Пікірлер
@JDMunoz-ct9xn Сағат бұрын
The teleological argument never gets off the ground, because it starts with a giant, unproveable assumption: that anything we see or experience was a goal. Saying that purpose is apparent is merely a claim without support. Also, fyi, the planets' orbits are not that precise, and ecosystems balances are often not at all delicate, hence ubiquitous extinctions.
@henrikloeffler9823 5 сағат бұрын
you dont see order? your pattern recognicion sees insane chaos and looks for order in it
@RambleRuminate 4 сағат бұрын
I agree. This clip is taken from a longer video in which I attempt to explain the teleological argument. I have tried my best to steelman the argument in the name of fairness, but have also talked about some of the refutations that have been brought over the years. If you have a moment, check other out and let me know what you think.
@Bi0Dr01d 10 сағат бұрын
After studying this argument, I've come to consider that *not* concluding God exists may violate 2 logical principles and undermine the basis for skepticism itself, necessitating the conclusion that God exists due to this paradox.
@rachelprosper6097 22 сағат бұрын
I am very young yet most people, via the way i speak tend to be surprised when i mention my strong faith and convictions within Christianity. Imma tell you this, even several of our elders don't have answers. Neither do our young scientists, no one does. Yes the argument is NOT simple, but many highly experienced, well educated, well traveled scientists, theologians, philosophers etc, through out all known/ written human history collectively that this very reality/existance could abosolutly NOT be random. EVER!!! Its far too complex....far too complex... Yet we are very similar to it, not as 'the most intelligent ' but within our ver core designs, civilizations, stories, and so much more. For me its like, in a way, we are the only beings which have the fixed, forced, socialized, idea of 'right' and 'wrong' rather than allowing design to lead us, viewing it as 'primitive'. I just wish i could continue but you can see i would never end😅
@composmentis3405 Күн бұрын
You are asking the questions most dare not ask. Unanswerable questions which only the philosopher,the poet, or the astronomer might ask. Is Truth not that which is demonstrable but that which is ineluctable.
@GetmoreTV Күн бұрын
Not true. It is obvious that God is real.
@MacSmithVideo 3 күн бұрын
I'd say I'm a soft solipsist, in that I know I exist and something not me exists, but other selves may or may not exist. There is no objective standpoint with which we can determine what a mind is or what it is capable of. Why couldn't a mind create such a consistent picture of reality or simulate an entire universe? Who's to say what a mind can do? Why wouldn't a mind be able to produce consistent results, or produce the illusion of other minds? The fact that we can experience incredibly realistic dreams points to the fact that much of our lived reality is constructed by the same machinery that creates these dreams.
@RambleRuminate 3 күн бұрын
It is definitely an interesting line of thought. I go back and forth on whether or not a mind could produce such a consistent illusion. Ultimately, I think it is a question that will forever go unanswered in any definitive way.
@danethorkelson.8661 4 күн бұрын
Very well explained. Loved this!!
@RambleRuminate 4 күн бұрын
Wonderful, thank you 🙏
@joemerino3243 8 күн бұрын
Probably the first explanation of Hegel that I was able to follow beyond the 'thesis/antithesis - synthesis' bit everyone learns at school. Good job making this comprehensible.
@RambleRuminate 8 күн бұрын
Thank you. I can think of no higher compliment.
@beanboi6617 8 күн бұрын
What if the ideals can only be reached when forgotten about? What if material reality serves as the bridge to the world of ideal? Art may play that role. Are there any philosophers that have suggested something like this?
@RambleRuminate 8 күн бұрын
Several philosophers have considered it in some ways. Plato and his theory of forms are probably the most famous examples. Plato said that the world is a shadow of a world of perfect, eternal forms. However, Plato also emphasised a conscious striving towards the ideals of the forms. This is similar to what you have suggested, but it is not a perfect fit. Arthur Schopenhauer suggested that art can provide an escape from the will (the striving, material part of existence) by allowing us to experience pure contemplation. This could be interpreted as art serving as a bridge between the material and the ideal. Heidegger’s reflections on art suggest art reveals truth by presenting the material world in a way that discloses deeper realities. For Heidegger, the work of art bridges the everyday material world and a more fundamental ontological truth.
@RambleRuminate 8 күн бұрын
Nietzsche might be an even better fit. In The Birth of Tragedy, he explores the interplay between the Apollonian (order, reason, ideal form) and the Dionysian (chaos, instinct, raw material reality). For Nietzsche, art, particularly tragic drama, emerges as a synthesis that allows humanity to grapple with and transcend material existence. While Nietzsche wouldn’t frame this as striving toward “ideals,” the process of creating and engaging with art bridges the raw materiality of life and a kind of transcendence.
@oscargr_ 9 күн бұрын
I want some of that drugs that Anselm was on.
@RambleRuminate 9 күн бұрын
He was definitely a man of his time. His argument is the best part of 1000 years old, a time when the default was to believe. As a result, the attempts to prove the existence of god were not necessarily seeking truth, but seeking to be better explanations for the existence of god than were available at the time to. The time in which he lived was, essentially, an echo chamber for believers.
@oscargr_ 9 күн бұрын
@RambleRuminate Not much has changed then. That's exactly what modern day apologetics is.😁
@RambleRuminate 9 күн бұрын
I agree completely. Apologetics has not come on much in the last couple thousand years. I suspect there’s a reason for that, one which the apologists are desperate not to face: that there is no god, or that such a being is so far beyond our comprehension that we will likely never understand it. I think the former is more likely.
@oscargr_ 9 күн бұрын
@RambleRuminate Completely. I do consider a deistic god a possibility, but so far outside our comprehension. He/she/it (if it is a "person") will understand that we don't know anything about "him", or what it really expects from us. Religion (in my opinion) has filled the gaps in our understanding, but incoherently. As is evident from the number of different religions.
@RambleRuminate 9 күн бұрын
Religion, for all its faults, does a brilliant job of showing us where the limits of our understanding are. For everything we cannot explain objectively, which we then apply a supernatural explanation to, we see the seeds of a question that will lead to discovery. While I don’t believe the religious explanations are correct, they are great markers that point out those gaps. This is where philosophers and scientists can begin the process of gaining understanding.
@iamlemon3224 10 күн бұрын
„I was in hell looking at heaven.” „I was machine and you were flesh . . .”
@michaelremington5902 12 күн бұрын
Great presentation! I know, myself, that my mind, as it appears to me on a daily basis, could not create the complex world we live in. The world seems to do its own thing, consistently every time, without me for the most part. My mind, however, is not always as consistent. It seems that, for solipsism to work, my mind would have to be doing and computing all of these things that I am unaware of, and for some unknown reason, at the same time, making me think that I am incapable of the computation. A counter to this comes to mind, but one that can be rebutted: the unconscious mind. I do actually believe that I have an unconscious mind that does do a lot of computation, hidden in the background - but this mind is also not up to the task. A lot of perception, such as vision, is handled by the unconscious before I am even aware of it - and it, also, is inconsistent at times.
@RambleRuminate 12 күн бұрын
Thank you. I agree with the position you have outlined. It seems unlikely to me that a single mind has the capacity to generate something as complex and consistently changing as reality.
@nameless-yd6ko 15 күн бұрын
The Libet Experiment: Does It Disprove Free Will? ~~~ Of course! Along with hundreds of other demonstrations of the impossibility of 'free-will/choice'!; The "free-will/choice' vs 'determinism' argument is already a fallacy; a false dilemma. That they are already a fallacy, it shouldn't be shocking that there is a superior theory. The quote from Feynman at the end is the death knell of both 'free-will' and 'determinism' and their bastard children 'compatabilism and un-compatabilism! But first, a definition; "Free-will/Choice"; an egoically satisfying theory as to the meaning of a feeling/thought (ego). Get it? Whether the concept of 'free-will/choice' is anything more than an egoic delusion seems to be simply answered by 'deconstruction'. The punch line is that All is One! The Enlightened/Saved, Mystic know this experientially. Quantum physics certainly supports this. So, starting from this point, One single Universe, in perfect balance... One Truth perceived by Consciousness through infinite unique Perspectives (Souls), us. Not anything is actually moving, time is the theory to 'splain the illusion of motion, and now there are concepts of a 'self' distinct from Self with the ability to alter the entire Universe to, most often, make their own little life a bit more comfortable. After all, if you could actually 'change' anything, in the great One, you'd have to also 'change' everything! Talk about an ego trip, a God complex, no wonder people believe in 'free-will/choice'. Not to mention that everyone has the Godlike ability to alter the Universe for a Big Mac! Is this not the very definition of 'chaos'? The concept/belief does have quite the twitching support group, though. I suspect that the notion of free-will/choice is just another acquired belief virus. The symptoms of the defenders supports that theory. So, deconstructing Truth, 'free-will/choice' is impossible, other than as a notion/belief/delusion. Every moment of existence exists Now! "The Laws of Nature are not rules controlling the metamorphosis of what is, into what will be. They are descriptions of patterns that exist, all at once... " - Genius; the Life and Science of Rich at the end is the death knell of both 'free-will' and 'determinism' and their bastard children 'compatabilism and un-compatabilism! But first, a definition; "Free-will/Choice"; an egoically satisfying theory as to the meaning of a feeling/thought (ego). Get it? Whether the concept of 'free-will/choice' is anything more than an egoic delusion seems to be simply answered by 'deconstruction'. The punch line is that All is One! The Enlightened/Saved, Mystic know this experientially. Quantum physics certainly supports this. So, starting from this point, One single Universe, in perfect balance... One Truth perceived by Consciousness through infinite unique Perspectives (Souls), us. Not anything is actually moving, time is the theory to 'splain the illusion of motion, and now there are concepts of a 'self' distinct from Self with the ability to alter the entire Universe to, most often, make their own little life a bit more comfortable. After all, if you could actually 'change' anything, in the great One, you'd have to also 'change' everything! Talk about an ego trip, a God complex, no wonder people believe in 'free-will/choice'. Not to mention that everyone has the Godlike ability to alter the Universe for a Big Mac! Is this not the very definition of 'chaos'? The concept/belief does have quite the twitching support group, though. I suspect that the notion of free-will/choice is just another acquired belief virus. The symptoms of the defenders supports that theory. So, deconstructing Truth, 'free-will/choice' is impossible, other than as a notion/belief/delusion. Every moment of existence exists Now! "The Laws of Nature are not rules controlling the metamorphosis of what is, into what will be. They are descriptions of patterns that exist, all at once... " - Genius; the Life and Science of Richard Feynman All 'eternity' at once; Here! Now!!
@megavolt2008 15 күн бұрын
Thanks for taking the time to make this video. I am only aware of Hume due to some quotes I'm fond of, and I appreciate the opportunity to learn more about the author of those quotes.
@RambleRuminate 15 күн бұрын
I am pleased you found it interesting enough to watch. If you get the opportunity, I heartily recommend reading his works. It’s fairly technical and the language is quite formal (a sign of the time it was written in) but nonetheless very good reading. Explanations never quite do it justice. Hume was an incredible thinker and writer.
@Jennyonthehill7035 20 күн бұрын
Could you summarise (like I am 5) the main misunderstandings about stoicism? What I notice (as an uneducated noob) is that it seems to lack compassion. Or is compassion (through fairness etc) implicit and shouldn't need to be spelled out? Please excuse, and ignore, me if this is a super-dumb question.
@RambleRuminate 20 күн бұрын
It’s a great question. From the outside, stoicism can seem cold and indifferent but it isn’t like that at all. Stoicism is a philosophy that teaches how to live a good life by focusing on what is in our control and accepting what we cannot. The main principles are: 1) Focus on what you can control. There are things which exist inside your sphere of control, the things that you can directly influence and are responsible for. These are the things you should focus on. 2) Practice acceptance. Life throws setbacks in our paths and there’s little you can do about it. Stoics try to accept things as they are, and respond rationally. It doesn’t mean give up, rather learning to adapt and reducing the impact on our own peace of mind. 3) Value virtue over all. Stoics believe that the key to a good life is to lead a virtuous(being of good character, wise, fair, courageous, self discipline, compassion, etc) life. They view this moral strength as a path to a good life. 4) Focus on the present. This is pretty much as it sounds- focus on the here and now instead of the past or some possible distant future. Be present and make the most of every moment. 5) Obstacles as opportunities. This one is about framing situations as an opportunity to learn, grow stronger, and so on. The stoics believe that embracing challenges is key to building resilience and strength of character.
@notinterested8452 20 күн бұрын
Very courageous of you to address this topic.
@marcuspborges Ай бұрын
Thanks Man!
@RambleRuminate Ай бұрын
No problem, thanks for watching.
@rickriede2166 Ай бұрын
Thanks for the insight.
@RambleRuminate Ай бұрын
My pleasure. Thanks for watching.
@Lifelong-student3 Ай бұрын
❤
@lior5059 Ай бұрын
The problem is that once you understand nothing, you realize that you understand nothing.
@RambleRuminate Ай бұрын
Nothing is a surprisingly complex and paradoxical subject- one that leads nowhere but forces us, in a way, to think of everything.
@catalyst3713 Ай бұрын
Coherence is a necessary, but insufficient condition of truth.
@RambleRuminate Ай бұрын
I agree. I don’t think, however, that we yet have a definition of truth that is completely accurate. I say that because any theory of truth can be logically pulled apart and shown to be an unstable or insufficient theory.
@catalyst3713 Ай бұрын
@@RambleRuminate How do you think correspondence theory is insufficient?
@RambleRuminate Ай бұрын
Correspondence theory of truth can be shown to be insufficient for a number of reasons. 1) Correspondence theory of truth relies upon what reality is. The problem with this is that reality is difficult to define objectively. There are different philosophical perspectives about reality itself, so which idea corresponds to reality itself? 2) Correspondence theory of truth works well for empirical claims (I.e the sky is blue or the tree is tall), but it falters significantly with mathematical truths, morality, and philosophical claims. As such, while great for the observable empirical truths, it does not work well for abstract and theoretical statements. 3) Our own subjective experiences make it difficult (maybe impossible) for us to agree definitively whether or not an idea corresponds to reality. 4) Vagueness and indeterminacy are seemingly part of the universe we inhabit. An example of this idea can be found in quantum mechanics where reality can be seen as being probabilistic and indeterminate. As a result, how do you define something as corresponding to reality when all things are in a state on indeterminacy or flux? I think all the main theories of truth have some element of truth to them, but I don’t think any of them offer a complete definition for truth. I do think, however, that over time we will see new theories emerge that are some combination of the existing ideas.
@LockBits-ts6eo Ай бұрын
I love philosophy and have had a great interest in it since i was a child way back in the 60's (thanks Dad), however, one thing I've noticed remains constant through all of philosophy (philosophers) is a great propensity for verbosity. After childhood, I became an Engineer and found great marvels in the world to fascinate me an to challenge me to attempt to understand either, the function of, or the meaning of and philosophy, thankfully, fitted in nicely. However, within the philosophy of language (and in other fields), we seem to find a great number of those who feel the need to use as much of what they study and ponder, to describe what they're studying and pondering. So, what am I saying? Well, if we wish to describe something, explain something, it behoves us to understand it well enough that we can impart the knowledge we wish to share, but that requires not just knowledge of the subject matter, but rather in developing language skills such that we can use "rules" to describe in a manner that all will understand. So, accepting that Wittgenstein and Kripke (I liked him best in The Big Bang) are both very clever, it'd be good if would could find a way to explain concepts such that wordiness can be eliminated... Thank you for the video, always good to see material like this on KZbin and I hope it reaches that many and enriches their lives.
@RambleRuminate Ай бұрын
The wordiness or verbosity of language used by philosophers is, I think, a byproduct of trying to be extremely precise. As a result, a lot of meaning can be lost in the details. It can also create an unnecessary barrier to entry to anyone interested in learning more about it. I think we will, eventually, reach a point where the language game of philosophers is close enough to the language game of everyday speech that simpler, more concise language can be used to explain complex concepts and topics. One of my aims with this channel is an attempt to bridge the gap between those language games, allowing others to enter the field with less of a steep learning curve.
@MikeS-hs4vh Ай бұрын
Philipa Foot's thought experiment, as this is, relates to an almost utilitarian approach to an issue that involves natural human conditioning, compromised as it is by a reluctance to facilitate death regardless of the logic involved. I bet a psychopath would have no issue pulling the lever. Or watching the five die.
@RambleRuminate Ай бұрын
It asks us to decide between utilitarian and deontological ethics. It is a fascinating thought experiment that forces us to assess the basis on which we make our ethical decisions.
@MikeS-hs4vh Ай бұрын
@RambleRuminate It really is.
@BroChaddius Ай бұрын
As absurd as it sounds, the character of Spongebob SquarePants helped me cope with absurdity and meaninglessness. The character is bizarrely naive, optimistic and trusting. Kind of like the Fool tarot or archetype, aware but unaware ya know
@RambleRuminate Ай бұрын
That’s fantastic, and not absurd at all. What are fictional characters if not reflections of ideas and experiences.
@iainmackenzieUK Ай бұрын
Here is my hypothesis: Nature has instilled in our unconscious minds the drive to do whatever is required to survive. For some of us, when life has become easy, the struggle to survive is gone but the drive to survive remains. This is the source of our neurosis, and the drive for meaning. It is a folly. There is no absurdity.
@RambleRuminate Ай бұрын
It’s an excellent hypothesis that is hard to refute.
@iainmackenzieUK Ай бұрын
@@RambleRuminate Thank you. But no evidence as such :)
@RambleRuminate Ай бұрын
It would seem it has no more or less evidence than any other philosophical idea.
@iainmackenzieUK Ай бұрын
@@RambleRuminate Fair point Not sure if it would count as evidence, but when we run into real life struggles, we tend to become mentally more 'grounded'. Not as fixated with 'making sense'. But perhaps its just another way of seeing Maslow's hierarchy??
@RambleRuminate Ай бұрын
I think you’re onto something there. The further away from an actual threat a situation is, the more time and space we have to overthink and build up an emotional barrier that prevents clear, critical thought.
@sariikimi Ай бұрын
I know it seems like a cop-out, but I wouldn't pull the lever, I'd attempt to stop the trolley. Even if I fail, at least I tried? Its also interesting to entertain different versions of the trolley problem. What comes to mind for me is, what kind of people? 5 old ladies and 1 newborn baby? 5 men and 1 woman? Definitely an uncomfortable problem, but a curious one nonetheless.
@RambleRuminate Ай бұрын
It’s not a cop out at all. The trolley problem is an exercise designed to force us to think about our ethical and moral decision making. The question of who is on the tracks is a great question that would influence the decision making for sure.
@benwoodward Ай бұрын
great explanation. wonder how he would feel seeing his ideas eventually leading to the invention of LLMs
@RambleRuminate Ай бұрын
Thank you. It would be interesting to know, I imagine he would be fascinated.
@billybob1831 Ай бұрын
Philosophy is the practice of finding complicated ways to explain simple things.
@RambleRuminate Ай бұрын
It can seem like that sometimes.
@peezieforestem5078 Ай бұрын
But why would I want to figure out how to best think about something? In the worst case, I'll be stuck thinking about how to think forever, which is what to me seems like the philosophers are doing. I'll easily settle for 3rd best or even 100th best way to think if it lets me actually accomplish things.
@RambleRuminate Ай бұрын
The act of figuring out how best to think about something is directly tied to any action you take. If you get stuck in a loop that prevents you from taking action, then you have wondered into the realms of procrastination and away from useful and productive thinking.
@peezieforestem5078 Ай бұрын
@@RambleRuminate Saying it's "tied" does not explain why I would want to do it. You have evaded the question, unless you're saying that it can't be done otherwise, in which case you're just wrong.
@RambleRuminate Ай бұрын
I apologise for not being clear in my previous response and very much appreciate you taking the time to engage in conversation. How do you know which action to take without thinking first? Reflection before action provides you with a means to ensure your actions are appropriate for the situation, thus more likely to bring about desirable results. Action without thought relies almost completely on luck, thus the results will be, at best, random. You said that you’d settle for the 3rd or even the 100th best way to think of it let’s you accomplish your goal- if it enables you to accomplish your goal, how likely is it that it is in fact the best way (and not 3rd or 100th) of thinking available to you in that moment?
@peezieforestem5078 Ай бұрын
@@RambleRuminate I don't know which action to take, and I don't need to. For instance, if I see someone about to be run over by a car, I have a split second to decide, and there is definitely no thinking happening in that split second. This example shows that it's possible to make decisions without thinking. Whatever the mechanism is, I have no idea, I just use it. In this example, if I take even a second trying to calculate the likelihood of success, injury, etc., such decision already locks me out of the route to saving that person. It doesn't matter which conclusion I reach, because I functionally made the decision the moment I started thinking instead of acting. This was an extreme example I used for clarity, but the principle of it holds in any scope, not only split second decisions. Any thinking or reflection you're doing is not free - it has cost in both time and energy, and merely by thinking you're continuously making choices to spend these resources on further thinking. It is entirely possible, and I would say even likely, that the end result will not pay off. For instance, if the best decision is only 1% better than the 1000th best decision, and you've spent a year thinking about it, then you've lost more than you've gained. So, this shows that not only does reflection not ensure that actions are appropriate for the situation, it can be detrimental on average. And a random result for 0 cost in a world where most options are good is not a bad deal.
@RambleRuminate Ай бұрын
In the example you have given, you have still thought about what to do. Your reaction is the consequence of that thought process. It may be almost instantaneous, but thought still occurs. You have, very quickly, considered the result of inaction (the person getting hit by the car) and decided on a course of action that will, hopefully, result in a positive outcome (ie saving the person) On some level you have weighed the possibility of not saving the person against saving them. You made a decision based upon the data you hold, even if done so on an unconscious level.
@jamespayne3999 Ай бұрын
Wrong.
@RambleRuminate Ай бұрын
What was wrong?
@o0Cursed.official0o 3 ай бұрын
You have a very nice voice
@RambleRuminate 3 ай бұрын
Thank you ☺️
@composmentis3405 3 ай бұрын
That’s an amazing quote!
@RambleRuminate 3 ай бұрын
It’s a powerful statement, that’s for sure.
@Sditchvampire 4 ай бұрын
Just found your channel and after a few minutes of this I had to subscribe. Keep up the great work but please start pronouncing your T’s, mate
@RambleRuminate 4 ай бұрын
Thank you. I am pleased you have found the content interesting enough to subscribe.
@SystematicallyGrey 4 ай бұрын
nice!
@RambleRuminate 4 ай бұрын
Thank you for watching. I hope you found it interesting.
@P40L0M4LD1N 4 ай бұрын
My dumb brain that you were talking about the footballer
@RambleRuminate 4 ай бұрын
😂 brilliant. That made me chuckle.
@JoaoGoncalves-ep4nu 4 ай бұрын
Very interesting!! Thanks brother
@RambleRuminate 4 ай бұрын
My pleasure!!
@ariaevelyn1 4 ай бұрын
Hey your videos are coming in my news feed for few days now your video quality is really good i watch your videos carefully every time the videos are good but not seo friendly u can now tell what is the full meaning of seo search engine optimization example in other words after a person comes to youtube he searches for the keywords he needs and searches for videos related to those keywords. Thus, you need to SEO your videos with the help of popular keyword research tools within the title description tag area of your videos. Keyword research needs to be done and set up. Later, if a person searches with keywords set up in the middle of your videos, they will see your videos at the top and grow organically. Video views like comments share watch time etc will increase if you want I can guide you
@RambleRuminate 4 ай бұрын
Thanks for the insight, I appreciate it.
@WolfyRed 4 ай бұрын
D'oh!
@PlagueChance 5 ай бұрын
If I can read it too, why should I listen to you?
@RambleRuminate 5 ай бұрын
This short is taken from a longer video in which I explore some of the philosophical ideas that are present within the story. If you are interested in that, then that’ll be your reason. Even if you don’t watch the longer video, I cannot recommend enough that you go and read the book. The longer video is here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jJmzmYSjgaaJj68si=XMggVYNfFyqeQpDT
@jessgatt5441 5 ай бұрын
Neither under-emotive nor cold, simply aloof, as one who ascribes to stoicism must be, aloof.
@pauls.6360 5 ай бұрын
Some people believe in nothing, which is paradoxical nihilism. Other people believe in something, which is inferential gullibility. And here we are, watching a goofball with an ever-repeating KZbin Short. Isn't life grand? Unless you don't think so.
@RambleRuminate 5 ай бұрын
Thanks for that 😂 if you’re interested at all, you can watch the full video here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hInPfoahhdCpmpYsi=iraOC_iF6RkzSmqc
@Karlito77751 4 ай бұрын
Whether ! Turned out nice again?🤫🤫🤫
@Karlito77751 5 ай бұрын
I agree with that view ! 🤫
@shanegates678 5 ай бұрын
Hi, I think that was a good description. I usually make a distinction of Absurdism and Nihilism as being the optimistic and pessimistic branches respectively of existentialism as the existentialist is forced to look at its shadow self a lot. I found absurdity almost like a mean trick as I am keenly philosophical and a conclusion of meaninglessness its a bitter sweet pill. I'm confident in its premis but unsatisfied that I am just a thinking creature glorifying my own thinking and my only real choice for myself is do I continue living. Well the answer is yes but I will take up Objectivism as a sport.
@RambleRuminate 5 ай бұрын
That’s a good and important distinction to make. I personally find the notion of absurdity somewhat comforting. I say that because if the universe has no inherent meaning, it also brings with it no expectation of performance. As such, it leaves me feeling free enough to pursue meaning that comes from within, safe in the knowledge that I’m not taking my attention away from something that could be considered meaningful or important.
@shanegates678 5 ай бұрын
@RambleRuminate that's a fairly modern perspective, I think, and not obvious to most. Humans feel compelled to asign or extract meaning and purpose in just about everything. Religion is just that, so is philosophy generally.. I think, therefore, I am, and 'but why' quickly follows. Then, the existential crisis "but for not long".. so we are prone to protect ourselves through religion. Or justify ourselves through philosophy. I find Absurdism a totally ironic destination for a philosopher, and in that, it is also perfect. Perfectly absurd!!
@shanegates678 5 ай бұрын
@@RambleRuminate I might add that I agree that it's comforting, even tho paradoxical. Because it's a clever observation. And you can rest assured knowing you have come to a very reasonable resolution in your thinking.
@BruhBruh-lb6vc 5 ай бұрын
🤓
@taber247 5 ай бұрын
Stowesysm in the modern world is a conditioned response to the fact that things are not being done to improve anything; you just have to put up with it.
@susangratwick5327 5 ай бұрын
He just keeps repeating himself.
@RambleRuminate 5 ай бұрын
I am interested to know what have I repeated? Any and all feedback is always appreciated, without it I’ll never know if the videos I create are worth watching.
@susangratwick5327 5 ай бұрын
@@RambleRuminate One sentence beginning with 'Stoicicm is ...' The same sentence repeats. Nothing else!
@susangratwick5327 5 ай бұрын
And you don't even say what it is. You say it's popular or something. Describe it! Say how and where it started. How it works.
@RambleRuminate 5 ай бұрын
The short is taken from a longer video which does go into detail. I appreciate your feedback and will give it some thought. Thank you.
@billythegoat5000 5 ай бұрын
Cheers for that. I see a lot of people denying their emotions believing this is being stoic in what could be described as "self-tyranny". Another misconception is thinking one needs to be macho.
@RambleRuminate 5 ай бұрын
Yes, that is a common misconception. I think the misconception is, in some way at least, a misconception of correlation and causation. The masculine image people imagine when they think about stoicism is just the external perception of a person who implements the internal emotional control and mastery. This leads people to believe the stoic person is in some way suppressing their emotions.
@michker9140 5 ай бұрын
Not sure people have much stoicism these days...
@RambleRuminate 5 ай бұрын
Maybe not across the board, but if you look at individual decisions and responses I think you will see at least a shimmer of stoic thinking, some of the time.
@chris-Ribble-Roots 5 ай бұрын
I’m confuced
@johngamer593 5 ай бұрын
Sounds about right...one culture could deem "stoning" as morally acceptable while another penalises it with capital punishment. And that is a mild example..