The Fear That Leads to Religion and Philosophy (According to Schopenhauer) 

Insightful. It revealed you have been thinking a lot. From where does this thought come from? I might say you have been exposed to religion?

i am not afraid of death itself as it is inevitable , and also when it does happen it safe to say that i wont be aware of it, as you need to be alive to be aware of anything

I think we experience everything there is to experience because we are one from the same energy

Most life-afirming Schopenhauer reader

@@josebonilla8774 what you mean by this?

You are correct, reason cannot outright remove the fear, but it can provide some relief. It depends a lot on the person in question and how psychologically invested they are in life. If you practice detachment of course you will be less affected.

Its hard though, Having no fear will get you in trouble. Attract attention.

@@unknowninfinium4353 only if your fears are what keeps you from doing immoral things

@@themostdiabolicalhater5986 It goes a long way man. Nietzsche was big on this by breaking morals and all but there comes a point where what are you going to replace morals with and is it strong enough to last your entire lifetime? Plus how many morals are you willing to question?

@@unknowninfinium4353 Objective morality doesn’t exist, I’m aware. But if I were to suddenly become 100% self-assured and without fear, my actions would still reflect my values. And my values would not put me at odds with other people. It’s very easy to be filled with fear and still get in trouble and attract attention.

@@themostdiabolicalhater5986 That's some deep stuff man. Thanks.

This makes a lot of sense indeed.

You are misguided and I don't mean in your logic, but your actions. Take an objective view of all the videos the channel does, and watch the one video titled, " Was Nietzsche weak?" would certainly show they aren't interested in teaching genuine philosophy, as seen if Nietzsche considered arguing weak, or Schopenhauer saw a turn towards metaphysics as a fear of death is just shallow to both men's philosophy, and if they really want to make their money and teach philosophy, with their own views just make a podcast. Back to you, the fallacy here would be strawman instead of ad hominem as they aren't even arguing any position only teaching a shallow form of philosophy. In addition, this channel has been talking about Nietzsche and Schopenhauer for months so perhaps boredom caught on to them which would make having a podcast a good idea, since Schopenhauer views boredom as plight on culture. Hopefully you don't throw fallacies like some politician, and the one who has the channel, please make a podcast, I know Schopenhauer and Nietzsche may give some air of superiority or money, but seriously boredom is trait you don't want to start developing, get creative.

@@ryanobrien2383 Well, the first thing you are apparently oblivious to Ryan is that I never mentioned either Nietzsche nor Schopenhauer anywhere in my comment.

@@ryanobrien2383 It is indeed to commit the so-called 'strawman fallacy' to misrepresent a person's position, then attack that position as if it were the person's real position. Case and point, you attack the position of people misrepresenting Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, and insinuate that is also my position -- when, in fact, I never mentioned the name of either man !

@@ryanobrien2383 Nor did I make any direct reference to the video whatsoever. I simply pointed-out that it is an 'ad hominem' fallacy to attack the motivation for a position; instead of attacking the position itself, and that real philosophy is about discussing the strengths and weaknesses of philosophical positions, not attacking their supposed motivations.

What understanding?

That's the spirit

@@megshan09 lol

Memento Mori

I think the ones who come up with the concepts trip (whether with a substance or meditation) but those ideas turn into philosophies/religions by the masses who are afraid and try to find something to hold on to

Nah, but it does make contemplating our reality more interesting.

@@thereignofthezero225 yeah i think so because you experience an enhanced fear of death within ego death because you feel like you're gonna die and since you are afraid of it, when it's placed in front of you as a possobility to your being, interesting thoughts come out.

@@thereignofthezero225 but yes it's not that important doesn't change any core values on one's own fear of death, just helps you understand them more i think.

@@HeliqRL yeah, I have died on dmt

I respectfully disagree about the worthlessness of life, and Schopenhauer himself hides his view in that passage. After all, reading Goethe or even Shakespeare would certainly make one change their mind about the worthlessness of life. It might even be best to take Nietzsche's hard-hearted view, " you say life is worthless, you mean really to say you are worthless." Though to be fair, you possess intellect, and it would be improper to use insults. Therefore, we both can't determine the worth of life objectively and all of reality is experienced subjectively, as the physicists would say, " there is no present moment." Back to Nietzsche's quote, we can see you wouldn't it give it any thought, so I recommended a few more quotes. Schopenhauer says, " Through pity life is denied, and made worthy of denial." Schopenhauer isn't despairing in that moment and would be good to quote Shakespeare in such a case, " To root the pity in your heart, so your pity may be pitied." The world possesses some good in it, though it may lack proper justice for all of the suffering and pain. However, I am sick of the lie we tell simply as an intellectual stimulant, to feel important.

its a van gogh painting, skull with cigarette

peace not Pease

Wrong Deutsche Philosopher. 🤫

@@ReverendDr.Thomas Close but then again so far from it

I think he said it's characterised as cowardly when it's anything but. It takes balls to kill yourself. He rifled a bit more on it. Definitely worth reading as it's an original take on the subject that I'd never heard before and found was in line with my own thinking.

He probably encouraged it his writing is probably cause more suicides than anything else ...

Yes I studied him all my life he was a pseudoscience, he hated Catholics and Christians he hated so much because they didn't fit that because they read the scripture and they knew the Messiah Jesus Christ the Holy Spirit and they knew that they would go to heaven and the fraternity this he could not accept so he had to destroy it. In the same way the down who is a Protestant and hated Catholics wanted to destroy our beliefs and Catholic police by inventing evolution which is not true. Evolution's been debunked so many times but it still being taught and pushed in kids and makes me sick. There's no proof it's all lies oh we came out of Africa is that why in museums they set up something some kind of primate thing they found that's 5 million years old but it has human feats not a toes like a monkey and then they have something that's a million years younger that looks more like a monkey and what about the missing link where they ever find that remember that? And with the pit down man? The protest in English made put down man. It's an insult and insult to God and it's Intel to Christ the Lord to say we came from monkeys cuz in the scriptures from Isaiah to Ezekiel Enoch all prophesize Jesus they all told us we have eternal life once we accept God filled with the Holy Spirit

In Schopenhauer's view, death offers a release from this cycle. With the cessation of life, desires and suffering also come to an end. He believed that after death, there is no continuation of consciousness or personal identity. Instead, individuals return to a state of non-existence, free from the burdens of existence.

He didn’t use statistics per say, but besides the shallow presentation of Schopenhauer they did, forgot he interviewed those who committed suicide seeing they didn’t feel any pain, this fact connects to the animals not having a fear of pain, but a fear of death instead. Schopenhauer shown only superficially here, and his book principles of sufficient reason, showing the difference between reason and causes, while at the say time calling the ontological proof of God a joke in that very book. Volitarie jokes about sufficient reason best saying in candide, “thé bayonets were a sufficient reason why the men died.” So the essay they are doing is misleading and it’s best to read Schopenhauer yourself as most philosophical essays aren’t definite but speculative.

@Freshly Made Ghosts Relax my friend, no one is forbidding you to philosophize. There is just good philosophy and bad philosophy. The purpose of philosophy is to seek the truth, not to express feelings. We have art and literature for this. Philosophy (love of knowledge), as defined by the ancient Greeks, is the pursuit of truth, the same pursuit as that of science's. It was the so-called "Continental tradition" of philosophy that abandoned the pursuit of truth, resulting in the monumental amounts of nonsense that the philosophy establishment still lives by to this day, from Kant and Hegel to Nietzsche and (my favorite) Heidegger.

🐟 09. REINCARNATION (OR NOT): Just as there is NOTHING about an individual person (neither any particle of matter, nor any mental object whatsoever) which remains intact from conception till death, there is NOTHING about the individual person (that is, the “ego”, as defined in the following chapter) which transfers to another body after death, except, perhaps, habitual tendencies in the form of indelible mental impressions (“vāsanā”, in Sanskrit). For example, in my present incarnation, I have a strong affinity for the culture of Bhārata (India), a highly-advanced intellectual capacity, a very slim body, and an attraction to a frugivorous diet. That suggests there was an Indian spiritual master in the previous century which had some (or perhaps, even all) of these characteristics, but it was not “ME”, since what I am now is this ever-mutable Australian-born Aryan gentleman. These “subtle mind impressions” are known in psychology as the “collective unconscious”, in new-age spirituality as the “akashic records”, and in Islam as the “Preserved Tablet”. There is an abundance of evidence that humans are born with certain psycho-emotive links to previous persons, times and places. It is far beyond the purview of this document to list such evidences. As mentioned, in my case, I have an EXTREMELY strong association with all things Indian, despite not being of Indian origin, and the “collective unconscious” hypothesis seems to be the best explanation for this bond currently available, in my opinion (although the term “collective conscious” would, perhaps, be more accurate). For the popular view of reincarnation to be plausible, there would need to be an entity or an OBJECT called a “soul” (“jīva” or “ātman”, in Sanskrit), which somehow finds a copulating couple, then enters the woman’s uterus, to inhabit a zygote. Assuming the existence of an individual spiritual soul is profoundly illogical, because spirit is (by most definitions) the antithesis of finite matter. Therefore, how can an immaterial “soul” be confined to a single person’s body? It seems rather strange to believe that the universe was organized naturalistically in such a manner as to recycle an object called a “soul”, or even to recycle minds, particularly when one understands that a mind is naught but a series of flickering thoughts, feelings, images, and memories. Some believe that the “thing” which transfers to the next incarnation are the remnants of one's actions (“vāsanā” or “saṃskāra”, in Sanskrit) or at least one's psychological disposition (likes, dislikes, phobias, etcetera). This is far closer to the idea of the collective unconscious, and even if it is a perfectly accurate account of what occurs after death, it still cannot give substance to the notion of a SEPARATE individual which is travelling from one body to another and again to another (“saṃsāra”, in Sanskrit). According to the law of conservation of energy, first proposed and tested by Émilie du Châtelet, energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it can only be transformed or transferred from one form to another. Both this law, and Dr. Leonard Susskind's minus-first law of physics, states that energy/information is indestructible. The analogy of one candle being lit by another candle is apt. Are the two flames the same flame or completely different flames? According to those laws, PART of the energy is transferred from one wick to the other wick, a portion of the energy is released by the flame, and part of the energy remains with the original candle. Regarding reincarnation, a rather appropriate analogy could be that of a whirlpool in a stream of liquid. A whirlpool is a definite form within a river but, just like the human form itself, it is never static. Some water molecules which were once swirling within one whirlpool may move farther downstream, mix with other water particles, and form a new, distinct whirlpool. So, in my particular case, it is eminently possible that a vast amount of “Indian energy” was transferred to my psyche from one or more persons from Bhārata (the proper name of the country), plus the addition of genetic matter from my Persian parents and their Aryan heritage. The fact that BOTH Iranians and North Indians are Aryan seems to add further credence to my hypothesis, even if to a small degree. Of course, there is no conclusive proof for such types of claims at this stage in human history, but the evidence is certainly extant, and as mentioned, the profusion of evidence available goes far beyond the purview of this document. One ought to do one's own thorough research into the matter, rather than relying on anecdotal testimonies. There are several well-documented books and videos published on the subject. There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that my essential nature has NOT transferred from one body to another body, because I have fully understood and realized, by practicing the four systems of yoga/religion described in Chapter 16, that my true nature is Brahman (see Chapters 06 & 10 to learn of the Real Self). There is no such thing as a “soul” or “spirit”, unless, of course, one defines those words to mean the subject (that is, the observer of all temporal phenomena), and logically, the subject cannot be an object, at least in the transactional sphere. Cont...

@@ReverendDr.Thomas I'm sorry, but do you think that I was talking about soul migration in my comment? The view of Generic Subjective Continuity is a naturalistic (non-dualist) conclusion. You should watch some of my recent short videos on it on my channel.

Why do you think the universe operates according to objective laws? That's just something humans made up for practical purposes. According to your theory, how does the universe decide who experiences which body(i.e. why am I me and not you?)

When I die, my physical body, composed of the five gross material elements (“sthūla-śarīra”, in Sanskrit), will be reabsorbed into the biosphere, whilst the non-tangible aspect of my body, composed of the three subtle material elements (“sūkṣma śarīra”, in Sanskrit), will possibly merge with the collective unconscious, and the story of my life will come to an end FOREVER. See Chapter 05 regarding the eight elemental groups. It seems likely, judging by the evidence, that the “vāsanā” of a deceased person may transfer to more than a single individual. That explains why there are so many persons at once claiming to be the reincarnation of certain famous personalities. The fact that human life ends at death is difficult for many to accept, since they are thoroughly attached to their pseudo-egos, their intellects, their minds, their bodies, their loved-ones, and their possessions. However, when one realizes that one is not an ever-mutating psycho-physical organism, but, essentially, never-changing, all-pervasive CONSCIOUS AWARENESS (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit), all fear is alleviated. The only “thing” remaining of a person at the time of death is the only “thing” which has ever “existed” - Pure Unalloyed Awareness, or Eternal-Conscious-Peace (“sacchidānanda”, in Sanskrit). We do not normally dread the dreamless portions of our nightly sleep cycles, so why would we fear a more permanent period of existence similar to deep-sleep? This existential crises is the basis of most all angst and uneasiness. So, fear not - death is a normal, NATURAL, and even a necessary consequence of conception. That which has a beginning, surely must end. Putting aside whether or not reincarnation is an accurate account of what happens in this world, it is ABSOLUTELY certain that we receive a completely new body approximately every seven years (via a gradual process, of course). Our first body was a microscopically-sized zygote and our present body is several kilograms heavier. From where has all that extra weight come? Obviously, it came from all the nutrients that we have absorbed via the umbilical cord in our mother's uterus, or via the food, air and water we have consumed since birth. Therefore, one who believes that he is nothing more than the body-mind organism is grossly ignorant of basic biological science. Genetically, approximately half of the cells in the body are not even of human origin, believe it or not! We can all easily understand that our infantile body is completely and utterly different to our present-day form, so logically, our true identity must be something quite APART from it. Nothing, including one’s genetic code, remains constant from conception to death. The sense of self does not even make its appearance in our psyche until two or three years after conception. Therefore, a person is more accurately defined as a process (a verb), rather than an object (a noun). For the sake of philosophical IMPARTIALITY, it is germane to acknowledge the perspectives of other eminent pundits. E.g. In “Bhagavad-gītā”, one of the very greatest spiritual authorities the world has ever known, Lord Śri Krishna, uses the analogy of how the individual person (“ego”, in Latin, or “jīvātman”, in Sanskrit) travels through the various stages of life (that is, from childhood, to pubescent adulthood, to geriatric), with His description of the process of reincarnation, as conceived by the ancient seers (“ṛṣi” [rishi], in Sanskrit) of India (“Bhārata”, in Sanskrit). “...each person is destined to die once...” Anonymous (possibly Paul of Tarsus), Letter to the Hebrews, 9:27. N.B. Ironically, the author of the above letter was a close disciple (or at least a follower) of Lord Jesus of Nazareth, who, according to the New Testament portion of the Judeo-Christian holy book, raised his acquaintance, Lazarus, from the dead. Logically speaking, Lazarus must surely have died more than one time, as did the many dead persons who were supposedly raised from their graves at the crucifixion of Lord Jesus. Assuming that Paul was the author of the Letter to the Hebrews, he himself even raised a young man from the dead (although, in that case, the man, Eutychus, was dead for only a very short period of time, so it was likely that he was merely unconscious, rather than fully deceased). OBVIOUSLY, the writer means that, generally speaking, each individual person is destined for one life alone, as opposed to any alternative scenario such as reincarnation. Yet, as we now know, humans beings are not stable objects, but ever-mutating processes of mind and matter. “The entity that is supposed to be reincarnated in another body, does not even itself exist, except as a concept! How can a mere concept be reborn?” ************* “When you are dead, you will be back in the primordial state of rest, which existed before you were born; that stillness before all experience. It is only the false sense of a limited, separate 'me', that deprives life of its meaning and gives death an ominous significance, which it really does not have.” ************* “The fear of death, is actually a product of the desire to perpetuate one's identity. Were you not dead before you were born? Those who know Reality, know the falsehood of life and death.” ************* “What is born, must in due course, die. The objective body, will thereafter be dissolved and irrevocably annihilated. What was once a sentient being, will be destroyed, never to be reborn. But consciousness is not objective - not a thing at all. Therefore, consciousness is neither born nor dies, and certainly cannot be 'reborn'.” Ramesh S. Balsekar, Indian Spiritual Teacher.

@@pgbpriuvnri Read Tom Clark's essay, "Death Nothingness and Subjectivity". And listen to Sam Harris's podcast episode "The Paradox Of Death". After that you can check out the conversation Elijah Everett, and I had with Tom Clark, on Elijah's channel "What Is Wrong With The World". Enjoy :)

Heidegger eventually went back into something that Nietzsche wanted to overcome: ressentiment and the additional restriction by negation of active forces by reactive ones. Heidegger is nihilistic in posing Being as a more sound ontology than all the philosophy before him that was concerned with being-as-such. His intentions are noble, and very interesting, but his ontology stays reactive to being-as-such. Ressentiment is not done with in Heidegger's thought because of this. You can easily argue that his philosophy is full of ressentiment by posing this double ontology in which one is more sound than the other and I think that is correct. Heidegger in many ways is not contributive to what Nietzsche wanted to show.

Well he was definitely a traveler and sought out different perspective’s. And he was responding directly to Kant. His metaphysics and epistemology were clear.

Schopenhauer hated Catholics and Christians this is why he made up all the stuff to debunk and try to get everybody scared and not to believe in Jesus Christ the Holy Spirit and the Lord God. This is nothing but suicides and yet everybody on you everybody's intellectual they think they know it all and they read all those books and all this stuff. But not one of them takes out the Bible ever in their life.

It’s what people can’t understand about philosophers. They aren’t people like us who are village idiots. Science is one example of a global effort, with newton saying, “On the shoulders of giants.” These men are individuals, not some random white guy or black guy keeping in his illusory corner, but breaking out of it even destroying it.

Hello April, how are you doing hope you’re having a beautiful weekend

Hello April, I hope you're fine and all as well.

Any God with such flippancy towards his creations is not worthy of them. Imo.

@@skepticalcentral8795 God see's things long tine. Before a man knows he assumes before a man understands he casts all types of doubt and with low minded opinions. It would be wise for the creation to stay quiet and learn rather than speak harsh about there maker they don't know. The world is foolish so the people give a wrong impression so where can you look? If you suppose yourself to be a better man then be it in wisdom.

@@itsbeenwritten2518 "And do you think that unto such as you. A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew. God gave a secret, and denied it me? Well, well-what matters it? Believe that, too." -Omar Khayyâm Righteous certainty and faith mix all too well with ignorance and martyrdom.

@@itsbeenwritten2518 Aaaand I just took a look at your channel. Sorry man, I don't think a 2nd grade understanding of theology is worth displaying. Have a fun day bro.

How does it minimize his work at all? It seems like your creating that impression yourself. Letting people independently support you for the videos you make especially for the time he puts in is very reasonable.