Human beans

A whole philosophical debate centering around feet. Rumors about Tarantino and his foot fetish are totally true 🤣🤣

De Beauvoir did not know what freedom means, from what comes her erroneous thinking. She considered a human being as a complex insect, because she looked to be during her lifetime the queen of the honeycomb.

Its not politeness per se. But ritual which is the birth of virtue. Politeness is ritualised behavior. There is a nice chapter about this(virtue and ritual) in the book "thinking through ritual".

finding your channel just today. I've known about and have intuitively used the socratic questioning approach for years now, but now I'll be creating a class plan in a formal teaching setting. thanks for the video, great for inspiration, subscribed. Keep up the great work please 🙏👍

Nerd alert! 🤓

4:05 actively fart against

Hell yeah, man. Well done. New sub, thumbs up.

omg dude get on with it lol

But what is not defined is the intent behind the foot massage. Intention determines if it was sexual in nature or not.

Wonderful. New sub. Thank you so much.

Pulp fiction and American psycho are both equally misunderstood but greatly appreciated, comedic masterpieces.

Scrolled through most of the comments and is no one going to bring up Quentin's foot fetish as being the inspiration for this bit?

Beautiful video , not a second wasted. Thank you

Unless I'm having a kid with someone, "If I start to be partners with anyone else, I'll let you know first thing when I see you next" is the only commitment that I find psychologically healthy to offer or ask for.

That’s an interesting point ❤

It would be nice to see more examples of the Socratic method. This is a great one. 10:45

I am grateful for this because it seeks some type of knowing or common ground

Very modern western view of life's meaning: what we do, projects. No indigenous or relogious culture would agree.

Yeah, freedom as the basis of all goodness, is flawed. That’s what this philosophy based on. Freedom, pure freedom, is no relationship at all. No attachments, complete control over what you can do, and overall is nothing that hinders your path at all. Complete freedom is a disaster. Pure freedom can be immoral, unjust, and selfish, destructive. A relationship of love is never about pure freedom. Nor about freedom in general. It contains freedom, but it is not without constraints. A relationship helps push each other forward and makes life easier by helping to manage struggles. Sex is an important factor, yes. However, sex is not even an important thing to do in life. To progress the human species, yes, it is important. Outside of that though, it’s just an urge. And without intimacy sex is worthless. That’s why casual sex is worthless, and maybe even stupid. Satisfies an urge, but does nothing else. And if an urge is all that you want satisfied, then just masturbate. No need to jump from one person to the next. Nothing meaningful will come out of having casual sex.

Nice. Very accurate

Love is still in infancy. For so long humans have had to deal with war and disease and still do. But in the modern world love is becoming new.

so good - thank you for this

Which work does she mention her views on relationships?

Which work does she mention her views on relationships?

AKA how she justified getting played by a man way uglier than her for +20 years. Simone had serious self esteem issues fr.

“… where both people are filling their lives with projects that make them happy” ?? Apparently the producer of this vid is actually an inhabitant of a children’s storybook, and has decided to pop out onto Earth and proclaim to everyone that they should be living a perfect ‘happy life’. [The ‘solutions’ suggest in the video to the problem posed by the (delusional) childish goal seem equally vapid. It’s nice that people think about this stuff, but perhaps they should think a little more.]

Genius video, i was definitely expecting this to have way more views. I used to love mr and mrs smith movie as a kid, but never conciously thought about it in this way. good conclusions from an objective viewpoint, commitment is part of freedom👍

I completely agree with De Beauvoir's take. I find the idea of commitment in relationships offensive. I much prefer each of us, daily, to re-evaluate our feelings and decide if that day we still desire to be with each other. I cannot live any other way. And no, I don't want children

Life has taught me that the more someone idealizes freedom, the more likely they are to be degenerate; de Beauvoir and Sartre were pedophiles.

Beauvoir is a shining example of the idiom... Just because you have an original thought doesn't mean the thought was worth having.

Great way to demonstrate how the Socratic method works in a real life situation…haha…

I'm a man of principle, so whatever I'm doing, if I'm not doing it for the fun of it, then I'm not doing it.

Good stuff!

Great stuff! Have you heard of relationship anarchy? De Beauvoir’s theory is very similar to it.

Please i would love more of these videos about other different topics etc

And she groomed minors for Jean-Paul 😍 also was closeted

love this!

And she died childless. Never truly knowing love. What a life.

No wonder I never got married

Another great video. Learn so much from these, thank you!

This video is amazing man, congrats.

Microphone seems a bit weird

at 07:45, didn't you mean that "jules is saying marcellus was unjustified in using violence", not that vince was saying that?

Comment.

I believe it is incorrect at 3:47 to define the "knowing nothing" argument as such. It is more than he attributed this wisdom to being told that he was in fact the wisest man by the oracle of delphi, and in that he believed it only after he had tested upon many men to seek what it is they knew, and alas, he found that he was the only man what that may admit that he may in fact know nothing and in that, it is the one thing he doth know for sure. It is speaking of lifes uncertainties and it is also a commentary on society itself. For what we 'know' to be an axe, can really be called anything at all, a stick and a stone, a hatchet, etc., but truthfully we believe it to be an axe for that is simply what we believe. Knowing is for the gods. Humans are meant to learn to believe in what is good, and what is bad, and what may be inbetween. As it is we can always speak with certainty that we know nothing, and believe many things. Else, if we knew so certainly, how could our minds be changed and moulded so easily? :) We are a learning, experiencing, observing creature.

To follow this logic, everything you do to a woman (as a man), and dont do to a man - is a sexual act, or at least in the ballpark. This might be true, but im not sure.

I thought the pursuit of pleasure was called "hedonism".

Imagine what he would do if you took his wife out for an innocent night as friends while he was out of town, but you killed her by letting her snort your "madman".

im going to preface this me saying i dont know jackshit about philosophy (yet, im gonna learn) An interesting thinf i thought about during the video: If looked at from a utiltarian perspective, politeness is actually the furthest a person has to go to achieve maximum "good". The intention isn't relevant in this case. The polite person may secretly want to stab 59 people in the heart every day, but it doesn't matter.