That means a lot. Thank you. 🙏

Thank you, Frank. This is immensely kind. You have made my day much brighter! 😀 I hope to say further words of worth in the future.

Thank you for this comment. Some of the best people in my life were former gang members. Unfortunately, some of them passed away too soon. I don't remember if I shared this with you before, but I uploaded a short documentary on my dad's work with gang youth (unlisted, so it's only seen by people I share it with). It includes my older brother on the way to his first stint in prison (back in the 90's sometime). You may find it worthwhile: kzbin.info/www/bejne/pHfCipqMgK1nntU My dad's books are intense. He allows the worst of himself to remain in the text in service of communicating the complexities of that lifestyle. The second book-It Calls You Back-has a bit more in it that's uplifting, but that emotional curve still relies on some deep lows.

Thanks so much!

This is fantastic! Yes, we overlap in direction, but I find your phrasing and examples to be immensely clear and helpful beyond my own choice of words. Thank you for watching and taking the time to write this. You're always such a great commenter! 🙂

@@ToReadersItMayConcern that is such a compliment, thank you! I tend to comment less often because I am not a succinct person and these days no one wants to read lengthy paragraphs anymore...

@@talking_to_trees I've been trying to comment less often for precisely the same reason. Many have become used to a flippancy online, but I'm not. Unfortunately, there's now issues of time which have curtailed my commenting and replies, but I can't help but feel rude without saying something. Your comments are always appreciated! Long or short. And there's no pressure to comment unless you have something you're excited to say. Either way, I can't help but remember you because you're one of the best commenters!

@@ToReadersItMayConcern that I understand and it is likely that your channel may one day become to big for you to answer everyone. That is what happens to most channels. No matter how much the host says they love hearing from their tribe, there comes a point where I can see they are too big to really do it because everyone has limits. It is the paradox of online communities...

@@talking_to_trees I definitely feel this some days. Definitely.

Works like The Rise and Fall are precisely the sort to inspire these thoughts in me. To avid believers-no matter how incorrect-their beliefs often feel fundamentally true to the point of death. It makes me think critically about my own beliefs, wondering about what I take for granted, to avoid aimless harms born of naive reasoning. In that sense, learning becomes a moral act, an avoidance of the dangers of one's potential ignorance. Your final point about judgments-on deciding who or who not to empathize with-is an important one: once we slip into disregarding empathy for some for the sake of others, we slip into our own biases (and all the shortcomings of sight therein). Even if we could judge rightly at the start, the ease of such judgment would seemingly condemn us to falling back on the whims of easy sympathy, and all those less-sympathetically-tinged become flattened labels for our eyes to gloss over. A tough challenge, this question. Thank you so much for watching and engaging seriously.

Thank you, Anne-Kathrin, for your kind words. I'm fascinated by what you're attempting on your channel (and quite curious how you got into all this: your presentation is impeccable and the density of information impressive). The more creators who focus on the specific worth of great works, the better, and you are among them. I very much appreciate you taking the time to stop by. If you need any help with BookTube, just let me know (though I doubt you need any). 🙏

Thank you for your kindness (and again for sitting through such length). I hope to have inner peace. Like everyone, I have doubts and pains and worries, but I also try to remain appreciative for what I have and who I am; I think appreciation has been the most fulfilling source of calm. From the bit I've seen, you strike me as someone who can find comfort in quiet. That seems to me a very good thing. 🙏

@@ToReadersItMayConcern I do find comfort in quiet. You are a good observer. I like your comment about appreciation and I can tell you are really able to deliver that feeling on screen.

Oh, yes, I think empathy does not preclude boundaries. You can fully attempt to understand or empathize with someone's different perspective, but that doesn't mean you need to have them be part of your life. You can-without vitriol or hate-recognize that some people make your life worse, and given you only have one life to live, you should allow yourself separation. Always take care of yourself (possibly, no one else will).

“…you should allow yourself separation.” Yes 💯 ❤ Thank you for this video, first time viewer. Appreciate these kinds of questions a lot.

You're bringing up many excellent points, a few of which I had in mind to discuss but didn't, such as psychopathy in particular and those who take advantage of empathy generally. I cut out my initial attempt from the video, because I felt like I could only communicate the exact points I had to make by getting very personal. Like yourself, I have known intimately psychopaths in my life and have suffered directly as a result. You're right to notice this gap in my video. It is a subject that I think is important, and so I will probably try to discuss it someday in a future video. Right now, the specifics feel too private, and I'm not yet comfortable sharing those details on the channel (because of the conditions I grew up in, some of these experiences compounded over a few years). This fact-the need to cut out my own story from the video-inspired the section of the video wherein I discuss how the stories of perpetrators will tend to be told more often than those of the victim's, simply because not all victims will want to put their story out into the world. Victims shouldn't be expected to have to tell the worst parts of their stories. Of course, this leads to many not quite knowing how bad things can get. I'm going to think on this a while. It feels like a more complicated layer of this whole discussion, and so I won't discuss it until I feel I have something of worth to say. Thank you for adding your insights.

@@ToReadersItMayConcern that makes total sense! I apologize for bringing up the part you didn't want to be said. And I am sorry for what you have been through. There is no need to explain anything. Privacy is very important and a precious thing. I am enjoying your thoughtful videos very much. I have been looking to expand my To Read list with books with lots of substance and depth and you have helped greatly! Thank you.

@@jennyjaybles Thank you, and no need to apologize. You have a keen eye to notice what was missing, and I invited the topic, so I take responsibility for what arises. I've reached a point of calm in regard to those memories, such that with those close to me in life, if they want to discuss those things, I can, and it feels fine. However, I sometimes have to remind myself when I film these that, though I end up feeling comfortable, I am still speaking to mostly strangers. That requires a bit more thought and care. Like you describe in your initial comment, I also love to understand people and am often easily moved. And just like you describe, that has led to my being too open. Over the years, I've found my way through such experiences, to set boundaries without becoming jaded (it can be easy to become cynical, distant, and defensive, and I've worked my way to avoiding that). Maybe I should discuss that someday, that internal sensitivity I have and my means through it toward a kind of equilibrium. The more I think about it, the harder it is to explain. It ends up being a kind of sensitivity-oriented logic, a strange center between how little I must know and the fact that I have actually learned something, to be both humble in curiosity but stable in reasoning. And that latter stability becomes a way through, has been a way through, a quiet hand to hold as tension builds (and a knowing that it will always build, and I'm okay because I've overcome this before). I'll have to think on this. Maybe some things aren't fit to be explained.

@@ToReadersItMayConcern I think I understand what you are describing. It's a struggle to keep one's self safe? To put it simply empathy and sensitivity is a double edged sword. It can be very powerful when interacting with others and lead to great connection and insight. It can also be devastating to the wielder of that power. It can really suck. Figuring out how to manage it is freaking hard. It is a day to day struggle. I hope all sensitive people can figure out how to suffer less. Though I think suffering might intrinsically be part of the deal. This a depressing way to end my reply. I assure you I am fine.

I believe you very much that you are just fine. You sound like you've reflected on and been experiencing the struggle for a while (the struggle of the incline toward suffering). That makes your final point not depressing: it sounds like genuine, thoughtful experience, and that to me is a good thing.

That's so nice of you, thank you!!

Hi, Paul. First off, thank you for becoming a member of the channel. 🙏 As to your comments, I agree wholeheartedly that criticism is essential, especially from our peers and those who are well-informed and seekers of knowledge. It is through criticism that we bump into the harsh reality of what we may be missing, and that is vital to growth. Now, as for who to reach, I also consider myself an educator-I work as an English teacher-and so I think it is important to reach everyone and strive to offer them what I can. Many may not be receptive to what I have to say, and that's okay with me: difference in outlook is what allows different experiments in how to live, and it's through those experiments that we can learn a great deal. From my view, it feels necessary that we have a society with a range of different perspectives. I am not the sort to vie for agreement; a generally critical eye (in various directions) is more important to me. My latest video On the Limits of Caring discusses some of my reasoning as well. I would have been labeled as "ignorant" at numerous points in my life, and yet through openness and kindness I have become who I am today. So I aim to keep that in mind. -- Ruben

@@ToReadersItMayConcern Hi I am fiercely ANTI Ecumental, I hate agreement of opinions, beliefs, I hate all religion, hate all JungianiSMS, Hate all paganisms. I stand for The Truth and The Truth only, Now as Yeshua was asked by Pilate, WHAT IS TRUTH?????? WEll Im know, = gnosis. Wide range of opinions waters down the truth,, no wait, it actually us nothing more than Organization,, as In The Jung Society of whatever city in the world,, or say Chruch Orgs, University Orgs,, I was ignorant all my life, Now at 68 and one half yrs of age *the 1/2 is a huge span of time in terms of New Awakenings,, )) Study JUng's age cycle. I am fiercely anti antichrist, Double anti, I hate The Illuminati hate christianity and hate judaism, hate paganisms, Moneyism,s Materialimss], Ignorantisms, MY life task is to clarify Jesua's teachings and CG Jung's studies, also to highlight the 200++ books by JACOB NEUSNER. I will finsih what Nietzsche started. Destrroy all christianity, This is the beginnings of Yeshua's Holy Holy KIngdom, Hope I made myself clear. Nice day Paul 'Forever student and teacher of CG Jung.

Thank you, Cynthia! I love getting recommendations like this (hadn't heard of this one before)!

Oh, you're so kind for stopping by and taking the time (apologies for how lengthy my videos are!). That's very wonderful of you. KZbin did some good by recommending your videos to me. If you ever want to discuss books, or if you ever need advice on this strange BookTube thing, your comments are always welcome. 🙏

@@ToReadersItMayConcern Thanks for the invitation, I will most definitely consider it. And please do not apologise for the length of the video, it was very insightful. 😊

Meme: "Why not both?"

Have you read Karl Popper's The Myth of the Framework? It's a slim volume that strongly critiques much of the Frankfurt school's reasoning. You may appreciate it (though, The Open Society and Its Enemies does a better and more extensive job, but much of that book is focused on other issues). You also may love the anthology A House Built on Sand, which tears into postmodernism from various directions. My early comments in the video are not dismissive of history or historians (so many historians are fantastically even-handed and strive for objectivity); I am recognizing aspects of narrative, not to say it falsifies by default but only that it is something to attend to otherwise one slips into a spell of compounding correlations. Having received an English degree, I can say with confidence that what is taught is not 'the truth.' And yes, you make a great point about how to interpret the results of those scientific findings, which reflects my point in the first section of the video: decisions get made in regard to how to interpret facts (but the facts persist nonetheless, don't they).

@@ToReadersItMayConcern Your early comments I agree are not dismissive, but they are prejudiced. The evidence for this as a fact can be found at 2:47mins where you make a statement as a matter of fact, that "there are overlapping waves of arcs... but as soon as it is put down in a book of history it suddenly becomes one over-arching storyline". Which history books might these be? _Tecumseh_ by John Sugden perhaps? Or _Edge of Empire_ by Maya Jasanoff? History is about evidence not storylines. No offense intended.

Prejudiced in what direction, do you think? FYI, I have read more history, science, and philosophy than literature in my life. Also, no offense taken. I blame myself. As stated later in the video, this conversation started because a viewer said I was sympathizing with a historical figure too strongly and thus naively consuming what I read, so my mindset at the start was to display my lack of naivety in that regard, to emphasize my critical bona fides, but here I am now trying to clarify in the opposite direction. My fault, not yours. You say "history is about evidence not storylines," but I wonder if we're not recognizing "story" in quite the same way. I can't think of a history book that does not take correlations of evidence and does not formulate relations between them. That seemingly must be the case. A simple example: "The king died. Then the queen died." Often enough the historian either fills or severs the gap, e.g. fills in by stating "the queen died of grief" or severs by saying "the queen died coincidentally soon afterward." And there are facts that can support the link or the severance: maybe the queen cried a great deal, never leaving bed, then dying, hence it's reasonable to assume grief (but not certain); or maybe the queen cried-as is to be expected-stayed in bed out of sadness (again, to be expected), and died of an undiagnosed burst aneurysm, not because of grief itself (though grief is clearly correlated, but here you rightly noted in regards to the study on reading and empathy: correlation is not causation). Historians contend with these details always, and they are aware of needing to contend with this. I enjoy reading historiography-highly suggest the Routledge Companion to Historiography if you're interested-and this is a major aspect of work as a historian, discerning connections, recognizing the limits of facts-in-themselves to interpret themselves, and the importance of reading widely. For instance, an actual example from books I've appreciated: Stephen Kotkin's Stalin biography and Simon Sebag-Montefiore's Young Stalin (and a bit of Court of the Red Tsar). Both contend with Stalin's capacity for great harm later in life, with Simon Sebag-Montefiore emphasizing Stalin's abusive and eventually absent father, Beso (though, to be fair to Montefiore, he clearly only suggests that it matters, not outright insisting upon it), while Kotkin makes clear that such 'abuse' was common for the time and isn't likely enough to explain Stalin's propensities. And then the emphasis-the story-becomes obviously distinct between the two historians, one (Montefiore) spending a great deal of time on Stalin's exiles and swashbuckling and criminality, in the feel of almost an adventure tale (I finished Young Stalin like two months ago), and Kotkin taking a more technical (heavily endnoted), subdued, and/or neutral approach with branches of broader history alongside (which I much prefer). That is storytelling. It is not an insult to call it storytelling, and it is not a way to say either historian is disregarding the facts. It is just that, again, facts do not speak for themselves, we have to deal with them. The point of "arcs coalescing into one" in a book is to say that a single book grants a single experiencing of those facts. Not in itself inaccurate but filled with choices of presentation. For example, it is a fact I am sitting in front of my computer typing. If this were filmed, a camera could focus in on my face, the brief expressions hinting at thought, the light mouthing of words as I type, and could steadily zoom in further over time, understandably matching my focus with the focus of the camera. Those same facts could be filmed differently: straight-on to the computer screen, isolating the text itself as it appears, my fingers lapping in rhythm to the clicks. The referent is the same, the sense is distinctive; both reveal some facts and not others. Neither is a lie. But the choice of how to emphasize those facts are choices of storytelling. And that's okay. Again, it is not an insult; it is seemingly inevitable. Thus we have to read more than one history book on a subject. I'm a little surprised you say history isn't about storylines, because whenever I read more than one book on the same subject I'm struck by how distinctive the formulation is. I not too long ago read A People's Tragedy by Orlando Figes, and it is entirely different in its presentation of the Russian Revolution and its consequences compared to something like Sean McMeekin's recent work, though they overlap plenty. A specific example that stands out: they both bring up German funding of the Bolsheviks, but McMeekin takes that detail much further, creating a far stronger relationship between those funds and Bolshevism's rise than Figes does (though, when I return to the Figes book, he absolutely brings up much of the same facts, but their relegation is to that of almost a footnote, which is super interesting, and again reinforces the importance of emphasis). With a different emphasis comes choices of the story being told. Imagine what it would take to give every single fact-that would require more than a single book could hold. Selection of facts is necessary, thus that selection emerges into the realm of story. We have to select facts as writers and make further decisions on how to present them; hence, "overlapping waves of arcs" coalescing into one. I'm sure you agree: "everyone, please, read more than one history book!" I'm sure you've felt that difference when reading of the same subject matter. Each book evokes an entirely different sense-but I should reiterate now: the facts are still true!! and I am not calling history a lie!! There just has to be decisions in writing history, much like there are choices in my translating my thoughts into writing right this instant: there is a truth of my thinking, and I am attempting to lay them out in a particular way, anticipating different understandings, adapting that, not merely constrained by truth in itself but now by presentation. When you write, too, you can likely feel the strain of choice to convey the truth. You have to edit your own words for that reason, and so do I. It has to be conveyed but you're still accounting for the impression of the reader and that has an effect. None of that makes it untrue. But it is a different arc of experience than would have been otherwise. This whole non-naive-attempted-argument-about-history that I laid out at the start of the video relates to empathy because with different emphasis also arises differences in who we empathize with. If I read The House of Government by Yuri Slezkine, my empathy is with many of the Bolsheviks themselves and their families; if I read Red Famine by Anne Applebaum, the timeframe is similar but my empathy is for an entirely different group of people. By the end of the video I end up stating that I do not know what to make of that fact, the fact of difference in emphasis leading to differences in empathy (again, facts don't include instructions on how to deal with them). By the way, I am just a nerd, not angry. If any of the above feels forceful or bothered or anything of that sort. Just, again, I am just a nerd, so I like going into minutiae like this. You're great, and I have been watching your videos since around the same time I started posting regularly on this channel half a year ago. Thank you for giving me something to nerd out about. I wouldn't write a lengthy comment like this to someone I didn't respect. I hope to have said at least one thing of interest amidst all of the above. (And the point I make a little later than the beginning in the video-about some truths being mixed in with untruths-that is just an obvious point about difficulty in testing one's interpretations, how "correlation is not causation" alongside many other challenges in knowing something with certainty when you can't go back and test each hypothesis individually.)

@@ToReadersItMayConcern Very interesting! Reply 1. You said at the beginning: "A simple example: "The king died. Then the queen died." Often enough the historian either fills or severs the gap, e.g. fills in by stating "the queen died of grief"... but i have never come across a history book that says such a thing as... after the king died, the queen died of grief. And really where is the evidence of historians saying as much? And can you be so sure that professors haven't really thought about or looked into, how a queen might have died, whensoever, if she was known to have cried a lot, and taken to her bed out of sadness? Really. Do you have the knowledge and therefore the evidence to support and back up your statement. And sure you then talk about the two books about Stalin. And they are biographies, so will naturally have a start point and end point principally about one person - that will run a bit like a story we might say. And lots of history is chronological. But that history often and naturally involves topics and sub-topics, one chapter at a time. And then there is the issue of different kinds of history book. There is a version that might be understood as popular or public and not proper academic history. The history written by Sebag-Montifiore will surely be the popular kind, trying to be a bestseller! For example there is _In The Lion's Court, power, ambition and sudden death in the reign of Henry VIII_ by Derek Wilson, and then there is _Early Tudor Government 1485-1558_ by Gunn. The latter is a text quoted from and appears in endnotes of more general history books. The Wilson is not. The Gunn is on an under/postgrad reading list. The Wilson is on a shopping list.

@@ToReadersItMayConcern Reply 2: You do say that the Figes and McMeekin diverge, and yet later in the paragraph you do say they have the same kinds of information (after all). Beyond that however, a scientific approach to the issue of emphasis might/could involve a survey or study, a focus group: 10 people read one, 10 people read the other; then incisive questions, to see if there is any difference in the reading. To discover if there really was a noticeably different impact due to emphasis/presentation. Perhaps certain things did end up a little buried, whereas via the other things are prominent and more significant. And then again perhaps not. There is ability in writing but there is also ability or capacity in reading.

Wow, Curt, that sounds like a resounding experience for a lifetime. As the homeless population has increased, so too have labels and detachment begun to foment among so many who drive by. Each individual becomes a "them," someone far away whose story remains unheard. You took the time to hear and care, and that is as great a gift as a stranger can offer another. It is no wonder your relationship with him became a stepping stone toward his recovery. I am so sorry to hear about the tragic turn of events, but you're right to say you experienced a great privilege in that friendship, and he must've felt the same. Just an incredible story. Thank you for sharing. You've done honor to his memory. 🙏

I remember I used to feel skeptical in reaction to kindness. It felt like they were messing with me in some way, that it must be false, because my prior experiences had been from those who were dismissive and at times cruel (there was also my own inner masculine distancing that wouldn't allow myself to feel gratitude, which I had to grow out of over the years). The meaningfulness of genuine, committed empathy can be life-changing. You bring up such a great point: empathy-in its continuous emotional weight-can sometimes diminish altruism. I believe I read about that in the book Behave by Robert Sapolsky, wherein he describes how sometimes an overabundance of empathic connection can lead to feeling overwhelmed by emotion and thus can lead to shutting down instead of helping. Like a doctor, for instance, if they don't allow themselves some distance might become consumed by their work to the point of breakdown; so many tragedies in that line of work; to persist requires allowing oneself to let go of some of that empathy, at least to an extent. I so very much appreciate the length and thoughtfulness of your comment. 🙏

@@ToReadersItMayConcern I loved Sapolski’s Behave! So glad to have found your channel, and I appreciate the thoughtful response! 😊

while reading CG';s Letters Vol 2, on page 70,, I realize while reading CG state he is not a philosopher,,, he is a empiricist 100%, NOTa religious guru,,, so it dawned on me,, I am not a philosopher,,, then what am I.. so I googled Philognosispher,, and arrived at the only post/reference to my Q, on the Forum Philosophy Now from 2013,, He received no answer, Philosophy of Philognosis? Its 2 pages print out and raises excellent Q's on this new term PHILOGNOSIS,, so obviously I am not the very 1st, Looks like someone beat me to the coinage. But has he worked out his Q's??? I want to officially state I am a philognosisPHER, There the 1st coinage of this term. This is how I will describe my researches, and purpose in life. Philosognosispher. AS gnosis is my core belief, That God is Gnosis. The only way to God is via gnosis. That gnosis is the future of mankind, That the New Heaven and New Earth will be Philognosisphers, and no other beings. I hope wiki will identify my name as the originator of the term Philognosisopher, Better PHILOGNOSOPHER,,,maybe Philo-gnosis-pher have not figured out exactly how I want the term spelled out. Yes I have my reasons why gnosis is the future and not sophia. Sophia will be born from gnosis. Gnosis comes 1st, then sophia. Philosophy is dead, Plato gave us the best beginnings. From there it went straight to hell w Aristotle. Philosophy is dead. Nietzsche was the last. Philosophy is being reborn as philognosis-ophy.

This is a remarkably cogent analysis. Fascinating through and through and expands on my thinking while directing it back toward literature itself and the merits therein. I don't have in me at the moment to write an equally long response (tough day, workwise), but I appreciate that you took the time and were so clear and thoughtful. I really, really appreciate it.

Thank you, Brian, this is such a necessary point: diversity in this outlook is a gift. Each of us can contribute through our own perceptions and priorities, some prioritizing the practical, others the care, others the philosophizing-that is perhaps the essential gift of various perspectives in a society: we can organize attention based on our needs and dispositions, and that is okay for us to have differences in that regard, so long as those differences don't impose or overly neglect. I read what you write and find myself wishing I had made that point myself, but thank you for contributing it to the comments. This is really helpful (and just genuinely thoughtful on your part).

I could not have said this better myself. Thank you!

@@ToReadersItMayConcern You're most welcome. Your videos are so enriching, I appreciate them and the comments very much.

I've only read about Ricoeur in relation to language, not either of their works directly. Is there a place I should start?

I don't know how to say a big enough thank you for the kindness of your words. Just, thank you immensely, thank you.

Hey!