Smartest guy in the room and Moyers is no slouch

I highly recommend the Moyers / Campbell interview

Can you please list them?

@@user-qp2xy5zs7r It's a long list. Google THE GREAT BOOKS, ADLER

@@user-qp2xy5zs7rlook up britannica Great Books of the Western World. I believe the latest iteration has 60 books. Adler was the editor

The halfwits

Yeah I'm sure "we" do, Mr. Hallucination.

Yes we absolutely do

@@UniteAgainstEvil “WE”

Agreed

Moyers' "The Power of Myth" show with Joseph Campbell is incredible if you haven't seen it!!

At what point in time do you think we were close to our true destiny? If you asked me, I would say, The fulfilment of human destiny was achieved 2000 years ago in the person of Christ Jesus. I have reasons to think that but your question sparked my curiosity as to when you think in history human beings have been closer to their true destiny

Agree. This guy is an idealistic fool or useful idiot.

Funny enough in his book “how to listen and how to talk” he discusses what you mentioned if you care to know his thoughts on it

@@kristogirma8319 Thanks! I'd definitely give it a read.

“The Indians and Chinese laugh at Western parochialism.”

That also

Those were the lowest rank in the slaves class, as supposed in the republic (Plato never contradicts Aristotle).

10 points

Different Adler

Yes, but N and D demolished classical and analytic philosophy. Some impact!

You will seek knowledge in other topics. Or you will seek understanding in some area. Or seek wisdom. Your mind will know what to do.

The fatal flaw of ivory tower intellectuals. Physical intelligence is very real and very valuable .

@@opposingshore9322 Well, most of the great athletes were thinkers as well, I think one can posses both, a hybrid in some sense.

How would you feel about the idea that there might be something akin to a science of history, or that at which sociology/psychology/political science aims? I think I am in agreement with Adler when he claims that the end of science is production. Francis Bacon would claim that “what is true in knowledge is efficient in operation” (that is to say, ultimately, that knowledge is power). If the “collective fate” is liable to be an object of knowledge I would believe it to be liable towards technological limitation, as well (which for me is cause for optimism but I could see why that might cause despair in others)

P.S. where can I read more about what you’ve shared, if you’ve learned or written about it elsewhere

Correct. Do you desire correctly or do you desire incorrectly ?

@@hermannretzlaff1070 Nietzsche demonstrated it formally, but he was hardly the first nor the last to understand it in a basic sense. Anyone with even average intelligence and a little honesty can conceive of multiple examples where certain types of knowledge can be harmful to a person's effectiveness, motivation, goals and physical health. Freddy was merely able to distill it to the pithy aphorism that one's strength of soul is directly related to the quantity of undiluted truth that they can handle without ill effect, but being human we all need to have it diluted to a substantial degree nonetheless.

@@Laotzu.Goldbug Personally the mere concept of knowledge is so broad, specificity would be required for your point on “examples of harmful types of knowledge” to make sense as part of a wider argument against the constant pursuit of knowledge. Seeing as, for me, it simply demonstrates an opportunity for further distillation of said knowledge in order to further influence the motivation to acquire even more knowledge that can be ultimately “good” as it stands as a response to, and a combative, towards the ‘harmful knowledge’ that you speak of. And in turn would then strengthen and further authenticate one’s personal “goals” or “effectiveness”. For example coming to a realisation through certain said “harmful knowledge” that can reveal an ugly truth that relates to one’s “goals” as you say. Would that not push one to further strive for knowledge that can combat these threats to what one finds dearest? That being their individual “effectiveness, physical health, motivation” etc? Or would one rather dilute the truth in order to live in a lie that conforms to what they think to be their intellectual threshold, or ‘comfort zone’ per se. That further pervasion and desire to further distill knowledge in order to get to one’s truest self, or just simply the truest one can get in one lifetime of course, is what yourself or of course Nietzsche frowns upon and chalks up as the undignified “will to truth”, but is essentially that which I think is the most dignified thing a man can do. Plus it’s satisfying - a type of satisfaction that I’d say hits different when in comparison to that type of comfortable, inauthentic, ephemeral pleasure that comes with that dash of subconscious discomfort to the ‘harmful knowledge’ one wouldn’t want to admit they’ve conformed to. Then again I haven’t read the entirety of Nietzsches work, and have simply just gone off my current understanding of his concepts, and your comments. So yeah maybe I’m tripping in some respects lmao

@@Laotzu.Goldbug Personally the mere concept of knowledge is so broad, specificity would be required for your point on “harmful types of knowledge” to make sense as part of a wider argument against the constant pursuit of knowledge. Seeing as, for me, it simply demonstrates an opportunity for further distillation of said knowledge in order to further influence the motivation to acquire even more knowledge that can be ultimately “good” as it stands as a response to, and a combative, towards the ‘harmful knowledge’ that you speak of. And in turn would I think strengthen and further authenticate one’s personal “goals” or “effectiveness”. For example coming to a realisation through certain said “harmful knowledge” that can reveal an ugly truth that relates to one’s “goals” as you say. Would that not push one to further strive for more knowledge that can combat these threats to what one finds dearest? That being their individual “effectiveness, physical health, motivation” etc? Or would one rather dilute the truth in order to live in a lie that conforms to what they think is their intellectual threshold, and ‘comfort zone’ per se. That further pervasion and desire to further distill knowledge in order to get to one’s truest self, or just simply the truest one can get in one lifetime of course, is what yourself, or of course Nietzsche frowns upon and chalks up as the undignified “will to truth”, but is essentially that which I think is the most dignified thing a man can do. Plus it’s satisfying - a type of satisfaction that I’d say hits different when in comparison to that type of comfortable, inauthentic, ephemeral pleasure that comes with that dash of subconscious discomfort due to the ‘harmful knowledge’ one wouldn’t want to admit they’ve conformed to by way of ignorance and “dilution” Then again I still haven’t read the entirety of Nietzsches work, and have simply just gone off my current understanding of his concepts, and your comments. So maybe I’m tripping in some respects lmao

@@Laotzu.Goldbug Personally the mere concept of knowledge is so broad, specificity would be required for your point on “harmful types of knowledge” to make sense as part of a wider argument against the constant pursuit of knowledge. Seeing as, for me, it simply demonstrates an opportunity for further distillation of said knowledge in order to further influence the motivation to acquire even more knowledge that can be ultimately “good” as it stands as a response to, and a combative, towards the ‘harmful knowledge’ that you speak of. And in turn I think would strengthen and further authenticate one’s personal “goals” or “effectiveness”. For example coming to a realisation through certain said “harmful knowledge” that can reveal an ugly truth that relates to one’s “goals” as you say. Would that not push one to further strive for more knowledge that can combat these threats to what one finds dearest? That being their individual “effectiveness, physical health, motivation” etc? Or would one rather dilute the truth in order to live in a lie that conforms to what they think is their intellectual threshold, and ‘comfort zone’ per se. That further pervasion and desire to further distill knowledge in order to get to one’s truest self, or just simply the truest one can get in one lifetime of course, is what yourself, or of course Nietzsche frowns upon and chalks up as the undignified “will to truth”, but is essentially that which I think is the most dignified thing a man can do. Plus it’s satisfying - a type of satisfaction that I’d say hits different when in comparison to that type of comfortable, inauthentic, ephemeral pleasure that comes with that dash of subconscious discomfort due to the ‘harmful knowledge’ one wouldn’t want to admit they’ve conformed to by way of ignorance or “dilution”. Then again I still haven’t read the entirety of Nietzsches work, and have simply just gone off my current understanding of his concepts, and your comments. So maybe I’m tripping in some respects lmao

@@Laotzu.Goldbug Personally the mere concept of knowledge is so broad, specificity would be required for your point on “harmful types of knowledge” to make sense as part of a wider argument against the constant pursuit of knowledge. Seeing as, for me, it simply demonstrates an opportunity for further distillation of said knowledge in order to further influence the motivation to acquire even more knowledge that can be ultimately “good” as it stands as a response to, and a combative, towards the ‘harmful knowledge’ that you speak of. And in turn I think would strengthen and further authenticate one’s personal “goals” or “effectiveness”. For example coming to a realisation through certain said “harmful knowledge” that can reveal an ugly truth that relates to one’s “goals” as you say. Would that not push one to further strive for more knowledge that can combat these threats to what one finds dearest? That being their individual “effectiveness, physical health, motivation” etc? Or would one rather dilute the truth in order to live in a lie that conforms to what they think is their intellectual threshold, and ‘comfort zone’ per se. That further pervasion and desire to further distill knowledge in order to get to one’s truest self, or just simply the truest one can get in one lifetime of course, is what “Freddy” frowns upon, and chalks up as the undignified “will to truth”, but is essentially that which I think is the most dignified thing a man can do. Plus it entails a type of satisfaction that I’d say hits different when in comparison to that type of comfortable, inauthentic, ephemeral pleasure that comes with that dash of subconscious discomfort due to the ‘harmful knowledge’ one wouldn’t want to admit they’ve conformed to by way of ignorance or “dilution”. Then again I still haven’t read the entirety of Nietzsches work, and have simply just gone off my current understanding of his concepts, and your comments. So maybe I’m tripping in some respects lmao

Live life in accordance with reason.

I’m suspicious of that myself, and I’m certainly no Aristotle scholar. But such is the risk of skipping the video lol

tldr: no happiness ever came from a tl;dr

TLDR: there are no shortcuts to knowledge, wisdom, or understanding. we must work and sacrifice

lol

Tell me what you know of love?

@@thomasd2444 I know there isn't enough of it in this World...

Well good thing none of their path is of a mechanism

@@ReflectiveJourneyModern science is based on mechanistic principles