I agree! I also believe objective truth exists, but the tenets of the creed deny it - "nothing is true, everything is permitted"

@@seanberube that's why I don't understand the sentiment. They say that, yet they have hierarchies. When the first protagonist learned this, it turned him into a monster and he violated the creed. Shay also struggled with this concept due to the hypocrisy it creates, he sought purpose and order instead. I don't know what they are trying to tell me

@@Strictly_Jake That's exactly how I feel! Hence my critique that their creed contradicts itself and thus becomes meaningless. My personal take is that the best philosophy for life lies between the tension of both the assassins and the templars. Assassins love freedom but deny truth and thus create chaos. Templars acknowledge truth but deny freedom, thus creating tyrannical order Within this tension of chaos and order lies the optimal balance of a good life philosophy grounded in truth. Funny enough, in real life I think the Founding Fathers touched on this solution in the Declaration of Independence Their ideal of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is about respecting individual freedom, based off a recognition of human rights rooted in natural law (objective truth).

@@seanberube what I don't understand is how the assassins can justify not telling the public the truth. They have more than enough evidence to expose everything, but both factions depend on secrecy

100% They seek to ground their philosophy in natural law (unsuccessfully, I'd say) but their recognition of truth allows for more stability than the moral relativism of the assassins

That's the heart of my critique is the creed is itself a contradiction and therefore loses meaning. Nothing is true everything is permitted contradicts "stay your blade from the flesh of the innocent" You have to choose 1. Is nothing true and everything REALLY permitted? or 2. Some things are true and NOT everything is permitted (say, murdering the innocent) But the two can't coexist at the same time!

Most useless comment on here

@@dandavis4306 The guy is right. This is a not a good reading of Nietzsche. For those that don't see that, bring awareness to it is quite helpful.

It kills myself.

One of the cardinal rules to never break...

appreciate it!

Thanks Peter! I appreciate the kind word

Her name is Teresa Kovach,her name is Teresa Kovach,her name is Teresa Kovach,...............Pocatello Idaho? Dobre noche. Ceskoslovenska.

Thanks!

Thanks!

I LOVE his Genesis lectures! They were the beginning of me discovering my own "hero's journey" haha

Thanks so much Joel!

That's basically it! The only addendum I'd add is that truthful being should lead to joy too So Pascal's Wager doesn't make sense if your beliefs are making you miserable. That said, I struggle to see where you ground an objective sense of goodness without the metaphysical

@@seanberube Pascal's Wager is total bollocks... If you can't demonstrate this god\truthful being then you're simply deluding yourself.... Religion is a con trick that plays on your after death fears

Thanks! And yes, that's what's so rewarding. There's so much depth and probably no end to it

You learn new ways to interpret it every time you ask someone theirs. It's truly one of the most beautiful philosophies ever crafted

I think the answer to why Dostoevsky thought the way he did is to be found in his experience as a man standing for capital punishment. And it should be remembered that he was put up for a political crime, not the crime of murder; capital punishment was far, far more general in the past. I believe his contrast of the death penalty with murder during a crime has to be understood in light of his grasp of psychology. There is something extraordinarily cold and mechanical about the death penalty.

Glad you enjoyed it!

Thanks, and glad you enjoyed it!!

I’d say your comment exemplifies why the show is so incredible. Ignoring the philosophical abstractions, it’s remarkably powerful in exploring deep rooted themes related to trauma, abuse, and coping mechanisms. It’s so vividly human, so hilarious, and informative all at the same time, and how the writers struck this balance is quite mind blowing to me

Thanks for the kind and insightful reply! I suppose my biggest questions to your response are: Where does the show say you ought to find contentment and live meaningfully, and why should you do so if life is meaningless anyways? Why is that moral obligation not entirely meaningless? As for the non BoJack characters, though subtle, I'd argue against their happiness. For instance Mr. Peanut Butter's life philosophy is: "The universe is a cruel, uncaring void. The key to being happy isn't to search for meaning. It's just to keep yourself busy with unimportant nonsense, and eventually you'll be dead." (If you give me time I can dig up the citation to this quote). Todd's life, I'd argue, also exemplifies this philosophy. And I suppose that's my biggest critique - that the happiness of the "happy," characters, is to me, not happiness, rather a miserable existence of not trying to face reality, because doing so would make them suicidal

@@seanberube There isn't a moral obligation to be happy, but a simple human desire.It's ok to do nothing but thats boring. It's morally ok to wallow in your pain, but you have one life to live and one opportunity to be happy. Not many people are willing to throw away the opportunity to try again and to be better. The instance I remember of suicide in the show is in "The View From Halfway Down" where Secretariat delivers a poem about how after jumping off a bridge he deeply regrets the decision to end his life and how everything would've been ok if he didn't jump. He didn't write about his regret of all other life choices, but the fact that he didn't see the opportunity to just continue living (a sentiment many suicide survivors share they experienced after an attempt.) There's sometimes a great beauty in the nihilism that despite the cosmic insignificance of life there's happiness in the struggle of living. In 100 years you'll be long dead and forgotten, yet for maybe even one night you're happy. You made others happy. No great god, cosmic judge, or eternal soul cares about that night, but you do. It may seem like a distraction from drinking, partying, or running for California governor, but it got your mind off the big things for a bit. It might even be smaller than a smile from the cute girl you like, a "good job" from a man you respect, person holding a door for you. Morally none of these things mean anything important in any philosophical framework, but they could have deep meaning to you and that matters. In the final scene of the show Diane and Bojack sit together have a good conversation, and say "Life's a bitch and you keep living. It's a nice night." Nihilism isn't always cynical and the show recognizes that life is worth the moments that mean a lot to you. You can recognize you're a grand of sand that will blown away tomorrow and accept that and appreciate your time on the beautiful beach of life.

@@kalibayala6622 if nihilism is true, I’m not sure where you arrive at the conclusion that human desires, happiness, or subjective meaning matter, or why one should bother with pursuing them? Are those things good? If so, where do you derive that moral claim from, and why is someone who advocates the opposite of you (let’s say arguing for misery and suicide) any less valid?

@@seanberube If Nihilism is true then we have the freedom to decide our morals and desires. The only morally wrong thing is if Nihilism is to strip others right to freedom since to deprive one of choice is to deny them their basic existence. If someone is talking about how suicide is rad and life sucks that's kind of stupid and accomplishes nothing, but there is nothing morally wrong with him saying anything.

@@kalibayala6622 I appreciate your patience, as this must be a frustrating circle, but again, where in nihilism do you derive the validity to say it's morally wrong to deny others their freedom or basic existence? If we all have the freedom to decide our morals, then why are your morals on freedom and existence (which I agree with) any more valid than those who have different morals? In this case, are we not constraining others' freedom with our own subjective morality?

Thanks! Lol

Glad you found it helpful my friend!

Thanks for the kind words!!!

Idk, I've long since given up trying to figure out the algorithm haha

That's a good question but I don't feel qualified to speak on the Quran, as I haven't read it, aside from encountering brief passages on occasion

​@@seanberube If you ever decide to read the Quran. Make sure to read the clear Quran as it has the context and explanation for each verse if you can't read arabic.

it could be the case that we all fall short of our own philosophy/ideals there's so much to revered in the man's abilities to persuade the human heart towards a love of justice, despite his own shortcomings

I haven't! Is that one you'd recommend?

I agree completely. It's almost a cliche, but I've found real, genuine love that strikes the heart is more powerful than the most formidable of intellectual arguments

@@seanberube An individual who holds love without logic will eventually commit a hateful action in the name of love.

​@@seanberube Coming back to this, I found someone that made me reconnect with my heart, and it was the key that made my brain blossom.

@@Jukestar that’s beautiful! I’m happy to hear :)

@@seanberube Thank you!

Fight club is definitely a book taht is beneficial to reread at different points in life. It's rich enough to offer a fresh and new perspective with each reading

Particularly he was against Western morality as he hated Judeo Christian values (which he called slave morality), and he was critical of Socrates for his emphasis on truth, which criticizes the entire foundation of the Western emphasis on logos. So although he was born in the West, he disagreed with the entire Western tradition of truth and judeo-christian morality