In fact, half of the human population is below average, nothing to be ashamed of 😅

Oh no. Anyways...

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Does it matters

@@bljrpahamTranslate to Englich

by saying this you renounce any nihilistic worldview you may have had

@@MrBeas_Cousin for which there are few. 🖤

false dichotomy

no-true-scotsman fallacy

@@laplacesdemon01 oh brother this guy stinks

Good point I guess so.

Absurdism is a nihilism where you have fun along the way 🤷🏽‍♂️

Nihilism is ultimately a destructive lens to look at life with. Absurdism is an answer to the void.

Absurdism resonated with me immediately.

​@@Snook_YTit's literally not a good point though

only wish he did it in a little more of a deranged way, like his whole "I'm not gonna bash or attack any philosophy" almost made me click off at the beginning

​@@dutchthenightmonkey3457Hey bro, by any chance are you a person that leans ⬅️👈?

Exactly, that's what draw me in. It was a nice vid overall so I'm all for a part 2. Part 2 would also be interesting for the other traditions it could touch. In a part two, I'd definitely include pragmaticism. I think relativism would also be important to be included. Hedonism could also be interesting as a link between ancient philosophy and contemporary society.

​@@xiiir838 Brother, your comment made me curious so I looked at your channel and saved playlists. I understand your feelings and I sympathize with your frustrations. Liberalism is a disease, but the analysis that results in your viewpoint misses the mark. Your enemy is not the poor liberal, minority, or the queer kid. Your enemy is the elite class who profit off your body, and your labor. Engaging in identity politics drives a wedge between you and your neighbors and distracts you from this fact. I know times are bleak right now and the anger you feel blots out the depression. That is normal. We are all feeling this in some way due to the underlying contradictions in our society. I don't have all the answers but the catalyst that began clearing things up for me was the book "Native Son". I wish you well and if you want to talk more let me know :)

its really stupid to rank philosophies.

I really was even if stoic and Nietzsche disagree on a major point. Nietzsche believe you should live for your self, while stoic believe you should live for good(god). They in a sense have a similar way of seeing life

And life problems, I really appreciate seing somebody saying that. Cause I have been thinking about that for a while and nobody seem to think like me ahah.

@@charlesprevost8501 I wouldn’t say stoics “live for god” at all. Stoicism predates Christianity by hundreds of years, and a majority of history’s greatest stoics were not Christian. The belief of stoicism is to make peace with what you can’t change for the better, and focus on what you can, which generally translates letting go of outside influences and focusing on bettering yourself.

@@t.b.cont. you’re completely right. Still the greatest stoic were strong believers of Grec myth. Like Zeus etc. Also, yes Stoic did believe that outside influence should not change you for worse. This was just a part of their belief tho. Stoic thru this whole to not let the work change you did it to serve the world. Therefore, serve the good. And in their mind, the idea of good was said by gods*(religion). The stoic would therefore serve gods*. It’s a part you is usually forgotten today, as most modern Stoic are atheist. Still, the fondation of stoicism is intersected to religion(grec Myth).

@@t.b.cont. *

Nothing is absolute. Thats what i live by

Hell yeah

But you think absurdism is completely right? How is that not contradicting the whole of absurdism? Also how are you first naming people from certain countries and then suddenly religions? Your view: 'if i fail it also doesnt Matter' seems more nihilistic than absurdistic. Youre trying to cope with stress and depression via absurdism, it can help, but maybe read into it more, and if you already have, nice but keep the options open, you never know who is wrong or right...

​@@justusschoenmakers8987 Did OP say that absurdism is the one true answer or something? Is OP's statement, "I'm an absurdist," necessarily something that concludes all search for any more meaning? Can't absurdism easily overlap with a continued search, discovery, and invention of meaning? 😅

​​​@@ripvanvinkle6881So "Nothing is absolute" is apparently an absolute principle that you live by. I'm sure you can see the contradiction.

Beliefs are rigid and hard to change. Ideas are meant to be maluable. People get ideas all the time all on their own where as what people believe often boils down to who people listen to, and what makes sense to them. Thing is fiction is only readable when it makes sense so people are often fooled, yet you have so many things that were once fanciful imaginations in scifi that are now reality. Actual philosphers really only reflect on themselves not so much society, more so how they view it at that time. Actual philosophers dont have rituals built into their philosophies although many of the currently reknowned ones used certain fungi to kickstart the process at times. Beliefs cause arguements that span thousands of years and lead to wars. Ideas bring conversations and other healthy interactions leading to prosperity. This is why political or religious philosophies and philosophers are sketchy, with actual philosphers trying their best to keep their personal beliefs and biases out of the equation entirely, because it narrows the field of thought leading to more focus on desires of heavenly nirvana and fear of the torments of not achieving such. Actually i had a seperate reason for the politcal part, but upon review i conclude my reply....

This is something I have struggled with as I am a libertarian. I often see too many libertarians rely solely on deontology rather than consequentialism. As you said, life is nuanced!

@@checkmate716 Right! And to add onto this, I have a close friend who is a very active libertarian in politics and we debate it all the time. And my take away is always “with some tweaking of policies and agendas you guys should be sweeping every single election”. I think most people would flock to libertarian if you could pull back some of their ideas. Especially with how tired people are of right and left

Not all libertarians believe in 0 government. Some just think that government doesn’t need to interfere and try to fix every single problem in the world. Sometimes they’re just not qualified to fix some issues and should stick to their own fields and specific tasks within a society.

@@nerdcorner2680 Yeah, the libertarian party needs to move away from the more "extremist" views. Focusing on practicality and little steps will allow the party to progress in a much more efficient manner!

Yeah, I was kind of taken aback by his statement on this. It's maximum good for most people. Think ozymandious. He killed millions of people to save billions. Neither outcome is preferred. It's the trolly problem when you take out any preference or bias you hold.

Yeah the Utilitarianism part of the video was really wrong :/

Its also the belief that humans can predict the future

​@@steventolerhan5110to some extent forecasting the future is possible, though pretty limited and very challenging. The good judgement project does a pretty good job overall

I think he means hedonism

Whatever nerd

I don't think it's meant to be serious rather just a video for philosophy noob who could get interested and learn new things

Nietzsche is an existencialist

Lectures exist

Now that you say it, yeah a lot

Underrated comment

Facts

Funny 😂

😂😂😂

That's just, like, your philosophical take man.

Philosophy is irrational, like promiscuity

I don't exactly know them either, care to summarize a distinguishment between them?

​@@Yusa_Beach Basically metaphysics is about lived reality, ethics about morality and epistemology about knowledge itself. If I'm not mistaken

This is a comment of someone that is well read on the subject.

​@@Yusa_BeachEmpiricism its an epistemological branch that says (oversimplified) that true knowledge its possible only by experience. On the other side,existencialism its more focused on searching the meaning on life,what do we do with it and why. As you see, they cannot be compares as they try to answer different questions Its like trying to compare physics with psychology They just study different things

For me, it was the mispronunciation of many words that tells me his script has words he’s never used in real life. Tell me more about emfearicism my guy.

Isn't he literally making a tier list about philosophy? how would he even be objective about it?

It's very clear he has no idea what he is talking about

A guy who says this has no clue on how to make a philosophy tier list

Yeah, he should just be objective enough to admit its a subjective basis to his list.

@@halqthedarktemplarcan you enlighten me what should he talking about?

Oooooo i cant wait to hear it Edit: dammit i mustve missed it. Do you have approx timestamp?

​@@cdogthehedgehog692318:35

Leibniz too is pretty butchered

Laissez-faire was also brutal

Emfearicisms

😅 What if the AI were trained a bit to mispronounce words? I'm only kidding in this specific example (I'm pretty confident he's a real boy (Pinocchio reference)), but training an AI to mispronounce words could easily be done. Making it convincing would be a little harder, but with time & effort, almost anything is possible. We're nearing a time when & where anything online could be AI-genned. We're nearing a time when & where our smartphones or similar devices might carry powerful AIs on them that generate all the content we might ever need. Soon, gone might be the days of servers providing us most of our content. Instead, AI could generate in real-time more content than you and I could ever consume in our lifetimes. 😅 What an absurd future lies ahead of us. Something like the internet might exist for along time; however, instead of it being used as a highway for content as it is now, it might be better used to update all the many, smaller AIs that exist on smaller devices than the large servers that house Big AI. The Big AI will outdo humanity in math, science, and arts. It will update the smaller AIs via some kind of internet connection. The small AIs can provide us with evergreater math, science, arts, content, media, guidance, and so on. All of this is speculative, but it will be interesting to see how things play out in the next few decades. I tell folks over and over, "The 21st century will be the most absurd and surreal century of humanity ever." I'm grateful and excited to be alive during this time. So long as I live, I will get to observe some of the most absurd change in human history. A bit of apprehension though: will humanity be relevant in coming decades or centuries? 😅 If the ASI (s for super) outdoes humanity in math, science, art, and so on, then what do humans have to exist for? 😅 This is possibly the most absurd part of it to me: humans have made a future where we humans aren't needed anymore.

Just by the sheer size of this response...... my lord......I guess it fits on a video about philosophy

​​@@Paraselene_Taois humanity relevant now? Is, besides the natural, already existing powers that are greater than ourselves, the one we create ourselves the one that makes us irrelevant?

@@102728 Yes, I see what you mean. In the scope of the universe, yeah, humanity barely existed. We're on one small rock orbiting a normal looking star, and that star orbits a normal galaxy with roughly 200 billion other stars, and that galaxy is one of roughly 200 billion galaxies in the observable universe, and the whole universe could be much larger than our observable bubble, and the observable bubble might be splitting into astronomically large numbers of universes in a Many Worlds model or it might all be existing in complicated superposition or something else comical. It's all laughably absurd: we barely exist(ed). Here on the little planet, though, we've had a fairly measurable effect. We have to consider it in relative terms. Did humanity affect the universe? Practically, no, we haven't. Did humanity affect the little planet we live on? Practically, yes, we have and continue to do so. We're living in the Anthropocene: different kinds of man-made pollution & evidence of humanity exist; CO2 & methane at almost unseen levels in hundreds of thousands of years or possibly millions of years are causing global climate change; microplastics and "forever" chemicals everywhere; nearly all surface of Earth has been touched by mankind except maybe portions of Antarctica; we're the only known species to make it (however briefly, and some people consider it a conspiracy) to the Earth's moon; we're the only species on this planet to split and fuse atoms (fission did happen naturally in Oklo, Gabon, and a few other places, but we've made a real point of making isotopes beyond 92 on the periodic table); biodiversity is crashing downwards at rates probably never seen outside mass extinction events; nearly all megafauna alive these days is food or work animals for us; massive swaths of land are monocultures; deforestation and urbanization is perfectly visible from satellite view; and there are more examples that I'm probably missing. 😅 So yeah, we're irrelevant to the universe, but we're kind of relevant to the Earth. Meanwhile, AI might be an intelligent tool that humanity makes that ends up making humanity irrelevant (back to default irrelevancy) on Earth. 😅 This is probably the most absurd part of it to me: we might close the loop of our relevancy soon. That we were relevant at all, that we did cause the Anthropocene extinction/calamity event on Earth, and that we might fix the problem ourselves by giving balanced control over to our ASI systems. Maybe everything returns to normal: humanity never was relevant to the universe. Have I made sense? I hope you have a good day.

all of his info was WRONG tho.

So you sitting on my face right?

Fr, mans is on the content GRIND

He’s not working too hard, lots of Chat GPT here.

​@@jacobschroeder5615 how?

@@jacobschroeder5615 Fr, I could very easily hear that

Yes, like the joker. Existentialism is the healthier path tho.

@ServingSoul In the big picture, it is. But if you can bring the belief of meaning to either yourself or others, that meaning is a thing and it is meaningful.

@ServingSoul Isn't it natural to yearn for meaning? Otherwise I would just decide to end myself immediately on the spot instead of suffering for absolutely no reason.

@ServingSoul And how is monotheism also not a form of cope? You'd be putting your faith in something that might not be true as opposed to finding meaning in accepting that there might be no universal meaning and just setting your own purpose.

@ServingSoul How do you know that independent is an entity like god? And what if we are insignificant to that god? There could be many other possibilities and nothing can be said for certain so I'd say it's all ultimately a meaningless struggle. And by creating my own meaning, I meant setting a purpose for the time I'm here if there is no universal purpose instead of giving in to nihilism and just ending myself. Like I said in my original comment, it's basically just nihilism without the meaningless part or rather without accepting the meaningless part.

this is THE philosophical approach. anything less is short-sighted and damaging most of the time

@@phoyaeyesonlytotally agree, everyone tries to choose a philosophy to make their own. While you should study all existing philosophy and incorporating elements from the to make your own unique philosophy

Exactly all of them are just different views of how we percieve life so of course I have the will to see the bigger picture.

Its all subjective.

definetely

​@@landenmoudy5749I recommend Sapolsky's works as foundation for a determinist mind and the inexistence of free will or agency.

It doesn't matter if free will exists or not, it doesn't make a difference

Yeah i find that weird free will has always been a wishy washy concept and everything we can find supports a more deterministic view

he also just gets 80% of all his info wrong, like it was chatpgt or wikipedia. He misuses terms and clearly does not understand the different branches of philosophy or the difference between truth proposition and responses. Terrible video.

@@JNB0723 I largely agree. This content wasn't high quality. I was going to critique his recently published "philosophy ice berg" video, but as I was listening and writing notes, I had too much to critique. I was writing pages of notes with timestamps. I think I had four pages of notes from the first hour of the three-hour long video. It was crazy. I don't even have a degree in philosophy. I just like the field, and I've listened to or read maybe a thousand hours of philosophy lectures, books, and commentary over the last four years or so.

Because they're all nonsense

Terrible video. Half the info was straight up wrong, he never lists sources, he misuses terms, mispronounces names, never uses evidence, etc.

everything was wrong.

Ayn Rand fanboy

Its incredibly clear he just read the wiki page for it and heard "freedom" thought it sounded good and put it in a because of that

Subjectivism is so much better, one could argue that subjectivism even has objectivism in mind

Let me guess: you're a ⬅️👈 wing person, aren't you?

Yeah i can't take a channel that puts objectivism in A tier seriously. Like how do you have a video ranking philosophies and then put one of the worst and most harmful ones in A tier 💀

No, if you genuinely acted out Nihilism and thought about it during every single interaction you ever have you will become depressed. That's just inevitable. What you're doing is pretending like life is meaningful when it fits you to gain positive emotions, but only accept meaninglesness when it's about philosophizing.

@@tubsy. all I hear is a lot of whinging from someone who is upsetti spaghetti 😘

All I see is intellectual dishonesty ​@@chukyuniqul

@@tubsy. could be. or maybe I'm different from you and can accept the inherent meaninglessness in life and see it as conferring my choices their own special meaning.

​@@tubsy. OP's point is probably nihilism through thought. Not everybody goes straight to depression when you expect less through a basis of a reality check, this might be a solution to anxiety and overthinking. What you're talking about is nihilism through action, which is dangerous because it may affect other people. Nihilism always factors in realism which basically counters social rules created for everyone to obey. The only extreme side of it is it can be used to force anyone into anarchy which is ironic since it now has a "meaning" when taken into action.

this was quite possibly the worst tier list. Half the info was straight up wrong, he never lists sources, he misuses terms, mispronounces names, never uses evidence, etc.

Today man's are hiding rather than controlling their emotion women will cry feel better and learn men will hide everything until they explode or will transform it to anger

That is so fuckin stupid. In today’s modern society any man should be able to adopt any philosophy they desire. Stoicism is corny and just another way of acting like a “ s i g m a “

Agreed, even things like absurdism are based on feelings, the feeling "well man, life it's kinda crazy", that's why absurdism, leaves to some general good feeling ideology. On the other hand Stoicism recognises the value of the human, and that we loose are temper and can be quite irrational at times, but controlling oneself, knowing every extension of your being, that's why more loving and virtuos than any popular philosophical ideology

True but don't forget that Stoicism is also based on feelings, what makes it special is it teaches self-improvement and control over your own emotions compared to other philosophies/ideologies who are too busy trying to find answers to the questions provided by nihilism.

@@Zero-zr6xx shots fired, mate!^^

but all of his info was just incorrect. this guy has never even picked up a philosophy textbook, and all his terms are mixed up. how can anyone like these videos

Why is tyranny always bad?

Funny, it seems like you’re taking it very seriously

From my point of view, absurdism is just the inevitable conclusion of nihilism. If nothing matters then you are free to decide what matters to you. Your belief in meaning *is* meaning because the only thing that shapes your world is the way you see it. If you believe in something that something is as true as it gets, and it doesn’t matter if it isn’t because nothing matters right?

​you start creating your own veliefs after nihilism, absurdism is not the only way​, it is just a fresh boot to start over@@nitaigur6990

​@@nitaigur6990No, Existentialism is the natural conclusion of Nihilism. Absurdism is the result of seeing Nihilism and descending into madness to cope and use meaningless to achieve happiness. However; Existentialists, or Active Nihilists, further employ philosophy to defeat the meaninglessness of Nihilism by creating meaning for themselves and with the aid of others, often employing principles from other forms of philosophy to establish even truer morality.

Yeah I agree I kinda forgot about existentialism but I think it’s more similar to my conclusion than absurdism

Buddhism isn't fully east asian btw It is technically Indian, as it originated there, but the Chinese added a lot to it

@@Nobody_247 would indian philosophies not count as eastern? How would you categorise them?

@@JonTonyJim The term “Eastern Philosophy” is usually used for Chinese and other East Asian countries such as Japan and South East Asia. But if we talk about the outside perspective, I guess India is considered Eastern as well.

Just replace eastern with Asian so Mr perfect won't get so mad smh lol

Experience Meaningless: Experience and prejudice. To accept sight and illusion in the same relativity and not be a slave. Slavery: To be free from the growth of intellect. Experience free from understanding and memory as triviality. Memory: reduced down to recollection without review, in a universe of consistent physics; a triviality of organic invincibility. Experience rendered down to self-sensual recall without existential considerations; meaningless. Prejudice: to accept the delusion that no human can consider and choose. For experience to outweigh sense and sensible prudence and suggest in definite physicality that humanity is as inorganic as the constructs we purpose. Triviality to the concept of Slave, is Mass to Gravity, either one hypothetical without the physics of Trivialization or Mass. One requiring the circumstance of genesis, the other requiring absence of necessity; Nativitus Ancillae. Relativity: the universe revolves around you, but only if you watch with others; relativity born of tripartite geometry; self (observing), other (conferring), objective (occurring): co-intimate experience and co-context. Relativity: all things can happen to you, most didn't, you only know what you think, you only think what you can hypothesize, all understanding revolves around perception and interaction. Understanding and position; relative. Hypothesis: a proposition of a form unsensed in the physical, in the definition "scientific" it is the Fructus Ventris Physica Quantitatis; the guessable, potent in measurability, invisibilia ad carnalis, observationis codificationem. Hypothesis: a concept just beyond sensible observation but within sensory or facultative relativity to intimate comprehension; the space an observer feels safe to coniectura didicit doctrina. A cerebrum exercitium. Meaningless: the words of any personal exposition without the person. Interpretation of intended and intimate communication removed from its physical occurrence. To hypothesize in the spirit of Freud, all are I. Meaningless: a description of a building behind it's façade to a man on the street. Definition without sensible example; invisibility bestowed by the suggestibility of the potent potentiality of descriptionem alienum. Reference without experience, definition without context, experience without definition, definition without reference; to theorize on fancy, the possibilities of cause bereft of "scientific" prejudice towards provable. A description of the unseen to the comfortable in sense, and sensibility; hypothesis delivered socially by the perfecte mediocris to their perfecte mediocris aetatis. Interest and applause humilis, the sermo aequalis. Contemporary communication, external warehouse for internal deliberation. Deliberatio externa by contrast is built on extra-contemporary, the functional in sense and nerve unwilling to mal-hypothesize popularis prudentia. By definition a contemporary is both naturally occurring and actively intersecting, or it is a generational (illusory), built of temporal coincidence. Meaningless in contemporations intimate, capable of saying they share an age. The addict kind Lonliness is a myth spread by the ill, unwelled by popular delusion (self accepted). The sickly, pulsing out their (self) comforting radiance, the marking of a predators territory. A light to shine on all slow enough to not revile it for it's false and reason less eviction of self from capability. The prey; uninitiated youth, vulnerable innocence. Argue not with the aged (or experienced) self-convinced. The miracle of emotional conformation of physical fact convincing to the unknowing, under steady application, overly sweetened (for the self) ideals of pleasure and comfort, the prey forget they knew a peace that didn't requiring feeding or explanation. The virtue of falsely buoyed stability grinding the ignorant, young, and uncatered, all taken in by the sin of kindness as apex. To gift the sickness that tells a human "human emotion in the negative is unnecessary and beyond comprehension or tolerance". To know that there are those in the world of humanity, who in their generationally refined adherence to parasite coddling, will continue to teach the youth "drugs are a healthy and functional right of aware and intelligent people" is a mark of shame in this age of our collective development. The truth of human being betrayed by the proposed necessity of stimulation beyond the natural state, it's supposed normality vouchsafed; sobriety (health) ignored as a greater insanity than parasitism. Salve the wounded pride of the vulgar addict, crucify the outspoken advocate of reassessment. This is not a statement of conflict, rather a portrait of the true and natural order in it's biased equality (comfort belonging to those who crave it most). Exogeny In an era of fear, humanity is tested. The exodus of existential loneliness is a heavy burden. Self-indulgent contemporary values, the pitiful death of the faithful gregarious martyr. Silenced in the passion of virtue, in the fury of desire as necessity, the ideal dies for the joy of man as the ideal devotee of nothing. Endogenous evidence of exogenous truth, derived from noble prejudiced purposes, refutes the pathologies of nature as the folly of prosaic and sensible sustainability. Euphoria at any cost, at any cost.

*philosophies Also, absurdism is nihilism so...

"I'm a nihilist-absurdist. But before all that, I am." -OmeganKryist, an existencialist.

Isn't being a Nihilist-Absurdist just an absurdist?

@@Wulk pretty much yeah. It’s mostly to say I am on the fence between both and don’t make that big of a distinction between them. I am not an existentialist though purely through me being a determinist on the same grounds that I am an atheist (essentially I see it as the non position, agnostic with lower burden to assume such doesn’t exist).

Your use of the word "contextualist" is interesting. I guess it translates to "constructivist" in my personal lexicon, but you might name it contextualist as you like. 😅 I really like George Kelly's Personal Construct Theory, but hardly anyone talks about him. His work helped lead to Cognitive Behavioral Theory. Basically, humans are scientists who constantly think and perceive the world through mental constructs. Mental constructs are pseudo-dichotomous spectrums that describe a thing: good-bad, light-dark, happy-sad, interested-bored, and any other mental construct. People build worldviews with these mental constructs. We're constantly experimenting: we test the usefulness of our constructs against the real world. It's possible to develop new and useful mental constructs throughout life. Also, we can borrow mental constructs from other people and keep them I'm our minds. Overall, I like Personal Construct Theory a lot, but hardly anyone talks about it. To me, a responsible person is one who recognizes what mental constructs they're using, what mental constructs other folks use, and finally how do we help make these worldviews made of mental constructs work together in a harmonious manner. 😅

@@Paraselene_Tao Yeah suppose that is somewhat similar to what I refer to as contextualism, least adjacent to what I mean. I sum it up as thus: “It’s a rejection of absolutes. It is to say that objectivity is not an inherent property of things, but rather a property derived from the relationship between things.” It’s related to relativism, but with the intent to have a foundation to which we can understand things in a concrete or objective manner.

Good and bad don't exist?? How? Explain to me, I'm very curious

@@SimoneGermani04 . Once I stopped I lost all feelings of guilt and empathy and shame it has made life way better I don’t feel bad about a thing! Good and bad don’t exist they are just terms that humans and religion made to control us. The only true law is the law of nature. What you view as good or evil is based solely upon your own perception. What you view as evil, someone else may view as good. These concepts are purely human and cannot be observed in nature. Good and evil do not actually exist. And at a microscopic level everything is made out of particles in life and there are no good particles or bad ones they are just particles moving around. So weather you kill or steal it’s all fundamentally the same thing it’s all just particles moving around. And this goes much more deeper and it explains a lot in life and even after life. EDIT: Some people are saying since I don’t believe in good or bad I’m okay with getting beat up and won’t view it as bad, but that’s a dumb way to look at it since good and bad don’t exist it can’t be good or bad but the only true terms is wanted or unwanted to that specific person. The person causing harm may view it as wanted to them but the victim may view it as unwanted but that does not mean it’s objectively “good” or “bad

​@@SimoneGermani04The sense of morality is entirely subjective and unique to each individual human. There's no greater meaning to it, therefore it is of no more importance than the taste in food or clothing

Thousands of years of intelligent humans debating and experimenting makes a pretty strong set of societal morals. There’s obviously things that can be better and will eventually get there but if you do things without thought just because it doesn’t really matter you will run into problems. Like the reason you feel guilt is because humans evolved to work together to survive and if you do something that hurts the tribe you will hurt yourself in the process.

@@James-eh4ye I’m not saying that it’s a bad thing that they are made up I’m just saying good and bad don’t exist that’s a fact but it’s good for growth in a society, I’m just not pulled against the same moral constraints as everyone else

You are referring to existentialism, that's when you realize life has meaning and you must create your own meaning. Nihilist believe there is no meaning and it cannot be create because life is inherently meaningless

That pretty not nihilistic and basically exactly what existentialism is! 'A nihilist believes that life is meaningless and the only known truth is the existence of the self. An existentialist believes that life is meaningless too, but that meaning can be created by the individual'. Visit the existentialism subreddit if you want to learn more.

When you come home you will treat your children, your spouse and family as if they were meaningful. In other words, you'll only be a Nihilist when you have to philosophize, but will act out the opposite. You'll only acknowledge Nihilism when it fits you.

Nihilism is a truth propisition. Its either true or false. It cannot be good or bad or right or wrong, its either fact or not. How you respond is up to you, absurdism, existentialism, optimistic nihilism, pessimistic nihilism... all up to you.

Go read philosophy books or watch videos that cite there sources, this video is clearly written by someone who has studied philosophy for like a week. Half the info was straight up wrong, he never lists sources, he misuses terms, mispronounces names, never uses evidence, etc.

its stupid, this whole video was written by someone who got all their info from wikipedia, because half the info was straight up wrong, he never lists sources, he misuses terms, mispronounces names, never uses evidence, etc.

If you want to learn actual philosophy, read the books or watch videos with cited resources. Half his info was straight up wrong, he never lists sources, he misuses terms, mispronounces names, never uses evidence, etc.

i also am not very philosophical, i'm here just to say that i agree

Finally someone who also thought of this idea, it's been on my head multiple times where people should just take the best ideas and lessons each philosophy gives and compile them into your own philosophy, that way you can fully adapt and become the best version of yourself.

Determinism is connected to materialism, do u want to be idealist?

@@tweid8457 what are you on about?

@@placeholder3863 For me Determinism is true, because of dialetics. Dialetics is a materialistic view on world, because even though there was idealistic dialetics (Hegel), it came from evolution of philosophy,it will be objective idealism. Idealism divides onto 2 main things (u can combine them) : Subjective, Objective Idealistic subjectivism is a philosophical perspective that combines elements of idealism and subjectivism. It posits that the only reality that exists is the mental or subjective experience of individuals. According to this view, the world is not an objective, independent reality, but rather a creation of the mind.Example : rose becomes red whne we look on it Objective : there is an ideal spirit/god/world etc. while our world is existing because of that thing.Hegel had an idea of objective idealism, where a spirit evolved to get knowledge about itself (very short explanation). 🤗

@@tweid8457 interesting

@@tweid8457 I am a determinist as well, but I dont quite get what youre saying. Hegel's Dialectic deals with rhetorical theory- a subset of Aristotelian Dialectic Theory.

Aka optimistic nihilism.

It's basically the neutral DLC ending we get, existentialism is the good ending, and pure nihilism is the bad ending

@@Radioactivepaladin0703 optimistic nihilism IS NOT absurdism.

the video was terrible though.

“determined” by Robert Sapolsky might open your mind to the idea!

It has evidence like most almost all things we can find having traceable causes and thus in a sense being determined to have happened because of those causes.

Why is nihilism worthy of being clowned on?

@@kafkaesque5943 I'm guessing he thinks all nihilists are the frowning friends.

@@kafkaesque5943Because it’s one of the main reasons that society is so messed up nowadays.

Show me an scientific article that proves (with the scientific method) determinism is true

​@ricky.t.1658 I usually don't enjoy being pedantic, but your comment comes across so combative that I feel obligated to make this reply. Firstly, when you say "scientific article," what exactly are you asking for? What is your standard of evidence? Are you looking for a scientific theory or law? Secondly, in the scientific method, nothing "proves" anything true. By saying that, you've demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method. There is no single piece of information that "proves" anything in science. It can only serve as evidence of a described phenomenon. You come across as incredibly bad faith, and honestly, even if there existed scientific evidence to back up his claim, im not inclined to believe you'd accept it.

@@JosephThompson-cn6sn this is the best thing you had to say against my argument? Xd Ok, show scientific evidence that uses the scientific method to get a conclusion that suggests determinism is true

@ricky.t.1658 I wasn't making an argument, and, continuing with the theme of misusing terms, [in this case "argument"] neither were you. You continue to appear combative. Edit: it's also funny that in your new, revised comment, you still demonstrate a misunderstanding of the scientific method. Science is used to explain specific, empirical phenomena. When you say, "Find scientific evidence that suggests determinism is true," that premise wouldn't be found within a scientific hypothesis. A scientific approach would seek to establish an explanation for a specific phenomenon. It starts and stops there. It's impartial to determinism. Other people could then propose that explanation and phenomena as evidence of the existence of determinism, but the standard you've set is unreasonable and unscientific.

@@JosephThompson-cn6sn therefore, as you said, science does not prove determinism, as the original comment claims it does

@@Ex-memegoditanah… we are all the same… melted together… swallowed in a cosmos in an ever present embrace that we call existence.

@@Ex-memegodita beyond definition

Can't go wrong with plagiarism! 😉

are you somehow between stupid and dumb also?

@@Ex-memegodita communism but we all do lsd

That was my reaction too. No way is justification of selfishness a better idea than utility perfectionism.

​@@EmmaHopman Ask that to any american president... for them, socialists are enemies of the world. They preach individual and capital. Utilitarianism just didn't work out, it is an ideal picture that was disgraced and disrespected by millions. And now, a society build uppon the good of the collective has to tear down the capitalists bastion to build a new. You can't force everyone to colaborate, and there will always be a selfish b* that will work against the benefits of all. For us who live this life, getting there will make our world a dystopia in the process... Ideals have no practicality, at least for now.

He clearly just doesnt understand what either of them are

@@jeba6549 bingo.

The tier list was not only going against what philosophy stands for, but everything was wrong. Half the info was straight up wrong, he never lists sources, he misuses terms, mispronounces names, never uses evidence, etc.

have you read "The myth of Sisyphus"?

Shit it really hurts you?

Yes lol that’s exactly what I was thinking. I mean I don’t this Camus is that bad but no S tier- he’s a very good and accessible intro into the early 20th century ideas. You are right that the myth of Sisyphus is a diluted Ubermench. Nietzsche easily rains supreme. Nietszche’s influence isn’t even just limited to existentialism and I kinda hate putting that label on him too. Simone De Bouvier (kinda how to spell it) and Judith Butler have all contributed to the advancement of feminism based on Nietszche’s philosophy. Foucault and Derrida have interpreted Nietszche into post-structural ideas. Deleuze even interpreted his work as a metaphysician for the ideas of Becoming and Force. My problem with these philosophy channels is that they focus too much on identity and aesthetic rather than a philosophical movement and its significance. Everyone wants to say “I’m ___, I believe ___” rather than learning and deeply understanding the core foundations of these ideas. Ironically a Nietszche quote comes to mind typing this: “morals are inherently aesthetic”. Currently I see this channel and its viewers as engaging with the aesthetic of morality rather than its principle

​@@tylers9006 I agree but I think it's pretty clear that this isn't really a philosophy channel, I don't think he has a background in philosophy or is well-read at least

He also put Kierkegaard there who was a literal Christian

A big part of Camus’ La Peste is the maxim «Be decent», which you can use as a basis for a worldview. Otherwise i agree

It doesn't even have to be a tough pill to swallow I don't think, since it actually doesn't interfere or change any practicality of our situation. Predetermination and free will are not mutually exclusive since free will is the result and part of the mechanism of how the world enfolds. The determined outcomes of free will are also not denying the existance of it either.

In other words we decide the way we do, because we choose to do so, and we choose to do so based on the other variables. I got this from CTMU of Chris Langan. I only read alittle bit of it, because his work is very difficult to wrap head around.

@@GloryBlazer That is a nice take, as a “practical” free will does not interfere with determinism. But the ideas associated with it, such as guilt or blame, do not follow, at least not intuitively. Free will under determinism has less importance, and so we suffer.

@@rthuevo Guilt is a feeling, which is a process that doesn't have to be understood in the context of determinism for it to take place, since our brain functions intuitively without the need for phylosophical knowledge. The same concept that makes us decide can make us feel guilt or blame, but at the same time we can dig deeper and try to understand the hystoric reasons for what has happenned/is happening.

@@GloryBlazer my apologies, I mean it in the context of the legal system, not in general day to day life

Half the info was straight up wrong, he never lists sources, he misuses terms, mispronounces names, never uses evidence, and compares different branches of philosophy (epistemology, ethics, meta-physics).

What do you mean by "a bit different"? What are your philosophies and viewpoints? And what do you believe in?

@@exerwrttew3583 Thank you for asking. After a month I don't remember what exactly I disagreed with. Also, my personal philosophy is a bit wide topic... which I REALLY should try to write out. Just not here. Sorry.

womp womp

fool

It's incompatible with humans? Oh of course, there are no greedy human beings. The only reason you rank Objectivism low is because you personally don't like it. There's nothing wrong with selfishness, and there's nothing "objective" about your stance.

@@tubsy. Naturally, no, humans aren't greedy, they are taught to be greedy, which is the actual issue. My stance isn't necessarily that humans can't be greedy, but that greediness is inherently an outside negative trait that should be avoided. Humans evolved and are naturally mutually cohesive creatures. Being selfish, greedy is inherently negative because it goes against how we organize socially. Hence why so many inequalities still exist despite our abundance of wealth and resources, you can't be greedy forever dude. Eventually all our resources and wealth will be gone and the only ones screwed over are the ones who weren't lucky enough for the past 100 or so years. But you tell me, do you like selfishness? How do you humans overall view selfish people? I think it's a pretty universal understanding for a reason. Of course, the only "intellectual" to disagree, is a libertarian from decades ago whose ideology now is more associated with lowering the age of consent and trafficking organs. Substantially degenerate in my opinion.

Its not just because its morally repugnant either objectivism as a whole is a complete joke that nobody takes seriously

@@jeba6549 Accordimg to what moral standard is it repugnant?

Lol. The problem is that selfishness is the only that keeps you alive. If you reject all the things that are beneficial to you, you will have to give up on absolutely everything. Because selfishness is essentially taking care of yourself and pursuing your own goal and keeping your body alive is a part of it. If you weren't selfish, you would give the device you are writing from to the poor, which you haven't done. So you are already a selfish person who thinks only about himself and doesn't share with those who need your device (hint: there are lots of people). So, you are a selfish person yourself and hypocrite.

Wait he said that ? Probably a joke hopefully

The opposite of determinism is indeterminism. Objectivism is a joke philosophy that has positions on way more than just ontology.

Psychology has proved countless times biological determinism is completely false

@@jeba6549why is objectivism a joke?

@@ricky.t.1658 It is totally ridiculous no serious philosopher takes it in any way seriously most of its main concepts can be proven wrong empirically and it offers no value to the world in terms of political philosophy. If youre confused about what it is objectivism isnt the claim that objectivity exists or the opposite of relativism its only called objectivism because the person that came up with it (ayn rand) propably thought it would sound more convincing to people that dont understand anything about philosophy

@@ricky.t.1658because to be absolutely objective essentially requires you have 100% knowledge.

Half the info was straight up wrong, he never lists sources, he misuses terms, mispronounces names, never uses evidence, etc.

​@fabianvoigtlander1042 😊🎉 ever heard of moksha , moksha is your goal. try it

So that’s the correct definition?

No, it isn’t, seek help

@@ricky.t.1658 but you are the one who needs help and not aware of evidence, its like you are punshing me for no reason and claim i attacked you, and whats my option

Nihilism as a standalone is not great, it's more of a foundation belief and most people go through Nihilism atleast once in their life but it never lasts cause it alone will 100% lead to a destructive path that disregards life itself, There are 2 ways to go through Nihilism, 1st one roots from optimism, both Existentialism and Absurdism, they are the healthy conclusion of nihilism where both still believe life is inherently meaningless but Existentialism argues to create the meaning for yourself while Absurdism offers you to "give up" the pursuit of trying to find rational meaning in a irrational meaningless universe, 2nd one is the other end of Nihilism is which pure negativity, pessimism and slothful, it's conclusion is either suicide or living life by not "living". It's as the point where people think "nothing matters anymore, why should I do anything?" which is basically the extreme end of nihilism.

It doesn't sound like it delves deep into the mechanisms or reasons as to how things are, or even how things ought to be. More like surface level judgement of what is prefferable. Alot of these phylosophies explore nuance of why and how, without which there are no stepping stones for clear direction or purpose

Nihilism is the biggest cope since religion.

@@bodkie I think you’re mixing the two.. you realize anyone who is nihilistic isn’t coping on anything.. if anyone is coping it’s the one that’s religious. They need a majestic unicorn to cope with the fact that life is so fucked.. I don’t need to Cope. Life is fucked. Oh well. But i’m not gonna go on my knees or go to a church every Sunday to pray to a false prophet.. it’s embarrassing. 🙊🤷🏻‍♂️

@@bodkiewhats the cope its accepting an outcome even if it might not sound good to certain people. How is it cope?

@@bodkie ironic.. i bet you think a fairy man in the sky exist to cope with your shitty reality 🤣

​@@bodkie "Nihilism is the biggest cope since religion." (Doesn't explain any further.) lol, okay, buddy. 😅

Nature can’t do statements becouse it can’t talk

what?

so does your comment

@R3dzio now you get it, it wouldn't exist if this video did not exist

what's your point?

@CiphersVII that it's not necessary to compare philosophy to me philosophy is interconnected in concept you can start anywhere but you can't understand it as a standalone concept nhilism and existentialism for example are two sides of the same coin yet he put nhilism at d tier and existentialism at a tier makes no sense they need to be together like yin and yang He is also trying to rank them and any person can disagree with him and change the ranking its a subjective and unnecessary ranking unless it's just for himself and it probably says more about him and how he ranks his philosophy than the philosophy itself But I do say it with all respect

If nihilism is so great and nothing matters, why do you care?

@@bodkie Who says I do? I'm just stating the obvious. Objectivists are snowflakes. OP is going easy on them out of bias.

@@bodkiebecause people like things life can be meaningless but so what? I can still care or do what i want find happiness do things i find subjectively meaningful despite having no objective meaning. Where is the contradiction lmao

@@linuxramblingproductions8554 These people really be like "I-If you think it's meaningless, why do you care so much?!" Like they're exclusive to one another. I have an emotional attachment with a ring I got from a deceased relative. Is the item itself meaningless? Yeah, but that doesn't mean I can't care about it.