Hello. I think im the only one in the comments section that was totally blown away by the many terms used in your video that I was unfamiliar of. Correct me if im wrong, but was the main message of the video was to illustrate how happiness as a fleeting emotion is often very difficult to obtain because of the elusive nature of it? (i probably got this interpretation wrong.) If so, what are your opinion on how Aristotle views happiness: the quality of a whole human life, determined by intrinsic (exercising intellectual and moral virtues) and extrinsic circumstances (health, wealth, adequate frienship0, civil liberty, knowledge, etc). And If I happen to be totally off point, could you recommend me some books to understand your points more?

Is The Epoch Times one of your sister channels and are they still working with Fallon gong terrorists?

Consider going outside@@torrentialaim6877

Thanks, I've given The Expulsion of the Other a read and it's very interesting.

Revisiting this comment. I made a video on Han since!

Han is an excellent author. I'd love to see more content on his work.

Thanks my guy, I learn from the best.

Love to see mom and dad getting along. Legit my two fav philo channels

@@reverendsteveii💀who’s mom and who’s dad ?

Your country's average iq is under 100 points

thank you@@epochphilosophy !

Super happy to hear. That's the goal.

@@epochphilosophy The day Michael Brooks died is the happiest day of my life.

TIME TRAVELER

The ancient Greek philosophers had competing ideas. Ideas such as areté (virtue of character), eudaemonia (happiness), and ataraxia (equanimity).

"the Greek word for ‘happy’ back then most commonly referred to a general strength of character instead of a fleeting emotion" -- indeed. In a certain context, the Old Greek word for "happiness" has had this connotation of "duty" and "achieving honour".

" but the way we understand it today, as something fleeting that we constantly chase (which corresponds to the ethos of capitalism) needs to be radically questioned " You said it!

Maybe too early for traction, too critical/controversial in a "bad" (for corporate algorithm) way, or could be the name. Epoch makes me think of Epoch Times, I.e. uncritical right wing agenda propaganda that doesn't try to self reflect at all, just pushing their narrative.

ikr it's the 5th video on my homepage recommend, it needs to be recommend to more peeps!

The algorithm controls for the truth. It controls for seriousness, sincerity, anything that doesn't have "click for instant gratification" on the label.

Sadly, quality vs quantity.

he is counter cultural and a threat to the status quo. so he wont be shown

That's some Adam Curtis level insight right there. Kudos.

why not just pause the video to give yourself time to think about it, not like it's going anywhere

liked because this is probably my lane, but just enough not so to strike "vaushite" and go with something like, 'vaush seems cool and effective, i like him.' ;) but also came here from that conversation, also here to binge the epoch essays.

I too, was exposed to you, and thus your work, through Vaush, and I am glad I'm here, now.

I hope you recover

Perhaps if you had these things you'd want the next step. Maslows higherarchy of needs isn't perfect but it is pretty true

Its fundamental human nature to want to expand. You dont something, or more, you want everything

Being polyamorous makes people happy? That’s news to me lol

Sorry to hear your parents didn't care for you

@@strongestgamer2501look at your comment and the one you replied to side by side and think a bit about whose parents did a better job.

putting words of assumption; anyhow, enjoy life, i hope you find people that share your character@@strongestgamer2501

Indeed, I think this may stem from our conception of time in particular which in modernity/postmodernity is flattened into a linear ontological "understanding" whereas civilizations of the past seemed to very much appreciate a cyclical understanding, as like you're saying the emergent consideration of the future is confused from our perspective as a static point of difference rather than an eternal return of sorts. All of this likely stems from our material relations but yeah this seems to be a key distinction/juxtaposition if not _the_ key distinction/juxtaposition.

@@Bisquick yeah without a sense of what is to come in the future - or a positive perception of the future - we can’t really chart our our own futures with much confidence perhaps as well, and as a result most of the time we can’t get in a position where we doing activities where happiness is the one of the by products

Happiness is what you get from stealing rich people's money.

@@getthecandies One has to be careful when understanding happiness, since, as Lacan says, Capitalism confuses "jouissance" with "desire". So, whan can achieve happines in the moment we can recognise our desire (since desire can not end). We have been sold, under Capitalism, that the image of "satisfied" desire is the same as jouissance, which is not true...

Seems like the Buddhist idea of happiness you mention. An unperturbability and a liberation from the demands of desire. I do not believe there is one happiness. There is not one kind of happiness even with conventional notions. Mostly though, it seems as if happiness is understood as some form pleasure. There is also flow, a sense of satisfaction in accomplishment, sympathetic joy and other kinds of happiness.

@@davidpeppers551 I agree. And that is precisely the reason for which I do not think is appropiate to just criticize happiness as a pha tasy created by capitalism. The problem is that capitalism wants us to believe there is only one way of happiness, which is what it calls “success”, a type of success which is the one that the same capitalism makes available.

Because it's something we can't have. 😂

Ali nation has always been a prime part if my life. False expectations about humanity I never enjoyed 😢

Based Camille Paglia enjoyer

Start the process of shaping your history by first holding nothing sacred, critiquing all relations and ideas at their material level, finding the language to describe it, articulate that relation, share that relation through critique, profit?... just kidding

Could only jam so much into one video. Tried not to make it a video about Hegel's alienation. Hegel's commentary around institutions and alienation are often centered via religion.

I tried that once. Being left-handed it turned out to be a horrible waste of time 😢

I think they cherry for your dessert would be some Mark Fisher.

You can't control life; you can only control how you react to life 😊

rip, friend

@@epochphilosophy after watching all these radical theory videos the algorithm is now forcing capital down my throat

So, Mark Fisher would have likely described this as 'Nietzsche's Last Man' just in contemporary form. In today's world. But, because Nietzsche was dealing with a core of modernity, his picture of Last Man is different in my mind. Thus, I simply called it 'Mark Fisher's Last Man'. It's like Nietzche's Last Man stems from modernity, Fisher's stems from Postmodernity.

@@epochphilosophy Thanks for taking the time to answer my question!

Anytime!

@@epochphilosophy Deus Vult, fellow KKKommunist!~

@@thesummary2174 Guy.. what is your life? Are these just buzzwords you wear as an identity?

Appreciate that, friend! Actually never seen an Adam Curtis thing. Everyone raves about it so I really should check him out.

@@epochphilosophy Socialism is for lazy tools who will be used as pawns of the Cathedral

@@thesummary2174 great argument, repeat it ad nauseum please

Btw that thing you mentioned Peterson and other right wingers say is borrowed from the Nazis

😂👍👌

The only historical communisms we've known have been ridden with authoritarianism, and in the hands of clumsy and presumptuous macho-types. Please don't get the idea that I allow myself to dislike such character, it's moral and intellectual shallowness, it's gaudy irresponsibility and lurid outlook. It's far more accurate to say that I deeply despise and avoid it in my personal life, and politica. ☝️🤨🍷

@@AntonioPeralesdelHierro socialism needs to be able to defend itself from imperialism, but that doesn't invariably mean a macho dictator. Actual communism is fundamentally anarchic, it's when everyone is the government, it's the opposite from a monocracy, it's a true democracy, which in Greek means the people's rules, that the people are in control, and that's what a dictatorship of the proletariat means: that the workers are the ones that dictate the rules instead of being oppressed by the ruling class not only through the government, but all corporations(specially but not limited to the one you work for) and institutions that exist to validate the capitalist system. Have you seen what the us does to countries that try to be socialist? All the coups, sanctions, embargoes, blockades, pirating, seizing of assets and bank accounts? Also, we can just not have a conservative system, we don't need to repeat the past revolutions mistakes, and the ones that can see those mistakes are the ones that should be part of the revolution to make sure that we don't repeat them. But there's no way to just reform things and be all "peace and love freedom democracy "while the us infiltrates your government and sabotages it in every way possible freely without resistance bc fighting is bad and without even being noticed bc you thought strategic spying and surveillance were too oppressive to do. No, we need to be careful and wary of traitors that want to keep the world running on an unfair system that allows them advantages and privileges. Authoritarianism isn't inherently bad, it's what let korea resist the American occupation and develop their military to be one of the world's most powerful nations shielded from the American military offensives, yet America controls every other government and prohibits them to help Korea in any way, buy its products, sell them resources.. everything it achieved was literally against the whole damn world And what did it achieve? Besides a massive victory against the world's most advanced army, they created a society wherein every single citizen has their own house, that's close enough to walk to the work they all have from(meaning there's NO homelessness at all nor ANY unemployment of abled citizens), everyone has the right to full and free education and healthcare, and everyone's guaranteed some food as a compliment to their salary, so people won't be malnourished. There's NO student debt and NO medical bills. Any red scare anti-communist propaganda lies that you may believe from North Korea (almost invariably manufactured by the South Korean cia-funded think tanks and published on their literal gossip magazines that target the foolish of people) are them really worse than what the us does to migrants? To black people? To the sick people overdosing on the streets and being thrown back out in the sidewalk if they dare to beg for treatment in a hospital? Were you able to afford your house? Bc people today won't ever be able to afford their own houses, have you seen the salary these days? The rent? The price of property? There are employed people with multiple degrees living in the streets because their salary isn't enough to pay rent somewhere close to work nor a car to drive there or Uber/public transport fees because then there's enough for rent but not for food and don't get me started on medication, have you heard about diabetes? The multiple injections needed everyday so they don't drop dead? And it's not only not-free, but expensive af to buy!? Something they need just to survive? North Korea is a weird place, sure. But how much of the strangeness is just being different instead of inherently worse? There are definitely many, very relevant and important ways in which the supposedly dictatorial dynasty of North Korea is a better place to live than the democratic freedom land of the US of friggin' A. Btw, it's not a dictatorship nor a dynasty, Kim jong un has less power than any western president and Asian culture itself is to blame for their family's cult-like adoration, they really just respect their elders and superiors that much. But have you seen that they even built the faces of Kim il sung, Kim jong il and Kim Jong un into a mega monument carved on a whole entire mountain? Except it's mt Rushmore in South Dakota. The thing about socialism is that the authoritarian power is centralized in the hands of the government that is made by and from the people, and in capitalism that power is divided into many many different groups to give a false illusion of freedom because then you can't see all oppression all at once and you're conditioned to treat it as normal. Also, in socialism they actually do something when they find something wrong, instead of "strategically allowing it" to not show their power, hide their capabilities and let people believe that they're actually free, whilst also incentivizing things like violent behaviors in poor neighborhoods to drive the prices down enough so they can gentrify it into an elitist new neighborhood and gain money with that and 100 other ways.. We're already under authoritarian regimes that spy on us and controls our lives to fulfill their interests, but the ones in power just aren't the ones in the official centralized government, but rather lobby behind the curtains to choose what we'll eat, buy, and believe; to profit on our sickness, use it to make us addicted to meth and heroin, to make sure that only the privileged get into the good schools and making sure the unprivileged can't pay for it.. We're not free, a socialist revolution would inherently mean more freedom in every way but the one where you have the illusion of being free. I'd like to suggest to you a few videos: On authoritarianism- by Second Thought The L's of former socialism- by Hakim And maybe more easily to digest, "Debunking every anticommunist argument" by Hakim too, iirc. But no one wants to repeat the old attempts, but rather construct a new one, correcting the mistakes that were made. I'm sure your local Marxist-Leninist party would welcome your suggestions on how to build a better socialism, or you could just watch first how they actually discuss issues and see what they actually believe and how they plan to do it successfully. Communism represents balance, equilibrium, equity and every synonym to balance and fairness that there is, SolarPunk(see the channels "andrewism" and "our changing climate" to understand exactly what kind of solarpunk I talk about) further emphasizes the "sustainability" one, not just social and economical sustainability/balance(which is communism), but also ecological sustainability as well. It begs not only for the end of oppression of the working class people by the ruling class, but also the end of the oppression of nature by those same people that through their corporations that destroy nature - not to build progress, but to profit over it and then rebury the obsolete products a few weeks later bc if they break we'll buy new ones which means they get to de-bury new materials from the earth destroying even more but keeping the wheel spinning, feeding the economical market cycle of eternal exploitation/exploration and disposal of the artificial excess created by the industry to justify its constancy and persistence, generating artificial demand for their "service" to make their products; That's already a different kind of socialism to the ones that came before it(and China has been drifting towards this new type of socialism too, because it actually is the only way that humanity will not just survive, but thrive. Every other future will be one of harsh resilience and withstanding, of barely resisting and just maybe surviving.) and it invites innovation and new ideas to build a better world, hopefully one where authority isn't needed or at least isn't as ubiquitous as it currently is and was in former socialist experiences.

It can be a little confusing. So hopefully I can help: there are many 'ideas' on what postmodernism REALLY is. The technical definition of postmodernism is a sort-of aesthetic, artistic 'movement' away from modernism. Architecture, music, dance, skepticism, etc. (Stuff responding or moving away from liberal enlightenment thought.) People also confuse postmodernism with poststructuralists as well. And they are not exactly the same. As stated, there are always different 'ideas' on what postmodernism is. Right-wingers, say people like Jordan Peterson, claim it's a "pernicious doctrine" or an ideology at large. Spawning from academia and/or feminists and "neo-Marxists". (Really laughably bad.) The idea of postmodernism that makes the most sense to me is from Frederic Jameson, (who I referenced in this video) as he sees postmodernism as a cultural logic. Of consumerism, confused states of malaise, (from lack of meaning, new libidinal economies away from religion and into capital) all from late-capitalism. Capitalism from post-WWII. Think of it as a sociological condition based on the new sociological consumerist impulses seen today. Don't beat yourself up, friend. This stuff isn't especially easy. Also, this video was an essay of mine. On 'my' ideas or articulations. Rather, than another video of mine when I condense a thinker down.

That's right.

@@epochphilosophy The day Michael Brooks died is the happiest day of my life.

@@thesummary2174 Ever wonder who you'd be without enemies or spite to define you?

@@thesummary2174 how sad does your life have to be in order to think that...

If nothing in the Buddhist day is like emptiness, then yes. I agree. Nothing matters. Form is emptiness, emptiness is form.