicity has evened the playing feel between actors in the social field as the tools for profiling has trickled down. There is certainly a possibility to have a marxist perspective on the possibility to act in accordance to profilicity, whilst sincerity is a necessity when material conditions might be more unfavourable. Would love to hear a discussion on different modes of being in relation to materialism or idealism!!
I'm fairly sure Nietzsche proposed to a woman on several occasions. So I don't know if I would take his views on marriage super seriously, or at least free from his own personal failings with attempted marriage.
@@TheIdealisticRealist oh I see what you mean. But his views can change or maybe he just hated it because he got rejected (like a weird coping mechanism)
@@lobstered_blue-lobster I'm inclined to think the latter. I'm no professional philosopher but I also always read Nietzsche with a good pinch of sarcasm in his words.
Giving only a positive example like "wedding" is not a good example for eternal recurrence. Eternal recurrence doesn't mean you live every positive moment you had forever, it means you live your every moment again and again. Bad, good, whatever you call it, every moment of your life. This is I think why you called it "corny" and assumed maybe he said that to please his audience or female audience. I think saying "female audience" was unnecessary, but you were right overall.
The most fun part of the quote from Geneology of Morals is missing (slightly altered cause I have another translation, it seems): ("What great philosopher up to now has been married? Heraclitus, Plato, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibnitz, Kant, Schopenhauer- none of these got married. What’s more, we cannot even imagine them married. A married philosopher belongs in a comedy, that’s my principle.) And Socrates, that exception, the malicious Socrates, it appears, ironically got married specifically to demonstrate this very principle." The concept of getting married ironically and Socrates being married ironically, just to prove Nietzsche's point, is somehow very hilarious to me. I love Nietzsche's way of writing. He for sure is the most entertaining philosopher to read, at least for me.
I wonder if those same critics where fans of all the psuedo scholarship on masculinity, which itself is rationalized stereotyping. People are fine with tropes as long as it's up to date and has the right institutional feminist posturing.
Maybe this is me looking back at Nietzche through Adorno and Baudrillard, but I feel like he would see a wedding as the reification of a relationship in the same way that 'rational thought' became reified and then divorced from the self... the moment of sincerity between two people is alienated from the sign value of the wedding, which is (as you mentioned) nothing more than a profilic image. Although, at least it's a faithful image, and not a true 'alienation' if he was being genuine.
FInished the Profilicity book not too long ago and I'm currently reading 'The Moral Fool'. It's great reading these books during and around the time you're making these videos and seeing the ideas you've obviously had on your mind in recent years coming up in video form in slightly different ways, maybe expanded upon further, or sometimes in regard to even more current events. I don't tend to like reading more than one book at a time, however, and I seem to always feel this by now familiar need to get back to the Zhuangzi before too long, so funnily enough I'll confess that while I read the book on amorality I feel a pull back towards, in part, the 'Genuine Pretending' book! I'm trying to take my time and really savour 'The Moral Fool', but it's a peculiar feeling, I won't lie, not least because I have a suspicion the depression I'm currently struggling a bit with will be eased once I return to my usual reading (i.e. the five or six texts typically considered classical Daoism). I'm not quite sure what that's about.
Because you are speculating, you’re revealing more about yourself than pudie pie. I’m not sure that profilicity excludes sincerity. (Though I may be misunderstanding) Even if you are in agreement with feminists about wedding media being addressed to female audiences, it doesn’t confirm or deny his actual intentions when mentioning it. I think without more conclusive evidence you should consider more than one possible set of motivations. Though it is a very good chance for you to expound more on your(?) idea of profilicity.
@@lobstered_blue-lobster The woman was Lou Salome. I think there might have been another one he also fell in love with and was rejected by, but Salome was most important. She not only rejected him romantically but also got into a relationship with his at that time best friend. There is an inconic photograph of them 3 (the friend was famous poet rilke). Nietzsche resented women his entire life but after this incident this grew stronger. He resented, feared and such a lot. He was quite the polar opposite of his philosophy.
Ah, I think I get the difference between authenticity and profilicity now. Basically, these roles have been abandoned by society while the rituals have stayed, making these rituals rather hollow; nothing changes after the ritual. The only thing we commit to when doing these rituals, is the ritual itself, and with it the genuine joy you should experience during the event. Hence building a profile of being traditional without any of the traditional values. The only thing that is traditional is the profile; PewDiePie and his wife go home and the next day his wife will go to work and maybe PewDiePie will cook dinner.
I think you’re describing the difference between sincerity and profilicity rather than authenticity and profilicity. As Muller pointed out with the Nietzsche stuff, marriage is basically antithetical to authenticity. Because authenticity requires one to forego conventions, to enact only what is true to their individual heart, and weddings are among the most notorious conventions. Besides, I’m not sure you are making an apt description of the difference between sincerity and profilicity. In my understanding, whether marriage is hollow or not in the modern world isn’t relevant. The point is that, in a regime of sincerity, you would get a sense of identity through the marriage itself ; where as in a regime of profilicity, you would derive a sense of identity through the way you presented the event on your profile (which could be genuine and meaningful).
@@thomaharadja5307 Furthermore, Authenticity in the contemporary world is something you actively commit to, so it cannot be truly sincere. Also, PewDiPie and his wife look very similar. That makes his wedding ritual even more interesting!
Bro? Engaging in a serious discussion with the audience does seem odd and unnecessary in the sick world of social media but it is also what makes this channel deeply appreciated by viewers. We're not just a bunch of eyeballs to be sucked in and entertained and professor Moeller acknowledges this by treating his audience seriously.
@@AnnaPrzebudzona If you react to negative people then people on the internet know they can get a reaction out of you by being negative. You reward the wrong behaviour.
That's a neat tie-in from this PewDiePie person to Neitzsche's thoughts on marriage. The bit about not being able to stretch his brain folds to imagine philosophers, seemingly defined as male, married is good comedy. Right, cast female roles to bearing children, cooking food, and cleanin the home then declare them incapable of thought. Find one that escaped the gaslighting of existing to serve man and you fall in love with her. A free thinker without freedom is just a caged spirit staying silent. Maybe he disliked the societal roles as well but was invested in identifying as superior. Neitzsche's writing can seem wise and then all of a sudden, uh-oh, there's disdain for the feminine and great preoccupation with the self. Maybe it's the translation but much of it comes off as ugly more than dry or clever. Imagine living with that. Does he not contradict himself in saying a good marriage is founded on the talent for friendship...all while not being married. It can be hard to follow his wavering point.
I think Prof. Moeller's arguments in this video are compelling, and I think he captured Nietzsche's views accurately. Also, one could say PewDiePie's comment about Nietzsche's "Eternal Recurrence" were honest, but rather shallow. Nietzsche wasn't just talking about recurrence of the good stuff... he explicitly said recurrence of both the good stuff and the bad stuff--the whole enchilada. In my view, people who comment on Nietzsche fall Into roughly 4 categories: Group 1 (~90% of people): Haven't read Nietzsche at all, but form opinions based on quotes; Group 2 (the most dangerous): Have read some Nietzsche and consider themselves informed, but most of their conclusions miss the mark; Group 3: Have studied (not just read) all or almost all of Nietzsche, usually in translation, (including biographies and his correspondence), and understand that interpreting Nietzsche is difficult, but often exhilarating, (I am in Group 3.) Then there is Group 4: Nietzsche scholars who have spent part of their professional career studying Nietzsche's writings in German.. I suspect Prof. Moeller is in Group 4, and it will probably be very difficult for him to communicate with people in Groups 1 and 2. Yet most of the comments about Nietzsche here will be from Groups 1 and 2.
I have never read Nietzsche. What are the dangers of considering oneself to be informed about Nietzsche while missing the mark? I might want to start investing some time in reading Nietzsche.
@@matiassilva713 I might be misunderstood. If it's "group 4" or "nothing", then what significance does this philosopher have outside of his own language group? Why wouldn't a decent translation work?
@@williamfrost3554 my reply was to Phillip's comment, not yours, and his view about Nietszche readers. I believe one must just read and and think, never stopping, never claiming they now simply "know" the author completely. Read, think, talk with other people. Don't stop because you might be wrong....everyone is wrong, but we all should try to be as little wrong as possible
Pewdiepie's sincerity aside, I still wonder what makes profilicity (or profile building) different from the idea of "building a reputation"? Which is a concept that predates contemporary media. In your perspective, what makes profilicity a distinctively contemporary phenomenon?
From my reading, the difference lies on what humans view as worthy of being reputable of. In days before, one could build a reputation on being sincere to a role and solely through that; Wether they be through piety to religion or skillfulness as an artisan. In profilicity, reputability can in of itself be reputable. One example that comes to mind is the position influencers have in the everyday life in current society.
Pre-corporate print --> Corporate print --> Corporate TV --> Corporate social media Building a profile was only reserved for certain figures. But since new media, normal people are expected to do this. Building a CV used to be not public, but now it is. I think that's what makes it contemporary. That's how I understood Moeller and d'Ambrosio's profilicity concept.
@@brorium I guess this can be exemplified in the possibility of being famous for "being famous" (e.g. Kim Kardashian). Which does seem to be a relatively recent thing. Thanks for taking the time to reply.
Thank you so much Doc! I just about orgasmically imploded when you said, "Wokeism is...not leftist." So often I end up rehashing this argument with mates and they seem to reject one central claim I make about wokeism. I was hoping you (and of course anyone in the comments) could help me figure out why: I conceive of wokeism as the ideological arm of modern micromarketing strategies by allowing marginalized people full uncritiqueable autonomy with no rationality requirements. For example, with regards to this wedding, as you noted at around 19:00, it's clear that they most likely don't affirm the values underlying the ceremony but seek to celebrate it as if they did anyway. Instead of developing a new and unconsumerist ceremony that reflects their likely egalitarian values, wokeism allows them to celebrate in now-hollow, now-unNietzschean traditional ways in the interests of seemingly only what Dr. Giorgio calls the "billion dollar [wedding] industries", and God help anyone who critiques this insincere (but not dishonest) celebration as *insincere*. More abstractly, my simple argument goes something like this: I deeply suspect that one of the purposes of wokeism, as conceived above, is to shield marginalized consumers from critiques that would apply to otherwise rationally autonomous people in order to protect the interests of manufacturers. This is a natural outgrowth of analytic, unteleological means-only thinking (there is no right and wrong and everything's a matter of preference). We know abstractly that smoking, driving, eating hyperprocessed foods, and lack of exercise are often expensive, unnecessary, and harmful. However, applied concretely, many poor people (and their bourgeois defenders who would never in a million years live like them) will fucking bite you if you suggest to them that should concretely stop smoking, driving, eating hyperprocessed foods, and living a predominantly sedentary life, because they view these behaviors as insurmountable parts of a poor person of color's facticity; structural oppressions, if you will. That's super patronizing, because I'm a poor person of color and I regularly choose otherwise--if someone justified smoking, not moving, and driving in my name I would be horrified as well as deeply suspicious. I live in a district of East Los Angeles that's 97% Mexican or Mexican-American. We often decry "environmental racism", but the Klan isn't driving up and down pouring benzene into the streets and carbon monoxide into the air, although these claims coupled with the district's lack of air quality would suggest it; the air here is disgusting because most people, who look like me and have no less money in their wallets than I do, drive when they don't have to. Chronic illnesses due to bad nutrition are rampant despite the ready availability of affordably sensible portions of adequately nutritious food. The food trucks look at me like I'm insane when I order only one taco. Nobody, except the odd person with ulcerative colitis, has to smoke. If we cycled everywhere we could get more than enough recommended exercise without even noticing it. Even writing this makes me feel uncomfortable, borderline racist, and I am a poor person of color. Truly, I say to you: You will hear able-bodied poor people say they cannot afford to not drive, that they're too stressed to stop smoking, and that because of this a food's convenience will always lexically trump its nutrition; whose interests are these defenses serving, because it's not poor people of color? It's the tobacco's, hyperprocessed foods', and petroleum industries'. I think Dr. Moeller saw the feminine side of this coin: it serves no emancipatory psychological purpose to believe you are your husband's equal and ceremonially celebrate your subordination to him. I may be wrong, but something here isn't right.
I think this is a good point. Ultimately the Klan doesn't need to show up at all because de-mobilizing ideologies are already entrenched, even appealing. I can definitely sympathize with the struggle of watching everyone around you give in when you have found it in yourself to try to stand up for yourself. At the same time, combating de-mobilization is more than choosing to consume less and even if de-mobilizing ideologies were successfully combated.... well... we were just talking about the Klan. I think what you are getting at is something I bang my head against every day in my studies and classes. We are always talking about different social movements in the Global South and how they are working to mobilize and take control of their lives. But there are always key parts of the process that don't get discussed such as political and military security. If people come together and establish environmentally sustainable food sovereignty after being strongarmed into dependency on US grains (for example), well it's not exactly a done deal because the movement forgot it needed surface to air missiles to maintain what it built and western students don't always accept that these policies (such as enforcing food dependency in certain countries) actually has a component of imperial military strategy. Somehow it is taboo to watch a documentary about Indigenous women leading social movements and the first thought be "how can we get these women a legitimate defense force" instead of glorifying their struggle after they are forced to watch their husbands get murdered. I think the glorification of struggle, oppression, and loss, especially in the context of western students gazing upon the problems in the South, is fucked up but it is also something that potentially enables the imperial project that students want to believe they are learning how to combat. In reality they are more likely to be the harbingers of its next iteration.
@@dubba3288 That's a terrifying thought, mostly because it smacks of an all-too-relevant structuralism in our relations to power. By way of example, I doubt that Pres. Obama, son of a Marxist economist that he was and well-acquainted with both the embodied experience of racism at home and life in the Global South at least in childhood, ever felt great about his actions in Libya for instance. He may have been able to shirk his responsibilities and powers by appealing to a realist conception of the international order, but he was perfectly positioned to say "fuck no" and most likely everything would have been fine. This is obviously an extreme example, but the point I'm making is that regardless of the lived experiences that are relevant in ['bout to throw out relevant but pretentiously Googleable political science terms your way--apologies in advance, I'm a political scientist] Discursive Institutionalism or its derivative constructed actor models (the idea that a leader's subjectivity is as influential as the facticity they inhabit), we ultimately have (sometimes morally lucky) choices to make. I think you're right to note that combating de-mobilization ideologies is more than choosing to consume less, or indeed consume differently (because I still want to eat and get around at the end of the day), but the pre-established structure we inhabit has built within it sites of (some level) of resistance amenable to pre-collective action. It is the case in my neighborhood that migrants and other marginalized peoples get stopped by police, even on bikes, at much higher rates than citizens of wealthier parts of this city, and as much as I disagree but admire him, I think Derrick Bell would say, "ride a bike anyway," because defiance in the face of structural forces is morally admirable even if they fucking swallow you. The argument I'm making is that we should be shaking our fists at the sea--fuck that it's hard--and do it anyway, because what's the alternative? Complaining about environmental racism and climate change whilst continuing to choose to drive, complaining about medical racism whilst choosing to eat Hot Cheetos, and continuing to smoke to soothe our anxieties instead of effectively dealing with or sublimating them. It is the case in Vietnam that the communist half of the country decided to take collective action and won; the same applies, given obvious differences, to Afghanistan. I think you're right to pay attention to the element of force necessary to keep a revolution going, because to quote Zizek, "We underestimate the level of violence necessary to keep things the same." But to digress to personal action in an American context: If I'm not going to kill myself in light of structural oppressions, the least I can do is act contrariwise to things I, and indeed most people, acknowledge are horrible. Basically, we shouldn't give ourselves a free pass because our lives are hard (we're poor, black, trans, etc.) the way consumerist wokeism implores us to, because that seemingly only benefits manufacturers. That said I really like the direction you take wokeism in. It's a slimy concept that is amenable to both ironic sexism at home and smiley-faced imperialism abroad, but it may ultimately be the case that a woke president would act on the side of international human rights and aid Indigenous women's defense forces rather than fund Coca-Cola's right-wing death squads in Nicaragua. The kernel I want us to focus on is agency. The kind of Woke that facilitates arming Indigenous women's self-defense groups is qualitatively different from the kind of Woke that prevents us from acting, in our wedding case from building new egalitarian traditions because we want to feel like princesses without the sincere subordination that requires, and in our international relations case from letting corporations, rather than elected officials, guide our foreign policy under the guise of structuralism. Call me old fashioned, like in a literal Enlightenment sense, but we ought to throw our lot in with anybody who believes we can become rational self-determining agents. Anyone else simply wants to dominate without fighting us.
I think your second point falls short because of a different of how big youtubers operate. One of the most important aspects of RU-vid is authenticity. When people watch youtubers like Pewdiepie, they watch it not like any reality show, nor like any TV-series. What is desired by the viewer is some type of pseudo-interaction with another (cool, funny or entertaining) person. That interaction requires a feeling of "authenticness". Of course, that performed authenticness by the youtuber is not necessarily a way to avoid the rigor of the "normal" media, but I still think it prevents it to some extent. Those youtubers also upload frequently and are often quantity over quality. Questions like "how will my audience react to weddings?" are never asked because of the tight time-schedule. So the type of media-criticism applied to "The Bachelor" doesn't quite apply in the same way to a youtuber. Or atleast most people that consume youtube content tend to think like this. Perhaps because of generational difference (ageism?!)
The comment at 16:05 brings up the difficulties of current language to reflect the situation as we live now. The three technologies of identity as presented by Moeller are Sincerity, Authenticity, and currently prevalent Profilicity. Language has adapted to the first two, eg. "I _sincerely_ believe" and "Do you _authentically_ mean to say...?". "Pewdiepie was _profilically_ happy on his wedding day" - hearing that casts a shadow of doubt and cynicism on the situation. Are we yet to develop the language to encapture the positive aspects of this, in the way _picturesque_ evolved from describing the painting to describing the experience?
Good job tackling the negative comments sir. Social media by design allows people with least charitable and most negative interpretations to proliferate which increases engagement
Some of this reminds me of Deleuze’s writings on subjectivities, but I don’t really have the best grasp on Deleuze so I could be totally wrong. I would love to see what you/the channel has to say on him if it ever piques y’all’s interest
I'd love to see Moeller's thoughts on Jiddu Krishnamurti someday. I've been quite obsessed with Krishnamurti, and would love to know how aware of him Moeller is, or what he thinks
Admittedly the article is criticizing a trend in media companies people are happy to criticize where PewDiePie has a cult of defenders that frezy at any criticism for him.
Hello Dr Hans. I have really enjoyed your channels and your videos. I have long been involved in politics but have always found it dificult to express my opinions even though they are quite left leaning because of fear of being "canceled". I have found the accusations of you being sexist to be pretty much a perfect representation of my fears. When conservatives seek to insult somone they typically insult somone emotional intelligence and on some occasions they use homopbobic or racist language witch. But when interacting with a liberal you will inevitably be faced with accusations of sexism racism homophobia or transphobia witch can be very damaging to somones livelihood. I think the end effect of these accusations is a suppression political dialog. Anyone who interacts with politics will inevitably find themselves "canceled" this frequently happens to even the most far left of RU-vidrs ex contrapoints Lindsay Ellis etc. I found my own research criticized for not being woke enough despite dedicating large sections of it to giving lip service to feminism and myself being a feminist. I think up untill watching your videos I had not once seen a proper critiquing of "woke" civil religion. And I hope that despite any backlash you recieve you continue producing educational content. I find myself watching your videos multiple times. Up untill viewing you videos I was unsure as to why I was so opposed to the american left despite ostensibly agreeing with them on many topics ie trans right/gay rights and voting for mostly progressive candidates. The greatest indication to me that we are moving almost completely to a competition of civil religions rather then ideology is the conservatives focus on abortion and the recent banning of the abortion of ectopic pregnancies. I cannot see a single moral argument for keeping a non viable pregnancy that endangers the mother Another topic I think you might be interested in is reddits r/place. A mostly* user generated canvas ended up getting mostly filled with country flags company logos and the trans flags. I think it's especially intresting that in the past there was a large amount of communist imagery present but this year it seems to be completely non existent. Perhaps this is a indication that the trans flag has effectively replaced the hammer and as a rallying point for leftists.
Another excellent video. I like the way it exposes Pewdiepie's superficial and shallow understanding of Nietzsche. In order to interpret Nietzsche, at the very least one has to be familiar with all of Nietzsche's works from Human all too Human onwards. This must also include his notebooks and private correspondence which contain many clues on how to interpret Nietzsche's key concepts.
But as traditional gender roles changed it would have changed the structure in which these roles are internalized and played by in the daily interactions of those who choose to marry, so marrying nowadays can have a completely different take.
Don't forget his take on marriage in Twilight of the Idols: The entire West no longer has those instincts from which institutions grow, from which a future grows: possibly nothing goes more against the grain of its “modern spirit” than this. One lives for the moment, one lives very quickly-one lives very irresponsibly: this is exactly what one calls “freedom.” What makes institutions into institutions is despised, hated, rejected: one thinks one is in danger of a new slavery whenever the word “authority” is merely uttered. This is how far décadence goes in the value-instincts of our politicians, our political parties: they instinctively prefer what dissolves them, what makes the end come faster . . . A case in point: modern marriage. Obviously modern marriage has lost all rationality: but this is an objection not to marriage, but to modernity. The rationality of marriage-it lay in the exclusive legal responsibility of the husband: this is what gave marriage its center of gravity, while today it limps on both legs. The rationality of marriage-it lay in its indissolubility in principle: this is how it got a tone of voice which, as opposed to the accident of feeling, passion, and the moment, knew how to make itself heard. It lay, likewise, in the responsibility of families for selecting mates. With our growing indulgence for marrying for love, we have eliminated the very foundation of marriage, that which first makes an institution out of it. An institution is never, ever founded on an idiosyncrasy; marriage, as I said, is not founded on “love”-it is founded on the sex drive, on the drive for property (woman and child as property), on the drive for domination which constantly organizes the smallest unit of domination, the family-a drive which needs children and descendants in order to preserve an achieved amount of power, influence, and wealth even on the physiological level, in order to prepare long-lasting tasks, instinctive solidarity between centuries. Marriage as an institution already contains the affirmation of the greatest, most enduring form of organization: if society itself cannot vouch for itself as a whole up to the most remote generations, then marriage has no meaning at all.-Modern marriage has lost its meaning-consequently, we are getting rid of it.-
I feel like I am having a few misinterpretations on understanding this since I am not a native english speaker and hence don't get the style of writing; so if you could can you please "modernise" this, so it is intelligible for an audience like me? I would really appreaciate it if you could.
@@lobstered_blue-lobster I would be more than happy to try my best! However I am not a philosopher, I'm a trained political scientist so bear with me: This passage in internationally intelligible and abridged American English (circa 2022): The European-influenced world no longer has those feelings and intuitions from which long-term traditions grow, from which the future grows: the absence of these honest, pro-tradition feelings are paradoxically anti-modernizing because they make future traditions impossible. One lives super quickly, without attachments, obligations, or responsibilities and we call this “freedom.” This attitude makes traditions impossible because they don’t allow an authority greater than ourselves to govern us, because we equate these external “restraints” on us with slavery. For example, our political superiors, leaders and parties and the like, like this idea of “freedom” even though it inherently threatens them by undermining their own authority to govern our lives. (Commentary: the American conservative commentator P. J. O’Rourke had a saying, “The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it.” During the Covid-19 pandemic the Republican Party has been famous for opposing vaccination, lockdowns, and mask requirements on the grounds of “freedom.” This has made ending the pandemic all that harder because traditional attachments and responsibilities, the Christian love for our neighbors, the statist imperative to listen to government authority, and the American nationalist drive to solidarity have dissolved. Our behavior is now governed by Nietzsche’s conception of “freedom,” meaning no attachments, no responsibilities, and no obligations to anyone but ourselves.) For example: modern marriage. Obviously modern marriage has lost its reason for existing: but this isn’t an argument against marriage, it’s an argument against our modern attitudes toward “freedom.” One reason for marriage’s existence was that it gave exclusive legal responsibilities to men: men were the ultimate authoritative decision-makers in a marriage, but now both men and women have equal say in marriages, and they’re motivated by how they feel and not their responsibilities, attachments, and obligations to each other. Another reason for marriage’s existence--it was forever: this is what made it superior to feeling, passion, and the moment, and the fact it was forever made it far more important than these short-lived feelings. Yet another reason for marriage’s existence: a family’s responsibility to choose the right partner for you. When we started marrying for love, we destroyed the reasons for marriage’s existence. A tradition is never, ever founded on individual feelings; marriage, as I said, is not founded on “love”--it’s founded on the drive to have sex, on the drive for a man to own property (woman and child as property), on the drive for domination that expresses itself through the domination of the family--this last drive needs to create children and descendants in order to reproduce the power it achieves, the influence and wealth it creates. It uses this power to create long-term goals and creates a bridge that connects people across the centuries. Marriage as a tradition that was supposed to unite people into clear roles forever is the best example of a mini-society: if the current society can’t maintain traditional links to the people that came before it because it thinks traditions are offensive to its “freedoms”, then it can’t support marriage’s mission of uniting people into clear roles that last forever, beyond the death of the individual.--Modern marriage has lost its reasons for existence--therefore, it has already stopped existing. (Commentary: This is exactly what I think Herr Doktor Professor Moeller is referring to when he notes the disconnection between the “sincerity” and “honesty” of PewDiePie’s wedding dance. He wrongly assumed his audience actually reads Nietzsche or indeed his work carefully, and thought people would know the difference between “sincerity” (agreement between our words and actions to ourselves and to others [See Advantage and Disadvantage of History for Life]) in the Nietzschean sense, “sincerity” in the Professor’s sense (profilic shows of adherence to social conventions) and “honesty” in the more common sense. When he called PewDiePie’s dance “corny” as it panders to female audiences he was merely noting a fact well-established by feminist scholars. The show of feeling as seen by others was honest, but it wasn’t sincere because neither Mr. nor Mrs. PewDiePie actually believes in the subordination of women to men regardless of their feelings--remeber this is what Nietzsche notes is the true traditional point of marriage--subordinating women as property to men.)
Hallo I would like to ask you about the last video from you about pewdiepie. There you talked about the meaning behind the eternal recurence and how ist should be seen as a denial for example for religion rather than an afirmation for life. Is this a typical read of Nietzsches philosophy about the above mentioned subject? Because I, aswell as pewdipie understood it as an afirmation which should give meaning for the things we do in life because they could reoccur. I hope somebody sees this coment and can anwser the question . Ty-sm :).
In perhaps simple terms: Under what conditions is "you are what you do" or "you are your word" "you are a reflection of your belief statements or convictions" the foci of some truth statements?. It's ... Like... an aesthetics of epistemics? Or Maybe I just like that formation for it's consonant alliteration. Nevermind the valence or presumed (precluded) "alterior motive" applied to the aesthetic, just see it. There is a moral tension by which one might presume that exploring such areas of thought are only a tool of "manipulating" truth to self/ego ends. It's interesting. A "trauma response" in real terms, "trigger" in more politicized terms. There's an excess of connotation, presumed common knowledge which only exists in the relational dynamic of abuse that's dysfunctionally over-generalized. I mean, my god why ever would a person need to think if not to better stab their enemy?!? Absurd, no I see you philosopher! You are an agent of this or that ideology. I've read the Wikipedia informal fallacies page once or twice so lemme tell you somethin u devil peddling thinker... Which is why the assertion of almost blatant exaggeration on our part as making moral claims comes with annoyance, or frustration. -it's like they're going out of their way to misinterpret us! ~ But they're not. They're not. Everybody's got daddy issues lads.
Ageists: Prof Moeller is not a "Boomer"! He is clearly a Gen X-er (and therefore unconsciuosly forms a self within the framework of authenticity). Jokes aside, I think that the misunderstanding with regard to PewDiePie's honesty addressed in this video stem from people interpretting Prof. Moeller's critique as coming from within an authentic framework itself, i.e., PewDiePie's joy is inauthentically felt because he's just playing a role he thinks he should play, not expressing his actual feelings. Whereas Prof. Moeller's critique is actually a step abstracted above this and seeks to categorize how PewDiePie relates to his feelings at all (through in his terms: sincerity, authenticity, or profilicity) and leaves aside questions of bad faith.
There are a lot of people who think that there aren't any differences between what men and women enjoy, and if you say we don't enjoy the same things then you are being sexist, but I think we should embrace our differences. Of course, I know what we like is used to sell us things. Like princess brides or laundry soap. lol
The problem is that it's not so easy to determine what those differences are, what percentage of them is simply an outcome of social narratives. Those very narratives can be opressive to people that aren't so easily placed into the binary categories. For instance what if a man wants to wear a dress? Why shouldn't we encourage him to express himself in a manner that he sees as most fitting? The examples can be given into every category, that's why basically pushing any gender norms onto people is usually a bad idea, can be very opresssive and really is mostly unproductive.
@@JajeczkoV47 Pushing gender norms can be just as pernicious as pushing the idea that there are no gender norms. There are some things women want that men don't, and vice versa, and applying blank slatism onto the world will have more bad than good, despite any "good" intentions. Why do Scandinavian countries with the highest ranked gender egalitarianism see the biggest differences in gender ratios when it comes to careers and educational paths?
We disagree about the purpose of the passage you quoted from GM. To use a distinction from Rorty, the philosophers listed are systematizing philosophers as opposed to edifying philosophers or anti-philosophers like Nietzsche. . Likewise with the passage from Human, All-too-human, Nietzsche would have been citing the non-married status of thinkers and truth-sayers as evidence supporting his more general critique of the priestly personality type as a decadent and life-denying type, the most obvious omission from this list being Jesus Christ. Metaphysical and systematizing philosophy then ought to be viewed by the Nietzschean as a sublimated erotic impulse caused by the lack of successful sexuality. This was his point, I think.
why else rosa giorgio would assume that princesses, beautiful girls (note how she puts word girls in quotes), or fairy-tale endings are easily dismissive components if not to embrace letzter mensch? was this truly the best example?
This was very insightful, but Nietzsche still wanted marriage and resented that for him it failed; also your communication was at least half at fault for this misunderstanding.
I think it is possible that Pewdiepie used what was a genuine moment of inspiration, connection, etc, AND also used it as a manipulative suggestion to pull at the heartstrings of the effusive, gushy Pollyanna sentimentalists who populate his cult. Yes, cult. The definition of a cult is still the same, it is the cults that have changed. Nothing more rocksolid than a genuine moment used as a means of manipulation
@@hazardousjazzgasm129 if he was understood so well why did he have to make another video explaining himself. To me “the professor“ always comes off as a pompous jackass. So when he saysThat the original creator is being corny and pandering to females there’s no reason it shouldn’t be interpreted as such.
You might consider doing a video on "Trolling"; that the anonymity of the internet creates conditions spoken of in Sloterdijk's Critique of Cynical Reason. Chapter One, Page 4, states, "The person with the clear, "evil gaze" has disappeared into the crowd; anonymity now becomes the domain for cynical deviation." Your video was delectable, as always.
What if sincerity in itself becomes the path of most long-term success in the media climate? Acknowledging the fact that the constant presence of phone cameras and people in your proximity being able to speak out on your hypocrisy, this could be a very reasonable conclusion. There are a multitude of examples where public figures have been canceled (most recently David Dobrik) for not living up to the image, they portray, privately. The profile must be a good summary of the relevant aspects of your true nature. I realise this point is not entirely relevant for this video in particular, more-so I comment this simply because it's your most recent video and I want to hear your thoughts on the matter.
9:29 "Even we consider how people will react", that's why you will never be as famous as pewdiepie, because he doesn't care what people think, that's why he is authentic and people love him Rate my comment in terms of accuracy, naivete, manufactured authenticity, etc.
I watched this video and a few others of you yesterday and enjoyed all of them, but I came back to point out one thing: 'Boomer' is not a slur, it's a critique.
