@Jack If you truly believe that death gives life meaning, I can come over and give your life some meaning right now, if you want. I would much rather live in a world where I can only die accidentally or voluntarily than inevitably. Just because you don't want it, doesn't mean you can apply that to everyone else.
Missed a major point with Michael. We don't see him go through the door and Eleanor warns him that the system might not be the same by the time he dies. He says that not being sure what will happen is the most human thing of all. So it's not all just clean answers.
Apparently because something didn't end all depressing and cryptic then it has less meaning and it is less then lol I do not really hear much hype for the good place... So yea maybe they wanted it to end in a "sitcom" way... But honestly I don't think many people actually want to confront the meaning of death. Or the lack of meaning in life. I think both had important messages regardless on how they were executed. But I usually judge something by how it makes me feel. Bojack was like meh.... I already knew how that was going to end lol like of course the whole show was about how the world is fucked we are fucked and it's all meaningless. The good place actually bounced around from different philosophical ideas. I think Bojack horseman gets the points because yea... It definitely gives its ideas in a more fancy way. In a way that isn't really seen even in adult animation. But... It was the same meaning through the whole show. Just with crazy dreams and crazy animation lol
The Reverse if death is what gives meaning to our lives... than the ISLAMIC STATE has successfully infiltrated our society, culture, and very own minds... think about what that means! ... if that is the state of mind, and approach we have to the lives we are living now, than there is no hope for mankind, and for anyone to be starting a family and having kids with the intention on creating a lineage to be passed down, there are only adding to the flame of suffering that will unfold, and also should make you wonder what other thoughts and beliefs and perspectives have been influenced by ISLAM!
@@camerontaylor7471 uhhh what?. the belief that death provides meaning to life accentuates the things we do while we live, it's not this "oh i'll die in x amount of years so what does it matter" morbidity. i view it more of a "well even though we die, it's important to make the most of our time while we exist" - whether that be finding happiness or productivity. Don't really see how Islam can influence and promote nihilism - especially when Muslims believe in an afterlife.
@The Reverse it's a sit com ending. And it fits perfectly, especially if you consider they could have ended it with out protagonists just enjoying the after life together, I think it is very brave for them to end it with most of them ending their journey and not knowing exactly what will be of Michael and Tahani
I don't think that The Good Place wrapped up with comforting answers. It didn't tell us where it all ends, or what happens "after". It made us feel more comfortable with the thought of not knowing. That's tremendous, because I think the thing that worries us most about death isn't death itself, but the idea of not existing in the way we know.
I agree. It flipped the script, and introduced a massive change as well, and the ending while somewhat heartening, was rather bitter sweet and not really massively reassuring.
I think the whole thing was that it offered closure, which is what we would usually expect from a sitcom. You said the thing that worries us about death is not death itself but not existing in the way we know... but that literally is death itself. You simply won't exist, in the same way you didn't exist before you were born. Unless you're saying that the fear of death stems from people being unsure of what they will become after death? I'm pretty sure the idea of becoming anything after death is enticing to people, it's probably why people have built religions around the idea of reincarnation and it's probably part of the reason people still believe in ghosts. People are comfortable with not knowing, it means the possibilities are endless. What people are really uncomfortable with is knowing.
@@WalterWhite-ve3ur I wholeheartedly disagree with that, and your sureness that your existence will end after death shows this. People want to know exactly what will happen, even if it’s utterly depressing. Humans look for patterns and answers and sureness. Everyone; Christian, Atheist, Muslim, etc. want to know that their beliefs are accurate, yet no one can truly know.
@@richardsantanna5398 Maybe it’s the way i’m wording things, but I think you misunderstood. I’m not saying atheists ~want~ there to be nothing after human dying, I’m saying most people simply want to know what will happen after regardless of the results.
I feel like you should've also addressed Bojack's last words to Diane in the dream. Bojack: what do I do now? Diane: It doesn't matter. Bojack: Well if it doesn't matter...could I stay on the phone with you at least? Diane: Okay... Yes Life and Death are both equally meaningless, but it's because none of that stuff has any inherent meaning to it, that makes how we spend the time we have left significant. If we're all gonna die anyway, why not spend the time we have left with the people we love, doing the things that make us happy?
That is a positive way of looking at it. But then comes the issue of how being happy is also eventually meaningless. Which is why I honestly think no matter what a person thinks when it comes to this they're right. Whether they're trying to make their own meaning or give up they're all tehcnically right in their own way. It's because we're all gonna die anyway that there is no right or wrong answer. At least that's how I interpret it.
I don't know man, I just don't think that bojack's ending was that depressed and the good place was so simple. I mean, bojack ended with the note that you turn yourself around, no matter how hard life is, you do the Holkey pokey dance, and you start again, which doesn't mean it's easy, but you gotta do it every day. That's not so different from TGP when they say that at the moment when Michael starts living as a human, there's going to be good days and bad days, and that the fact that we don't know what's waiting for us makes for a better life, because that way we will be constantly trying to change ourselves, and that's the beauty of it. Anyway, they were great endings because it was faithful to the both the show's theme and overall tone. The fact that one ended on a higher and more positive note doesn't make it for a more inferior one, it was just a different approach, a different way for viewing life.
I was just about to comment the same thing! Just because something is optimistic or happy doesn't mean it isn't as deep or impactful, it just means your taking things in through a different lense.
My theory is thay bojack did die and the last two episodes were about him saying goodbye to those who died in his life and saying goodbye to those who didnt
You said it all, man! I mean, they ARE totally opposites, they are right on that, but why TGP would be any worse than BH? Like you said, they are just different approaches. And I agree that BH didn't end on a sad note. It literally ends with "sometimes you just keep on livin'". It urges you to keep on livin', no matter what. Damn, there's one season finale in which they said something like "it's hard. But you have to do it everyday. Eventually it will get easier." This helped me fight against my depression, goddammit.
tbh I'm not sure how it's perceived as depressed. maybe people are self-inserting into Bojack too much...because everyone got just what they deserved in the end and I actually found it incredibly optimistic and was one of a few endings where I felt COMPLETELY happy. Actually tbh, the only ending. I was so happy with where everyone ended up. It was just so neat. I think what got me was that it was realistic but almost everyone ended up happy and in far, far, far better places than where they started.
@@lachicagato what color is the wall in your room, or your ceiling? how do your sheets feel? drink some juice/water, how does it taste? smell some lotion or anything with a nice scent in your room. focus on your senses and it should help take your mind off of the panic.
Between the two shows, I think this is why I’m an optimistic nihilist. Nihilist (Bojack) in that believing there is no grand plan or meaning to anything, but Optimistic (The Good Place) that because of this fact we have the ability to create or ascribe our own meaning to this life, and that’s a beautiful notion to me.
What about Taoism? There is no plan and that's ok. Go ahead and attempt to ascribe meaning, but it will be washed away like footprints in the sand. Meaning is an attempt to control reality. There was never control, or meaning, or the ability to know beyond now.
Carlos Cruz well that’s suggesting that there’s no point in people creating a “meaning” for themselves and each other. However the point the video was making is that even if it is all random and doesn’t make sense, there is objective virtue in having a meaning to life.
@@TheLoserface45 I hear you 100 percent. In the context of the video, you're right. One stranger to another, do you agree that there is objective virtue to having meaning in life? And what does that mean exactly? For the record I'm not going out on some "gotcha" hunt. I'd like to know what internet strangers think.
Carlos Cruz 1) I love having real discussions. 2) I think life NEEDS meaning. Bc no matter what someone does, their actions will inevitably affect other people. Putting a meaning to those actions is automatically makes them at least aware of others existence, which itself is virtuous. (Also, I’m not the best at putting word together so it may not make sense hah)
@Justaquitebird I'm of fan of both Bojack and TGP, but I have to admit existentialist nihilist Bojack fanboys kinda of get on my f**king nerves. I'm sorry, but some Bojack fans are overly cynical to the point it's annoying, being cynical isn't the same as being realistic. If Bojack is existentialist in nature than a TGP is meta-ethicist, so obviously the two shows are trying to accomplish different things.
I don't care how many times I watch that snip of herb saying "No... Bojack. There is no other side. This is it," as he gets slimed into the abyss. I always cry a little.
I guess that the good place's format lends to its happier ending, but I think that by writing it off as a sitcom with a dumb sappy ending kinda undercuts everything else the show talks about
but I think is necessary to have positive and negative 'answers' too. Not every person can survive an existencial crisis on Death, so is good to have the option to watch a show about the topic that ends in a happier note.
The Reverse why does philosophy have to be so sad? life has no inherent value sure, but if nothing has inherent value that just means that you get to decide what’s important and which story’s to tell yourself and that’s pretty dope if you ask me. You can come to terms with you’re own mortality and the meaninglessness of life and end up happy. This is no more irrational than realizing this and ending up feeling anything else.
@@danielgosse2129 The "truth" is different for everyone. And those truths can even evolve over time. That's what I was trying to say. Philosophy doesn't have to be sad... Saying the good place ended in a "sitcom" way just cheapens the show.
I was literally going to write an article for my tutors magazine about how Bojack horseman and the good place explore the same concepts in different ways. Wisecrack you are a blessing!
I think you're underplaying the nuance in The Good Place's ending. Firstly I'd barely describe it as a sitcom, and more of a comedic adventure. Secondly how is it not subverting usual TV tropes by having 3 of their 4 human characters accept death and just cease to be. If we're talking sappy sitcom endings, it would have ended on the episode where they get into the Good Place and they live hapoily ever after. The Good Place pushed the boundary of what a comedic show could be and incorporated philosophy in a comedic and relatable way. I think you're doing it a disservice by just dismissing it as dumb trashy sitcom, and this is coming from someone who loves both shows.
But in a way isn't the ending for the characters of The Good Place the same as how a show like Friends ended? The ending of the show is a symbolic death for all the characters; no different then what happens to Chidi, Jason and Elenor. I think the good place brought up a lot of interesting questions but botched the ending due to wanting to stick to a formula. Despite all of the philosophical questions, the show has the same message as most other sitcoms: love and friendship always win. Every character's journey is solved through nondescript love and no one ever questions the notion of that.
@@thefloodwatch785 except it isn't Tahani is more about self acceptance and not relying on other people's view of her Jason was about learning patience, to not seek attention, to listen as much or more than he talks Eleanor and chidi are closer to the love theme, but thats mostly a PRODUCT of character resolution chidi was able to start trusting himself to gain control, not elimination, of his anxiety, and to let himself accept his instinct and not overthink his feelings Eleanor at the end was about learning to LET GO she didn't want it to end she wanted things to go forever, but she had to accept things ended, so she did, and like the others felt peace and became one They were all in love and were great friends by season 3 start The tension wasn't the interpersonal relationships nor was the ending, it was about within the self
The good place’s ending was a little clean and easy but the show had a nuanced take on death. To say a happy and resolved ending is less then Bojack’s ending seems a little reductive I really love both shows a lot and both felt incredibly human
2 problems. 1 the bojack ending wasn't really all that dark, or even open ended. I think the last season was about the growth of everyone around bojack more than just bojack himself. The separation from him and the need to heal themselves. I think bojack himself needed everyone to leave him behind, and prison was the only way they would, or in the words of another great philosophical cartoon "some niggas just need to go to jail" 2. The idea that the good place ending was in some way less smart because it was positive is kind of cynical. Yeah not everyone is eleanor but not everyone is bojack either. The idea of ending an eternity of joy and leaving behind everyone you know and knew because you found your own inner peace sounds more like eastern philosophy and I think through that lens the true depth of the last season can be found. Especially because the end result and the way the system ended being run was reincarnation. The main characters reaching nirvana was the best conceivable ending. Great video tho
Thank you! I completely agree. Bojack and The Good Place are two of my favorite shows now, and to me, both had profound endings that had me thinking for a long time. To say The Good Place is just feel-good junk food because it doesn't end in desperation and sadness sounds like an edgy teenager thinking that it's cool to be depressed.
Bojacks ending wasnt dark? Did you take a poop during the 2nd to last episode dude cus thats one heck of a bad take And painting death as positive is pretty hack writing Its just a contrivance to sweep away any deep personal conundrums and emotional turmoil to just end the show. But it suits a sitcom i guess And by "suit" i mean it sounds just as disposable as any other sitcom ending Never watched the good place so im admittedly not worth arguing with on that stance though
@@vVAstrAVv what was dark about it? Bojack was doing the same shit as always when he made it to Wesleyan. Hollyhock noticed him hitting on the girl at her games. Then, he shits on his chance to get himself out of his newest pr disaster, gets fucked up, and ends up in jail. That's not dark its karmic, meanwhile every other character is freed from the cycle and that's where the real light of the ending is. Princess caroline, Todd, diane, and everyone else is spared from the continuous melancholy and able to live their lives. Also I don't know how to tell you this but life isn't all misery and thinking it is just makes you miserable. Overall comparing these 2 is comparing eastern and western philosophy. And that's my point. Neither is wrong and neither is deeper than the other.
@@zeXr0andNeGi the fucking poem about suicide. Sarah lynns whole song. All of that dream ep mainly wasn't really saying the whole season is dark but its handling of death is clearly dark and handled well. Wanting a little nuance in a show about death =/= life is pain. But ok
@@vVAstrAVv Your connotation of death is making it hard for you to see what I mean. Don't stop dancing (Sarah Lynn's song) was played repeatedly in the series, and I think so was the view from halfway down. Just because they were mentioned in bojack's near death delusion doesn't make it dark. And having death be "doomy gloomy the end" is the least nuanced take of all time. Death is a beginning in many non-eurocentric cultures and to have a story end with one of those without it being hackneyed and not well thought out takes amazing storytelling ability. Again, you're comparing Lao tzu to Nietzsche and it doesn't work. Bojack's ending worked for bojack because it's the same cycle but we as an audience are finally done rooting for him, just like everyone else in his life, and whether or not he changes isn't our problem. The good place ending works (regardless of whether you're a fan of sitcoms) because the characters were able to not need the validation of self. They surrendered the idea that they needed approval of who they were and allowed themselves to just be. Contrary to what the video said there was a lot of musing about losing who you were in this final end, fearing loss of love, not being remembered, and loss of self, very common things that are mentioned in philosophy. It wasn't a happy ending because everyone was happy at the end, it was a happy ending because everyone was free from the very construct of both observing and being
This reminds me of the last paragraph in The great Gatsby “Gatsby believed in the green ligth, the orgastic future that year by year recedes before us.It eluded us then, but that is no matter - tomorrow will run faster, stretch our arms farther...And one fine morning- So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past”
Santiago Molina Interesting you bring up The Great Gatsby in this comment section, because since last year I’ve been comparing Bojack Horseman to The Great Gatsby (even in class discussions, not too many people knew what I was talking about). I don’t have anything else to add, but I thought that your comment was interesting enough to make note of
Yeah, also Nick is pretty Diane-y as well. I guess you could argue that, in a way, Bojack and Gatsby are driven by similar feelings of inadequacy and inferiority to chase their particular goals, embodied by their own objects of desire. Also, neither of them is content when they finally achieve their goals. On one hand, Gatsby successfully completes his Benjamin Franklinesque quest to become rich and successful in order to be able to own Daisy, who, in his view, is the ultimate representation of success. While on the other, Bojack also chases his particular green light. Every season he has a certain goal that he believes will make him happy: his book, his movie, his Oscar, his show, rehab, etc. But after a while, he realizes that the elation that he feels is fleeting. It may appear that Bojack is hyper-aware of this fact while Gatsby is a naive teenager in the body of an adult, but I believe there is a passage in the book that suggests otherwise. It's been a while since I last read it, but I'm referring to the flashback to when he first kisses Daisy. There, he realizes that, in the same moment that he achieved his goal, the magic was gone. The green light, I believe, represents a shitton of things, and there are many valid interpretations and very interesting analyses about this symbol. However, one that I like is closely related to the passage that you have quoted. It reminds us of the things that we lacked in our past, of our feelings of inadequacy and inferiority, while also serving as a beacon for the future, to try again, and to repeat the same mistakes all over if need be. Deep down, Gatsby knew that Daisy wouldn't make him happy, but he was driven to her anyway. The same goes for Bojack and his book, movie, etc. Yet they beat on. Or, you know, whatever you wanna make of it. I just saw your comment and I love both Bojack and Gatsby and also comparing things that I like so I decided to write this haha. Cheers.
Man, I was not emotionally prepared for the last episode of The Good Place when I watched it. When you think about the pretty simple premise with which the show originally started, and all the twists and turns it went through, to end up in that spot.... Truly amazing.
That's what I was thinking when watching the section on the good place conclusion, those people had full control over their own fate and got to complete their to do lists
I feel like you were too harsh on The Good Place in the last quarter. Just because a show offers an answer to a big philosophical question does not mean it is pandering to the audience. Sure, nihilism claims that that anyone offering answers is pandering to their audience, but that is one school of though out of hundreds. You entire argument for why The Good Place is pandering is basically to point out that it is a sitcom, and then assert that all sitcoms pander. You are literally taking an entire genera and writing it off as inherently worthless. Rewatch the last part of the video and notice how little you actual talk about the content of The Good Place when criticizing it. Sure, you talk about the creators and the genera, but you never say that much about what actually happens in the show itself. If a show is pandering to the audience, then you should give me example in the show where that happens. You even start the segment with the loaded question, "[W]hy did The Good Place end on **simple** answers, and why did BoJack end with open questions?" You never defend your claim that The Good Place is giving "simple answers", you just assume it is true and move on. Worse, you blatently twist Dan Harmon's argument suit your own needs. He claims that producers profit from complacent and lazy viewers, so they choose to air shows that inspire that attitude. This line of reasoning applies equally well to comedies hosted by television networks as to dramas hosted by streaming services. Yet you ignore this and only apply the quote to The Good Place, offering no explanation for why the same pressure to make uncomplicated shows was not faced by the creators of BoJack. Also, notice that he was talking about a trend. He was not claiming that it is impossible for T.V. shows to be deep, only that a pressure is faced by people working in the industry to make their shows shallow. You completely misrepresent this nuanced argument in order to make a blunt hammer, which you needed to smash The Good Place into the 2-D, meaningless shell you wanted it to be so BoJack would look better in comparison. Next time you want to talk about how someone's background as a play-write influenced their show, just do it. There is no need throw a different show under the bus first.
YES! This is so well put. Both of these shows are good based on their own merit, if you need to bash another show in order to praise BoJack then you imply that BoJack cannot stand on its own and is only good in context, which is obviously not true. And just because The Good Place had a brighter ending does not mean that the entire show was worthless, which again, is clear.
Also acted as if the things happening in the show aren't actual ideas discussed by actual philosophers today. Also acted as if watching something to feel better is inherently a bad thing. I mean, I recently started watching Bojack Horseman and I cannot watch more than one episode because it's bad for my mental health. But not wanting to suffer to reach deeper meaning or whatever makes me dumb, I guess.
@@losisd3ad You're right, they probably didn't do it on purpose, but they did suggest that one is more complex an/or intelligent than the other. I can't say how accurate they were about Bojack Horseman, as I haven't watched enough of it, but I didn't agree with very many of the points they made about The Good Place, which sounded very biased against "happy content" to me.
@@losisd3ad Clearly they considered The Good Place inferior by the fact they start that section by claiming the show giving a complex and nuanced perspective of death is offering "simple answers". They then go on to say this is because The Good Place is not trying to teach any significant moral lessons and is trying to turn the audience into unthinking consumers.
I still believe this notion that death gives meaning to life is just another reassuring illusion, nothing but sour grapes. "Oh, yeah, we're inevitably mortal, but we wouldn't like to live forever anyway". How could we know for sure? There's no point of comparison. It's not like we could have a control group... "Let's interview 500.000 mortal people, then 500.000 immortal people, and see which group is happier". The desire for purpose is a human construct, ok, life has no "inherent" meaning, fine, that IS potentially despairing, sure, but there's nothing we can do about it but try to find ways to cope. We may only decide what is meaningful to us, in our microcosms, even though there is no definite, objective answer, given by mortality or otherwise, and that’s it. Most of the time, we're lying to ourselves when we say we're seeking meaning; in fact, maybe we know dawn well that we’re just seeking comfort in face of an obviously meaningless universe, and the concept of death as the point of life is just another safety blanket, as valid (and imaginary) as any other.
Id think life is plenty of points of comparison Im 28 and already sick enough of this world to be fucking glad ill probably die at 50ish lol Trying to dismiss that just sounds immature on your part
Yeah, put it in the same basket as: "Money can't buy happiness" - Some Rich Guy. Seen plenty of rags to riches people who are happier and even the sadder ones are glad they're sad and rich rather than sad and poor. Never seen a case of riches to ruin that wasn't tragic and full of regret. We just don't know how immortality or eternal bliss would be experienced and The Good Place made a blunder funnelling itself into a cul-de-sac. I'm more convinced it should have ended with season 2, which would be perfect.
@@MasonDixonAutistic see the problem with your argument is. Living forever and living with death are both still living. You take the right timeframes of the mortals life and compare and they will be the SAME. Rich or poor is litterally having or not having a disparity of resources. Youre basically trying to measure miles in gallons. Not the same thing
@@vVAstrAVv No, living forever and living with death are not the same thing and I think it was the inability of the writers of TGP to understand that which made them go with Eleanor proposing the exit door solution. In that setting, everyone experiences life as finite but only find out about the afterlife when they get there. They know what it is like to live with death ahead of them, then they have to absorb the paradigm shift of living without end. The show unfortunately leaves this until the final episodes to explore, then fails to explore it at all and instead goes with assumptions. Not a single character challenges the proposal; the closest we get to it is Tahani choosing to find another distraction. What does she do once she becomes the perfect afterlife architect though? All she is doing is looking for distractions, and from what? The exit door, which is death. If the writers had explored immortality more, they would have had to use the time to describe how exactly someone gets from being Hypatia of Alexandria to 'Patty the glassy-eyed mush-person'. Instead it's just assumed and we have to suspend disbelief, which they had to do because exploring reasons why anyone would be philosophically opposed to the exit door would have been kind of a bummer for them.
I was really surprised that you talked down on the good place. To call it disingenuous I think reflects your philosophical disagreement with the show than it does about its genuineness. I thought both were great shows for different reasons. It seems like you disliked the show simply because it was optimistic and provided "answers" while Bojack was more up to interpretation. But clearly the Good Place is just a fiction, and they point to how ridiculous humanity is and what the afterlife could be, but it doesn't seem to be laying it down as fact. Hopefully you're not as pessimistic as it makes you seem. Thanks for coming to my TED Talk. Also optimistic nihilism ftw
I thought Bojack was honestly tiring... It was the same thing over and over again... When I knew the ending like 2 seasons ago lol I knew it was going to end without any answers... I just wish it had ended when I sorta liked Bojack instead of just feeling meh about him. I am glad he was held accountable for everything. Bojack needed Chidi lol At the end of Bojack... I was like OK... Thanks I knew how this was going to end a few seasons ago lol I knew that this show was trying to say that life doesn't really have meaning and it sucks sometimes. At least with The Good Place they actually went through different philosophical ideas... I did not guess how The Good Place would end. I don't understand why the idea that people can die happy is somehow less meaningful. For talking about the philosophy about how nothing really matters... How is it that because The Good Places ended "happy" then it means less then Bojacks ending... Nothing matters giving something meaning shouldn't make that any less meaningless... Lol
Ong both entertained me to hell I loved both and I was happy all throughout and sometimes sad or disgusted from bojack which is nice both were tip tier shows
14:26 - 14:37 "Sure, there's no grand purpose to our existence but that doesn't mean we can't attempt to create one for ourselves. And the artist who distills their vision of the world onto a canvas or stage is perhaps the most free of all." new favourite quote :)
@@darcflame37 what, how is that slavery?? I think the ability for a conscious agent to self-express some "inner truth" in a NEW, creative & objective way is what fundamentally defines the afromentioned artist's freedom. Whether the creation itself is labeled a "novelty" depends entirely on the particular beholder, but claiming the motivations are slave-like is so unnecessarily demeaning.
What freedom existed after the creative work that didn't exist before it? The freedom of expression is the answer, a fleeting release of endorphins. A band-aid that resolves symptoms temporarily. A cell that keeps you in.
Jaime Nyx Normally I would say coincidence, but the writers of Bojack Horseman clearly like subtle details like that, so I think it was intentional. The writers are so brilliant.
Given that all the characters died, how does The Good Place provide a sitcom ending? Seems to me like they put their money where their philosophical mouth is: Death gives life meaning. Great video by the way.
Sitcom ending would be: here is the answer (existance and choice of death in the Good Place) Not sitcom ending: open questions, nothing is certain, just leave some hope that it was all for something (BoJack having gone through everything and still no certainty if or when he'll relapse back into to the same old paths)
There is something to be about there not being any 'ultimate realities'. There is something to be said about not arriving at final changes in any reality.
I believe life and death have meaning, but I also acknowledge that there are alot of unknowns and that human psychology tries to fill up those holes because the unknown is in and of itself, terrifying
Its more that the assumption of the unknown is whats terrifying Were left seeing death as some dark abyss because at some point in life most people fail to properly imagine nothingness. But deaths....just nothing. Just like before we were born. Thousands of years passed before we first opened our eyes. So proper non existence will feel the same Like closing your eyes and counting to one Which is pretty cool to me
I just started watching both of these shows a few years ago and they've quickly risen up the ranks of my favorite shows, with Bojack actually becoming my new favorite show. As summarized by this video, they both helped me process death in different ways and I'm grateful to have experienced both of these incredible stories
There was a pretty disturbing ad at the end of the video implicating the Nazis had developed clean energy but the knowledge would have been "suppressed". I don't know if you have any power over the ads, but if you do, please do something against conspiracy-theorists like gaia/deepspace.
Okay but what if they did create a form of clean energy?... Not many people hate the American confederates or Europeans who imperialized and enslaved/murdered nations of people.
@@user-jp4cj3ds7p Many people hate Americans or Europeans for their imperialist past, but even if that would not be the case, there is no way to apologies for the Nazis, if you wanted to go in such a direction. But I have no idea where you are going. Knowlegde of the Nazis was used by everyone of the Alliance (for example Operation Overcast or Operation Matchbox), I would guess that the Soviet Union would have had great use for clean energy since they had to industrialize agricultural states. So I would think of clean energy without anyone using it as quite unlikely, but if knowledge was lost or "suppressed" and there is evidence for it, I am interested to read a book with sources about it. And if there is no evidence for it - why do you have to mythologize the Nazis?
why do you write off the good place's positive ending, and yes parks and recs happy ending, as just because its hollywood? How about looking at the very intentional use of idealism INFORMED by past cycles of oppression and general existentialism? I can see a whole argument of how the Good Place is a very intentional example and reiteration of metamodernist TV, of a very cyborg earnestness present in parks and rec but only now getting that echo.
Shinkajo i don’t think they’re using big words to impress you lol, some people just have big vocabularies. they’re saying that because people have experienced bad times and “oppression and general existentialism” before, it’s nice, and even necessary to have this place of idealism to go to, and that the good place is an example of this mash of existentialism and sitcom idealism that shur has been working with since parks and rec. just because you don’t understand how someone’s argument is phrased doesn’t mean you can write it off as “[ultimately] meaningless”.
@@carlysimpson9518 Well no since I have a big vocabulary, I know those words too. But I also know that using them in such a fashion comes across as douchy. It's like who do you think you are? The Architect from the Matrix?
I don't even see it as taking nihilism fully It is depressive nihilism Nothing matters so why try, being positive is lying to yourself...but with no meaning lying doesn't exist you can't say untruthful meaning about something that isn't meaning I just see it as pandering to the early sad nihilists refusing to see the good in things that are happy with what they are, and love things that draw attention to the idea that they're doing more and evolving...while actually doing very little exploration on a deeper sense
Against existentialism? That is the only position one can take- There is no intrinsic meaning to life, so we can make our own meaning as said by (Sartre [make your own purpose], [Camus [image Sisyphus happy], Neitzche [Become the best possible version of yourself]. Existentialism is not negative and is the only mature thing one can accept. Nihilism is negative though, well kinda- . There is no meaning & you cant make any. Nothing matters, so dont try Notice the difference between the (generalization) of the two? One is making your own meaning and the other is accepting there being no meaning.
I love a lot of points in this video, but the point about TV shouldn’t leave you in a crisis doesn’t quite mesh with the idea of how sitcoms & TV work. The point of a story is to take you along w/ it. To provide a message or a takeaway. Stories hinge on conflict. When you’re in crisis you have to eventually get to the point where you resolve or work through it. So I don’t see an issue in a show having a neat resolution, so long as it has an actual meaningful message that has some ring of truth in the journey of the story. A good show should be able to put you in crisis in the episode & provide you w/ tools to derive meaning. I do feel a lot of sitcoms are overly simplistic in their endings to the point of being derivative. Though I feel like the good place grapples better w/ existential ideas of eternity, Bojack does push us to make most of time we have, and it’s more applicable as death can come from anywhere. Not everyone gets to go out on their own choice in this plane of existence. Maybe the good place could have gone darker like Bojack... I’m not quite sure, just like everyone else
My favorite moment from The Good Place is the Season 2 finale. Eleanor puts genuine effort into being a good person all on her own yet gets discouraged when nothing gets better. It's not until she gets a friendly suggestion from Michael that Eleanor realizes that she can't do it alone works up the nerve to finally ask for help.
While The Good Place does have a relatively clean and feel good ending, I think there's more to it than that. It definitely lends itself to the sitcom happy ending, concluding character arcs in a satisfying way. I personally believe that that doesn't make the show more any more shallow. It still explores what it means to be a good person and leaves us to ponder the answer. The closest thing we get to answer to what makes one good is the vague idea that we should try our best to be good. Bojack Horseman is relatively deeper in exploring its philosophies and is not limited by the sitcom format. BH constantly finds itself changing formats now and then like the Free Churro episode in contrast with the episode where Bojack is underwater. One contributor why BH has multiple chances to break through this format is due to what you said in the video. BH is a Netflix show. It doesn't have the TV limitations that the good place has and feels less "sitcom-like" than TGP. I believe that TGP still has a pretty good exploration of morality through wack sitcom situation. Though it may be limited by being a TV show and a sitcom, it finds a host of ways to use the genre to its advantage to have the characters find closure. It may not be as deep as BH, but I'd say it's not as shallow as the video implies it to be. BH, on the other hand, I think had a bit more creative freedom. It is not only a comedy and sitcom deconstruction, but it is also a satire. This allows for the show to be more philosophical and meta than TGP coupled with the freedom of the animation medium to use a variety of techniques that are difficult in live television. Not to mention that the show was meant to deconstruct a sitcom.
The problem with the whole "death gives life meaning" argument, is that it's not actually "death" that gives life meaning, it's the fear of death, and once that fear has done that, there's absolutely no reason to follow through with dying. Like, even if the thought that you will one day die has given meaning to every single thing in your life, at the end of the day, at any given moment, you would always choose to live rather than die. You wouldn't kill yourself just to satisfy your younger self's belief that your death will give them meaning, that doesn't make any sense. Those experiences are over, you not dying isn't going to retroactively change them.
That isn't the point. Death gives life meaning because it makes life limited and acts as the ending to your story. And while yes you could argue that the fear of death is what makes gives life meaning it's probably more cool to think that death itself does. Death does give life meaning.
@@bigbig173 But the end of your story will only be meaningful to others, not yourself. It can't be meaningful to you, because you're no longer alive to experience or reflect on it. Something can only be meaningful to you as long as you can at least think about it, if you're dead, then nothing can have meaning to you. I'm not gonna die just so that other people will have a cool story to tell.
Oh, God. I thought all the seasons of The Good Place were on Netflix, so I watched the three seasons. There's a fourth season. I thought S3: E12 was the end. I shouldn't have been here....Michael, erase my memory of what I saw here
I like to think that the Good Place's message involves being "readied" for whatever comes next. Like a baby in the womb we have no idea what the next phase is going to be like and it's the fear of the unknown that drives us. The plan could have been for the system to be set up the way it was so people who were ready would get to walk through the gate at the end. Maybe the real world and then afterlife is like that as well. Hard to say. One thing I believe is that it'll be incomprehensible to what we know now. Whether any kind of faith plays into that is up to you.
I think Jared is being quite a bit biased in this episode. Bojack Horseman is not realistic just because it’s daring to be existentially pessimistic in a TV show. Life is not about pessimism and optimism. This is EXACTLY what this video missed. Extremely disappointed with this, Wisecrack. Thumbs down.
Dear Jared, you and your team's content gives me an incredible faith in humanity especially during this terrible and testing time. I truly am grateful for your work through all these years. Thank you!
Nothing beats learning about existential philosophy at 3:00 AM during quarantine. Isn't like I have anything to do tomorrow anyways. Can just screw up my circadian rhythm because I don't have anything to do anymore but sleep and watch Wisecrack.
It just kinda sucks that people think after you die you just cease to exist. Cuz I know your meant to enjoy life and living. but while you would want rest you would still want to explore and learn more. Like an afterlife. Of infinite opportunities.
I don't agree with this one. And I'm always fanboying Wisecrack, but I can't help but feel the influence this pandemic and its effects it has over us socially and individually. I feel that and other personal factors steered this video. Life's has bitchy moments. Same as it has good ones. Choose how you want to see it. You ain't wrong. There is no meaning to our existence but we're here. We came from happenstance. How fucking cool is that?!
I binged all of Bojack just to watch this youtube video. Then I waited for a few months until the Good Place's last season went on Netflix. Then I forgot about it until RU-vid reminded me. Totally worth it.
I respect a show that attempts to answer hard questions like The Good Place, rather than just leaving it up in the air like Bojack. The Good Place had a silly sitcom feel, but the idea that death gives life meaning is an interesting one, and a subversive one. Whereas "life has no meaning" is just kind of stale. Maybe it's the media I consume, but I feel like the latter point is beaten over my head constantly, yet it is just as didactic as the philosophies it claims to subvert. I love both shows, but where we ended up on one show's merits over the other seemed to come down to Wisecrack's personal preferences for dark, existential philosophy and art rather than an even-handed rational debate between the two worldviews. Their argument boiled down to "Well, you can't expect good philosophy out of a sitcom. It's too happy and commercial. Theater is far superior, and Bojack is more like theater. Ergo, Bojack wins." I enjoyed comparing the two worldviews in this format, but I don't know why Wisecracked bothered supporting one over the other if they weren't going to actually prove it. Why not let people choose for themselves which argument won rather than showing your hand?
I agree. I felt as I was watching the video something just rubbed me the wrong. Not that I am not up for an existential crisis and that I haven't accepted life has no meaning but as Micheal said in the Good Place about Free Will; why not believe there is an end and meaning to life? Also, both the Good Place and Bojack come to same conclusions about acceptance and I argue that both have I would say happy endings as much as Wisecrack doesn't want to put it in that light. The Good Place says that we'll all come to a place where we are satisfied with our lives and eventually, we will leave and go back to universe. Bojack says that yes, life has no meaning and that we're doomed to a painful end but while we're on earth, we will keep living and our stories will continue until that date.
@@JaimeNyx15 sometimes leaving you in a position to answer questions both for what the show intends and perhaps for yourr own life is more worthwhile then just spewing out an answer for our sense of closure. On the topic of death doubly so
@@vVAstrAVv That's certainly valid, though I don't think Bojack necessarily leaves you in a good position to answer the questions it poses. Like the existentialist philosophy that it draws from, it excels more at tearing town previous frameworks than giving a starting point for actual meaning-making. And I would say that The Good Place doesn't really give an answer for how the afterlife or death actually works, but how it could work. They try to build up a system that reconciles a great number of human value schemes and generates something that a lot of people could be happy with in the end. It's not how the afterlife works, but it would be cool if it did work that way. Something to strive for. And I think that's pretty cool. Plus, I think it's fascinating that the show takes the stance that even if the afterlife was a thing, it wouldn't be an ideal place for us because of who we are. Bojack stops at death and screams out in horror, but The Good Place shows that it doesn't matter whether death is final or not; in the end, you just have to do the best you can with the time you have. And I don't think that's a bad message, or an ill-considered one.
If I had a choice I would never die, there's so much to explore. i feel mortality and death giving life meaning is outdated. If we could live forever I think it would be epic
I think the problem of good place was not the absence of death but over-individuality. Nobody had a purpose or duty in society, people were only materially rewarded and expected to do nothing. They were nothing but individuals floating in the void without a purpose. We may not know that but having a part in community is what keeps us sane.
after passing her afterlife test, sarah lynn began training under tahani al-jamil. she now spends her time designing good place neighborhoods. all is well.
The whole "death gives life meaning" Just doesn't make sense to me, death doesn't give life meaning, it gives you a deadline (no pun intended) Almost every single stressful situation i can keep thinking of is due to a constant pressure to achieve things before you die, get an education, a job, a family, a home, a big car, then die surrounded by people you love, maybe if you're lucky you get to achieve a dream or two. But in a world where death wasn't the end of things, why should i rush to become an architect or engineer before 20? I could spend the first 40 years of my life working odd-jobs and traveling the worlds, without worry of missing out on other things in life, I wouldn't be "too old" I'd just be another soul with stories to tell. We'd be able to achieve our dreams in our time, rather than playing it safe risking dying in regret.
I see your point, but I would have to disagree. I agree that death only gives a deadline to life, and should the deadline be extended all of a sudden life would be better to live, but the reason that death "gives meaning" to life is the argument and understanding of eternity. If people died at 200 then we would have much more time to do things that we inherently enjoy. And then if we died at 500, the same argument applies. And so on for any possible number, no matter how large. But 500 billion is different than eternity. Eternity is forever. A cool mathematical concept that factors is the law of large numbers. Basically, you can take any statistical probability and it will happen given eternity, because eternity is...well forever (i simplified it down and altered the concept to apply more to my example but it really is a fascinating concept). Everything that could possibly happen will happen with eternity. This is why death gives meaning to life. Because we as humans cannot and so far will never be able to grasp what eternity really means. Maybe given an infinite timeline we would still find happiness in life, but I highly doubt it. Deadlines are what makes us do anything, and honestly even in eternity deadlines would apply. You have a deadline to explore earth. You have a deadline until the sun destroys this solar system so that no life could be possible. You would have all these deadlines but an eternity to live. It sounds horrible and morbid to me, not cool.
Yeah, but when you accomplish anything you've ever wanted, get new desires, fulfill those, and do that 500 quadrillion times, you still have infinity left. What are you going to do the next 111111100000000000000000000000009 Googlplex years?
I don’t think Bojack implies that death is terrifying, i think it implies that it could be peaceful or terrifying you choose. different characters got swallowed by the abyss differently some were swallowed or somewhat chased while others actually jumped in sort of like an acceptance that inevitably death has come.
The ending of Good Place and Bojack reminded me of this anime I watched as a kid: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haibane_Renmei Would love to see your take on this anime's philosophy. I hope this happens!
desires and motivations will be different in heaven from what we used to in life.. that's the basic idea.. we start wrong when we try to comprehend the incomprehensible There are somethings in life that our brains can't be aware of, and the idea of immortality is one of them.
Bo Burnham said: "You pray so badly for heaven, knowing any day might be the day that you die. But maybe life on earth could be heaven, doesn't just the thought of it make it worth the try?"
I disagree with the fact that death is what makes care for the most part about others. There are so many people who die every year in the world, do they add meaning to our lives? It is actually empathy and feeling someone's prolonged suffering or pain that urges people to stop that suffering or lessen it and to care about the other person. After all, death is a release from pain, so why would I care if someone dies, as opposed to someone who is suffering but still alive? It is not death in itself that gives life meaning, it is pain, struggle, and suffering.
Death doesn't give meaning to life, it ultimately robs us of it. What makes life worthwhile is growth, discovery and love. Living forever but missing any of those 3 is hell, which is the big problem at the heart of any popular imaginings of an afterlife: its just endless pleasure with no point and no movement towards becoming something more than we are currently.
The Good Place being a sitcom product, implies a measure of dishonesty from the creators. I do not think either The Good Place or Bojack Horseman creators were intellectually dishonest with their audiences, unlike most shows. I think where they divide is in their theories, existentialism (Bojack) vs phenomenology (Good Place). "Meaning" for existentialism is man created, while "meaning" for phenomenology is inherent in the life-being of man. Both shows try to question meaning retroactively from the point of death.
"Death gives meaning to life." mmm. No.The idea that you can find no motivation nor aspiration without death fundamentally ignores the human experience. We aren't even aware of death until many years in to our lives, for most people (especially in the first world). Even then, it takes a long time to truly grasp that *you* can die. And yet, somehow, children are able to be motivated and have fun and play games and make friends and act with empathy (and animosity) towards others. If death were so important, why do people seek to avoid death? (Obviously, it's the biological impulse. But point remains that we are but biological creatures.) Now, the method of immortality would make a difference in how we act, obviously. For example, an eternal, crippling aging process or Dead Pool-ian regeneration, that essentially turns your life in to a living hell would in all likelihood break the human psyche, and morality would break down. If, however, it's the Golden Utopia view of immortality, but with otherwise neurotypical people (still feel emotions, pain, etc, it just doesn't really hinder them physically)...then there's no implicit reason for moralities to change. People would still get painfully bored sitting in a pit, and people can empathize, even if they think that there's an eternity to live. (Heat death of the universe not withstanding.) Now, people *do* need meaning in their lives in order to feel fulfilled. They need a sense of accomplishment. A sense of belonging. Which helps explains these political cults of late, which do give the veneer of doing something noble, holy even - of fighting evil - of being a part of something bigger. People will turn anything in to a religion, whether it's space daddies or patriarchy. But once that's reintegrated as an essential part of psychology, and tied with the Western liberty-minded view, there is no reason why it has to be as hostile and toxic as it currently is.
Those children are still in the most blissful part of human existence. While their happiness and motivation without the knowledge of death is notable it's not the same as a fully developed human mind coming to terms with it's own individual existence and place in the world with the knowledge of death fully present.
Without death and with an eternity before you you would psychologically break. There is no greater context for life without the inevitable end. Heck, with eternal life on the table murder would be one of the most moral things you could do, if at all possible. As frustrating as it is there is no life without death. I've always feared an eternal afterlife because eternity sounds like hell no matter what to me. I want to stop existing because it makes everything I do now feel important. I know it isn't, but I have a single finite unique perspective in the universe and as cool as that is there needs to come a time when my consciousness can rest. Forever. I desperately want the void because it sounds beautiful to fade into cosmic nothingness. Truly peaceful. I don't need a purpose. Just a promise that this is my time and just like everything else it won't last forever.
@@austinwitham109 And if that is a personal motivation for you, then congratulations. Everyone ought to have a motivation and goal to strive for. Most also want to be there to enjoy the goal, but to each their own. It's certainly more socially healthy of a motivation than some peoples'. But a personal preference doesn't prove a rule to be true. Especially one that says that death gives life meaning. (Which can be disproved by simply pointing to a guy who finds meaning in life, and isn't motivated by death.) No. *You* give life meaning. Those things that you find meaning in gives your life meaning.
@@SangoProductions213 a resource in infinite supply is worthless no matter how great it is. Life has to have an endpoint to have value that someone can live for. They only find meaning in life due to it being finite. They don't have to feel comfortable with death but their value on life is tied directly to its finite nature.
Here's a hot take: The reason BH is so cynical is that the creator is a miserable, unhappy sad husk of man, and the reason The Good Place isn't is that its creator... isn't. These people aren't helpless leaves in the wind unable to resist the winds buffeting them wherever it pleases, they matter, their opinions and outlooks matter, I'd argue far more than the formats they choose to create their art in.
Viredae very much agree with your sentiment. It feels they took the easy path out and sided with the show that aligns with their world views the most. All the more reason bojack and Rick and morty will get four episodes a season but other philosophically enriching shows that don’t devolve into nihilistic existentialism isn’t covered. It is what it is, as they say.
I'm glad they waited until Jared himself could do the final take on bojack horseman. I love everyone on the wisecrack team, but i'm not sure I would have accepted a final bojack analysis from anybody else
