Does SCIENCE = TRUTH? (Nietzsche + Mega Man) - 8-Bit Philosophy

[@kellykoffi7904]

“The very meaninglessness of life forces man to create his own meaning. [...] The most terrifying fact about the universe is not that it is hostile but that it is indifferent; but if we can come to terms with this indifference and accept the challenges of life within the boundaries of death - however mutable man may be able to make them - our existence as a species can have genuine meaning and fulfillment. However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light.” ― Stanley Kubrick

[@jouchan101]

Something tells me Stan wasn't a hit at parties...

[@iederedagscherper2186]

'Why' would the absence of 'why' implicitly mean that there is no meaning of life? Humans have created institutions that actually do have a why. And those institutions are as real to life as nature is us.

[@omnijack]

The perceived indifference comes from the expectation that effort translates into a particular type of reward. The structure of things is much more subtle.

[@ParkerSmith0212]

I think that's been the problem from the beginning. In the event that we desire to supply our own light, when we truly look within us, there is no sufficient light to be found to extinguish darkness.

[@karlazeen]

@@ParkerSmith0212 There actually is, it just varies from person to person. Some find more meaning in life than others.

[@Redem10]

I always thought that Nietzsche was more of a Ninja Gaiden type of guy

[@42PalaceOfWisdom42]

Nietzsche introduced the term 'Übermensch' (over human) ->Megaman Those clever bastards!

[@Redem10]

Palace Of Wisdom Well I got my mind blown

[@StanMarsh1]

Why does there have to be an ultimate meaning? Humans are wired to see patterns and things we recognize in randomized settings (TV static, clouds etc) so it's obvious when we're talking about the ultimate question of 'why?' we assume there is an answer, but perhaps the question itself is faulty. Perhaps everything just 'is'.

[@theb1rd]

Another angle: "Why?" means "For what purpose?", and that carries a presumption--that there must be a purpose. There is no reason to presume a purpose. To ask the question is already an act of faith.

[@coreypnorris]

theb1rd Woah

[@shin_0b_i]

Maybe it's for our own curiosity. To see all of life happen and to dance with it all. To help, be helped and go through all manner of experiences. Only to come back to 'what is'.

[@quantumaxe6468]

just is because that's the only way it could be.

[@Agora13]

Shut up, Stan! I hate you!

[@kayodesalandy]

I am neither a literature student, nor a philosophy student, yet here I am enjoying these videos regardless.

[@MeinosKaenStudios]

No need to study it in an institution to enjoy knowledge. That's the beauty of it.

[@cooljackster7390]

No one like this comment it has 69 likes

[@XEspadaSaDiosX]

I've heard some negative things about Nietzsche but I heavily agree with his views presented in this video.

[@seamuskennefick7692]

+givemetruth YES! Let's be rocks! Much easier!

[@XEspadaSaDiosX]

+Human Resources Ahh I see. Makes sense why people would gravitate away from that. Thanks for the well thought out reply.

[@DustinRodriguez1_0]

+XEspadaSaDiosX Nietzsche had some... interesting views. The first book of his that I read was 'Ecce Homo'. I picked it up because of the chapter titles. "Why I Am So Right", "Why Everything I Say is True", and things like that. I found out later that it's believed that book, his last, was written when he was already being affected by the syphilis that eventually drove him insane and killed him (after spending 11+ YEARS paralyzed in a bed, a world record at the time so far as we know). In that book, he goes on at length about why Germany can never produce anything of true value because their food causes indigestion, and one cannot think properly when they have indigestion. Overall, I think it was a great book to read as one of the very first books I ever read by a philosopher. It was hilarious and extremely absurd. His other books are much more reasonable, and though I haven't read all of them, I don't think the things presented in Ecce Homo can be said to show the beliefs he held for much of his life. He certainly had some views that were, for his time, mostly unique, and some of them indeed ring true. I forget exactly which book I read it in of his, but in one he discussed the idea that 'to be most like ones parents is the greatest sin' (paraphrasing, but I believe that is very close and might be an exact quote), pointing out that if one is just like their parents, humanity has not progressed with each generation. One of the things I love about philosophy, and why I went for a philosophy minor in college alongside my majoring in Computer Science (an unusual combination apparently), is the wide variety of viewpoints and how really accessible most of it is. Reading older philosophers are especially interesting to learn about how people thought in the past, and why they thought that way. Especially anything which purports to be about 'human nature' or 'the fundamental nature of the world/life/etc' are about timeless subjects, and any truth to their writings would remain as true today as it was when they wrote it if indeed they figured out something true. If nothing else, learning about the extremely wide variety in peoples thinking opens ones eyes to what is possible, and to the idea that almost nothing about our lives or societies are fixed, and are instead within our control to at least attempt to change.

[@theeNappy]

"[Science] is the search for fact, not truth. If it's truth you're interested in, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall." -Dr. Henry "Indiana" Jones Jr. Science is about quantifying natural phenomena, and nothing else. If it's unqualifiable or supernatural, it isn't Science's concern. This limitation of scope is by design, and it's the job of Philosophy and/or Religion to explain the rest. 

[@theeNappy]

Eh, I dabble more than know a lot. The first, third, and fourth sets of definitions can be found in a dictionary, I'll refer you there. Truth is somewhat more esoteric. It's based in fact, but it requires context and a certain amount of personal judgment to define.

[@theeNappy]

Here's an example of truth vs. fact After the Vietnam War, a saying started floating around: "you can't win a land war in SE Asia." Now, the fact is that you can many powers have, but due to many geopolitical reasons, the US couldn't win a land war in SE Asia. So, while not strictly factual, the saying is true. Does that help any?

[@theeNappy]

Well, facts exist independent of an observer, 2+2=4 etc. Truth in this conversation is something that requires an observer to contextualize a set of facts in order to achieve that greater, more platonic Truth.

[@theeNappy]

It's got to do with truth requires a continuous mind. A truth has to be known to exist, facts exist independently of that. A rock can't know that along side 3 other rocks they are 4 rocks, but it's a fact that they do. A rock can't know that Lenard Skynard'a Freebirdd is a long song, but it's a near universal truth that it is. Truth is really just a well founded opinion. Also, keep in mind that I am by no means an authority on the subject

[@JappaKneads]

"Well, facts exist independent of an observer, 2+2=4 etc." Facts need to be proven if not, by definition, they cannot be considered facts. Facts can be disproven....not Truth. Facts need an observer to prove that they have the status of being factual...you confuse facts with Reality (or the Raw Data of the universe).

[@arbitrarynumbers8406]

I read through the comments section. The first page gave me hope for society that maybe we had intelligent life on this planet, but then I kept scrolling.

[@DarkArtistKaiser]

Unfortunately it is often wise to avoid the comment section to any video that has to do with religion or lack there of. It tends to attract the piranhas of both sides.

[@libertyprime7448]

But did you see that it was called "gay science"? Hehehe he said gay ='D

[@jam123255]

Do you need a step ladder getting down from that high horse of yours?

[@metodoinstinto]

Forget it. People just want to crack the wisest joke for likes. It sums up most of KZbin comment sections.

[@theheebs100]

ok......so I am a high school English teacher and amateur philosopher who just stumbled upon your work tonight while trying to compile resources for the philosophy course I am offering at my school this year. you just became an automatic favorite youtuber for me based on the philosophy content and when I saw what you had available as a whole on your channel, I was blown away. I think I am going to watch a lot of your stuff soon : )

[@franzkissel1369]

How'd it go?

[@theheebs100]

@@franzkissel1369 mostly ok. I only taught that elective for one semester, but I use a ton of that info in my pre-ap and language & composition courses

[@franzkissel1369]

@@theheebs100 sweet

[@chegadesuade]

I keep returning to this video every year, as a philosophy major this is my favorite video ever. I personally wish this was one of the most viewed videos on youtube.

[@rontimus]

As someone who grew up playing this game and a Nietzsche devotee, I couldn’t agree more 😎

[@Dragonwing16]

a true scientist questions everything, even his/her's own data and theories. Slowly smoothing out our knowledge of the universe

[@sirsimplexton3151]

Dragonwing16 I think that's the best thing science has going for it, a clear criterion for evaluating right and wrong to converge to a state of accuracy. For any field to progress, it needs a clear notion of "better" and "worse" that everyone participating in can at least reasonably agree.

[@AEPPLE_MUSIC]

I dont believe there is such thing as objective purpose.

[@Poetabrasileiro]

Holy shit, me too! People i argue with always get confused when my argument is "Life doesn't need a meaning. Neither do Existence. They do not have a asbolute end goal other than arguably preserve itself." And people think i'm a lunatic. Omg!

[@mrcooper6318]

Congratultion you're both nihilists

[@AEPPLE_MUSIC]

MrCooper I am not a nihilist. I believe in subjective purpose. That I can create my own purpose. Nihilism is more about if performing an action is worth something. I am a nihilist when it comes to death. We cannot do anything about it. I have accepted that. Though my nihilism stops there.

[@wezzuh2482]

nihilists also reject subjective purpose. This guy is an existentialist

[@Poetabrasileiro]

Jakob Carøe I don't really think those labels aren't being used correctly, or if they even can be used in my or Apple's Case. I don't actually contemplate the reason for existence or try to elaborate about it. I just actively argue that Existence does not serve any function besides arguably preserving itself.

[@SleepyBabyYT]

Dictionary definition of 'Science' from the source Google provides when you search "Science definition": "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." Dictionary definition of 'truth' from the source Google provides when you search "Truth definition": "that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality." The studying of the natural world provides knowledge of the reality we live in, this provides us with the truth, therefore, Science = Truth.

[@harrisonnancoo6401]

gOdislove

[@SleepyBabyYT]

Harrison Nancoo gOdislife

[@thewhiterat9889]

LonelyBread What is fact and reality though?

[@SleepyBabyYT]

The White Rat Reality is what our brain perceives, each persons reality is different to another's. Also deeeeeeep

[@charquidesesos4037]

+LonelyBread therefore google = source of truth

[@treasurehunter3369]

megaman 2 opening theme best 8 bit music ever = TRUTH

[@TheIngPin]

amazing video. you are effectively able to take complex concepts from famous philosophers and distill them into a concise, and easily digestible message.

[@MrQZWarrior]

Paradox: Life is a mystery, don't waste time trying to figure it out. Humor: Have a sense of humor about yourself. It is powerful beyond measure. Change: Know that nothing stays the same.

[@ThatBrownMink]

Wisdom.

[@bret6484]

Only 3 rules

[@UnmemorableHam]

These new videos are fantastic. This channel just keeps getting better.

[@OfTheOverflow]

Very interesting, good summary, but if you could perhaps turn down the sound of the 8-bit stuffs a little next time? :)

[@Zakeroji]

Awesome channel !!!

[@WisecrackEDU]

Angel Zakeroji Thanks!

[@homeofthemad3044]

+Wisecrack please make a HOUSE MD episode

[@UnanimousDelivers]

I couldn't disagree more passionately. This video continually implies that purpose in all things is a given, and that's not just stupid, it's disgusting. What is the purpose of children starving to death? What is the purpose of Josef Fritzl locking up his wives/daughters in his basement? What's the purpose of tsunamis and people dying from lightning strikes? And what of people born with no feet who wear athletic prosthetics and run racetracks? Are they DEFYING their purpose of being a legless person? If a woman has large breasts and decides to never have children or become a "wet nurse" is she defying HER purpose? Maybe people are just people and life is just life and that's good enough.

[@BlueMorningStar]

Unanimous Delivers you don't understand Nietzsche. At all.

[@silverskid]

Where does Nietzsche, or this video state that purpose are built into existences? Certainly N doesn't think that, and I didn't hear it stated in the video.

[@ryddragyn]

I echo some of the criticisms other commentators have made. This film commits a classic error of assumption right from the beginning - that the universe inherently has meaning. It doesn't have to. It just exists. The burden of proof is on the filmmaker to prove that the idea of "meaning" isn't an artificial construct in the first place. Teleological argument. Also, describing how something behaves and explaining why it behaves that way are in many ways the same question, both of which scientific investigation can shed light on. False dichotomy between the two. Example: a bird species on one island has a certain shape beak, and it uses that beak to eat a certain food that is only on that island. Describing HOW would just be stating the obvious. The square object fits in the square shaped hole, or in this case, the food fits in the beak. WHY? Well, so it doesn't starve to death, first of all, and also because it got stranded there, and its beak shape gradually adapted over many generations to be optimized for that food.

[@Lambda_Ovine]

I think the real difference between science and religion is basically the starting point: Religion: we have the conclusion, let's explain our surroundings with it. Science: we are in our surroundings, let's allow it to explain itself and draw conclusions from that.

[@vitormalta]

"Knowledge is knowing that science is true, wisdom is knowing that there is no absolute truth"

[@vientttt]

I could never understand philosophy until this new series came out, I feel embarrassed but DAMN! Reading it always screwed up my mind when I tried to comprehend it, this feels so solid and simple. I really like it.

[@nicochocho]

Hope these keep coming.

[@Andrewcranky]

What if there is no greater meaning, and ultimate purpose in anything, except what we as individuals give it? Science is not about "truth". It's about verifiable facts. If you want truth. take a philosophy class.

[@RS-nb4sw]

"Archaeology is the search for fact... not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall." -Henry Jones Junior

[@Andrewcranky]

Thank you. That's the quote I was thinking of, but couldn't quite remember.

[@luhe36682]

As MisterOjete (i kwow what that mean :P ) said. That's the point of Nietzsche.There is no ultimate meaning or ultimate truth, its all contextual and mostly individual.

[@fossks685]

luis hernan tobar cortes Not that you're wrong, but you are kind of wrong:p Nietzschean thought does not tolerate relativism in the flaccid, neo-liberal sense that we're used to thinking about today.

[@Andrewcranky]

I don't really give a rats ass what Nietzche said. He was hardly the superman he wrote about. He was a small, sickly little man, who accomplished next to nothing in his sad short life. And, it should be pointed out. He was insane.

[@Cherrytea558]

Science is a language humans use to explain the world around them. A dolphins' interpretation of the ocean will be very different to that of an Oceanographer.

[@theblukatlife]

Why do you believe or think a dolphin interprets or thinks? Humans invented those words to define or give a meaning to things they write or to toughts they think. A dolphin doesn't have hands to write or create words. Checking the brain of a dolphin and seeing his brain doesn't mean anything to the dolphin and the explanation you recieve by checking his brain is in human understanding of human understanding of his own existance but if humans doesn't truly understand their existance how can understand other existances?

[@joc6344]

+chris pease Well not really... Science is universal. There is least interpretation possible. The ocean, no matter the units or the method used, Its volume, density, temperature, etc. would be the same as us. Even if they would measure it in square sand per shell, we would simply have to make the conversion.

[@wezzuh2482]

"There are no facts, only interpretations" -Nietzsche

[@supersmashcovers2008]

Please bring this series back 😢

[@TheNigmaticProdigy]

This channel just keeps getting better!

[@InMaTeofDeath]

One issue with the "why" part is it is entirely possible there is no why question to begin with. Asking why implies purpose and it's entirely possible there was never any purpose to begin with. If you want to ask why is there fire or why am i here, you must first explain what reason you have to believe there is any logical reason to suspect purpose which would require the why question. The way its presented is like if lightning struck and you asked "why did Zeus do this"?

[@darkmario720]

InMaTeofDeath I forget who said this but there was one philosopher that said something along the lines of "Humans cannot *think* of anything that doesn't or cannot exist whether it be concrete or abstract" (sorry I can't think of the sorce) but my argument would be because the word "why" exist in the first place it proves that why must apply to something

[@InMaTeofDeath]

darkmario720 Does that mean because the words flying spaghetti monster exist that also proves it applies to something? Seems like a bad argument imo.

[@darkmario720]

InMaTeofDeath well when you put it like that at first thought it would be no it doesn't but let's look at it from a different perspective: technically we *can* think of things that don't exist but without a single doubt no matter what we think of that thing will always be made of things (or concepts) that already exist so in a way it does apply to something when you consider the things that is made out of. In the case of the Flying Spaghetti Monster it is made up of 3 parts 2 are concepts (flying and monster) and 1 is an object (spaghetti) therefore the fact that the words "flying spaghetti monster" exist it applies it's self to the idea that a monster made of spaghetti that can also fly can exist in some form, in this case fiction

[@InMaTeofDeath]

darkmario720 Yeah but what you're doing is changing my answer. In truth you also showed how it's possible to make the words mean whatever you want and that is not a good argument for anything. By your logic if I make up a word like "Rinedine" that must mean somewhere out in the universe it applies to something, do you really believe that every single made up word ever uttered by humans has a real counterpart out in the universe or relates to something? Seems far crazier than most religions imo..

[@silverskid]

I think Nietzsche's discussions of "why questions" occur at a psychological and not a metaphysical level. He agrees that teleology is a projection. But he takes projections, myths and religions very seriously. They have a value for giving life the *sense* of animating purpose whether true or false. Thus he speaks of necessary myths for most people. Only a few can deal with a world drained of mythology or religion which is why he is concerned about an age in which nihilism will become prevalent. The truth has value sometimes, but it is the will to truth that destroys myths, illusions, most of all in the West it destroys Christiandom which science cannot replace. He would like to imagine that he and a few others can overcome nihilism by "creating" their own values and purposes. Though I find this self-creation less then satisfactory as an answer to a cultural, even civilizational crisis, the point is that he never said things inherently have meaning or purpose "the fire exists because X" is not true. But mythologizing and anthropomorphizing nature can have advantages for cultures by giving them a sense of meaning and direction. In everyday life too we find that illusions can be useful (if I inflate the importance of my job I'll probably do better work, if an athlete thinks he's better than he really is he will often perform better than he would with a realistic appraisal as research has shown.) N. thought it was sometimes better to honor truth than lies and myths if it helped us to affirm life; but at other times (esp. when the myths-- like Judaeo Christian ones-- are stifling and against this life and this world) truth is important to destroy the myths. But after the myths are destroyed only a few people seem to avoid nihilism or the sense that nothing has purpose. In fact, for N, everything CAN be given purpose by you as you "color the world" in one of his phrases. We can create our own values "will a self; give style to your character" etc.

[@DarkArtistKaiser]

I noticed Confucius is in the select screen. I am hoping eventually you'll do a episode on some Eastern philosophy.

[@Shadow298]

brilliant! Thanks so much for making these & thanks to Thug Notes for putting them on their channel.

[@wonderwheat]

these are epic

[@davidbell2547]

For such a short video this is brilliant

[@TheMetalsuit]

The Hypest Philosophy on KZbin!

[@dig3stinglizard]

These videos are awesome! It really does put things into perspective that I have never really seen in that way before! Please make more of these videos man they are amazing!

[@aarongrooves]

I was going to question the validity of the question of "purpose," but StanMarsh1 below summed it up quite well. Purpose is not intrinsic to reality; it's an assumption. "How" is really the only question that matters objectively, and it's the only question which leads to technological advancement and improved standards of living.

[@malliemaile6746]

Huh?

[@lalalolo2611]

This channel is GREAT! Keep it up guys. You should post mote 8-bit philosophy videos they are actually pretty helpful to study.

[@masio13]

Brilliant video, does a fantastic job of explaining it

[@Seánasadventure]

thank you, this is one of my biggest pet peeves and why I've always preferred philosophy and other "soft sciences" to "hard sciences". I find that answering why is a far bigger deal to me than answering how.

[@jodicompton5561]

+ Que Tip, I'd say that why and how are closely related questions. A similar channel, The School of Life, tries to cast insomnia as strictly about psychological issues and unfaced 'life questions,' but electric light and caffeine use are also big contributors. We ignore that at the peril of continued sleepless nights even though we've worked hard on our issues. That's just one example, but I do think that we lead happier lives when we consider biological, chemical, and other factors as to why things happen.

[@mljedi]

WOW! This fit with my core beliefs system better then I could describe. I never seen science and religion as competing ideas in my head. More like complementary points of view.

[@omanflag]

They are not complementary. Religion bases a lot of its core beliefs on "faith." Science never acts on faith as faith is what you get when you believe something with no good reason. That is anti-science and should never be practiced.

[@d5dizzler962]

Pretty P+ I disagree! All science needs faith all these ‘facts’ and theories you have to put some faith in to just assume all that technobabble actually means something and that doesn’t seem meaningless. And the whole no good reason thing. Believing in science is.. well I just explained that. And religion, while I can’t speak for myself but some people need meaning in their lives and that doesn’t seem like ‘no good reason’ But hey it’s not really my battle to fight. Personally I don’t care about science or religion but I see the value in both!

[@Goblin_Mom]

I kind of expected this series to be about bits of philosophy that actually show up in video games, but this is still pretty good.

[@camazotzz]

I also see a lot of people vitriolically defending science or evolution without understanding what it is. A theory is as close to a fact as a scientist is willing to get, we really don't like to be wrong in science so if you ask "is evolution a fact" you won't hear "yes" you'll most likely hear "we have overwhelming evidence in support of the theory, and no credible evidence against it"

[@Lambda_Ovine]

Yes. I always thought that if you can't defend an argument using scientific knowledge by understanding it to, at least, a fundamental level, then you're in no position to defend it. "Because science says so" is just as meaningless as "because the bible says so."

[@CALOKERINOS]

Best explanation of Nietzsche I have seen yet... Thankyou ThugNotes!!!

[@rayleonard2862]

This channels comment section is the most intelligent one out of all channels on yt

[@kuraarachan]

You have just earned yourselves a subscriber my good fellows!!! All your videos are wonderfully interesting and thought provoking. I'm looking forward to seeing what you produce in the future!

[@x3naurus]

OMFG TWO TIMES THIS SERIES CHANGES MY LIFE. THAT'S TWO FOR TWO. WHAT'S NEXT. COME AT ME, PHILOSOPHY.

[@BillyElliottDMT]

Ok. i could say the same thing....that's two times a young man has introduced me to fascinating concepts or vidz! (connoism and now a thug teaching science?) #AWEsome! Thankx lil dude - that was pretty cool. . .

[@x3naurus]

Billy Elliott hahaha, I love the internet... the only place where that is possible. No problem, man!

[@Grinsekatze113]

lol so now you think science is a religion? do you believe anything ppl tell you?

[@x3naurus]

Grinsekatze Cheshire when did I say that? O.o are we about to play that game?

[@Grinsekatze113]

Jadden Norman "TIMES THIS SERIES CHANGES MY LIFE." I just asumed it. I think this video totaly missunderstood science.

[@AustinGarrett777]

"Why?" is ultimately a nonsensical question. It can only be defined by preconceived notions that have no ultimate basis; it all can be traced back to a circular argument.

[@envysart797]

I forget who said it but it was on this channel somewhere - might as well just embrace the absurdity. Maybe universe just exists without meaning, fire just exists because it's fire. Myth of Sisyphus and all that xD

[@tster4494]

Albert Camus; Why Shouldn't We Commit Suicide

[@rometimed1382]

"If you believe an existence after this awaits you that is superior to the life that I know in this realm why don't you commit suicide." I'm not religious but most religions hold that you carry forward your "soul" from life into the "after-life" so someone who is shunning life would also be unhappy in death. From Dante's Divine Comedy, Inferno: "Inferno Canto XIII:31-78 The Wood of Suicides: Pier delle Vigne Then I stretched my hand out a little, and broke a small branch from a large thorn, and its trunk cried out: ‘Why do you tear at me?’ And when it had grown dark with blood, it began to cry out again: ‘Why do you splinter me? Have you no breath of pity? We were men, and we are changed to trees: truly, your hand would be more merciful, if we were merely the souls of snakes.’ Just as a green branch, burning at one end, spits and hisses with escaping air at the other, so from that broken wood, blood and words came out together: at which I let the branch fall, and stood, like a man afraid. My wise sage replied: ‘Wounded spirit, if he had only believed, before, what he had read in my verse, he would not have lifted his hand to you, but the incredible nature of the thing made me urge him to do what grieves me. But tell him who you were, so that he might make you some amends, and renew your fame up in the world, to which he is allowed to return. And the tree replied: ‘You tempt me so, with your sweet words, that I cannot keep silent, but do not object if I am expansive in speech. I am Pier delle Vigne, who held both the keys to Frederick’s heart, and employed them, locking and unlocking, so quietly, that I kept almost everyone else from his secrets. I was so faithful to that glorious office that through it I lost my sleep and my life. The whore that never turned her eyes from Caesar’s household, Envy, the common disease and vice of courts, stirred all minds against me, and being stirred they stirred Augustus, so that my fine honours were changed to grievous sorrows. My spirit, in a scornful mode, thinking to escape scorn by death, made me, though I was just, unjust to myself. By the strange roots of this tree, I swear to you, I never broke faith with my lord, so worthy of honour. If either of you return to the world, raise and cherish the memory of me, that still lies low from the blow Envy gave me.’ Inferno Canto XIII:79-108 The fate of The Suicides The poet listened for a while, then said to me: ‘Since he is silent, do not lose the moment, but speak, and ask him to tell you more.’ At which I said to him: ‘You ask him further, about what you think will interest me, because I could not, such pity fills my heart.’ So he continued: ‘That the man may do freely what your words request from him, imprisoned spirit, be pleased to tell us further how the spirits are caught in these knots: and tell us, if you can, whether any of them free themselves from these limbs.’ Then the trunk blew fiercely, and the breath was turned to words like these: ‘My reply will be brief. When the savage spirit leaves the body, from which it has ripped itself, Minos sends it to the seventh gulf. It falls into this wood, and no place is set for it, but, wherever chance hurls it, there it sprouts, like a grain of German wheat, shoots up as a sapling, and then as a wild tree. The Harpies feeding then on its leaves hurt it, and give an outlet to its hurt. Like others we shall go to our corpses on the Day of Judgement, but not so that any of us may inhabit them again, because it would not be just to have what we took from ourselves. We shall drag them here, and our bodies will be hung through the dismal wood, each on the thorn-tree of its tormented shade."

[@the-engneer]

As a Non Christian I constantly debate with Atheists on the fact that Science still requires faith. Actually the parallels of science and religion are amazing in similarity, because both of them require faith in the words of men who came before you

[@stinkleaf]

This one I am saving to strengthen my argument when I run into a dogmatic atheist scientist who tries to convince us they are the answer to explaining the nature of reality. As long as thy are stuck on matter (materialism) their words become theories and beliefs that suffer the same consciences as religion. That is formulating dogmas that paralyses progress.

[@Centuries_of_Nope]

I liked this one quite a bit. Was always a bit uncomfortable and confused with the way the public handles the sciences, as if it were a religion for many, or at least handled as such. You guy finally put it into the words I've been looking for to help make sense of it. Well done.

[@mariuszj3826]

+701468392523816070046289411368222507496286869371438642749038614J For many it is. It's best to tread carefully, especially, when a person dogmatically accepts the philosophy of empiricism.

[@Rabenseele68]

i like your kind of videos, but sadly the music is a bit too loud. I hope you can make it a bit quieter in your next video ;)

[@pheonix508]

Dawg, I appreciate yhe way you educate in a way we can understand and follow, while entertaining us at well. Great job! please continue to teach.

[@omarkyon1933]

"The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct is solely and precisely that it is expected to work." -John Von Neumann

[@Lord_Sneetus]

+Omar kyon Postmodern garbage, pal. Neumann pretentiously declares that he sees no attempt by scientists to describe and/or interpret events, but merely brush off said events with the construction of generic models. This is merely a failure on Neumann's part to understand what science is and probably has a lot to do with his dissatisfaction of simplification, favouring instead the more deconstructionist approach (which ironically seeks to obscure or pervert observations). Science doesn't describe observed phenomena, it objectively measures present phenomena (or absence of). And Neumann can scrap the "mathematical construct" and "verbal interpretations" jargon. It's science, not literary studies... As I said at the start, this is postmodern garbage and it deserves every ounce of contempt and ridicule it receives from the scientific community.

[@omarkyon1933]

Skeptik That made me chuckle a bit. You basically just made a bunch of statements about this and that.

[@Lord_Sneetus]

Omar kyon "statements about this and that." are enough to get a chuckle out of you, yet fail to provoke any type of legitimate response? So much for standing by your quote! :-P A well-read, quote pasting smarty-pants like you should have no trouble understanding what i said! ;-)

[@omarkyon1933]

Skeptik I didn't think I could get a legitimate argument from you considering how your original comment was just opinions and statements with hints of hubris so I didn't even bother. Also statements don't warrant a thought out argumentative response because they are conclusions without premises. They have no basis to stand on. I do however feel tempted to post your comments on /r/iamverysmart

[@Lord_Sneetus]

Omar kyon "you basically just made a bunch of statements about this and that"... You accuse me of jumping to conclusions without a foundation for said conclusions, but how would you know? You never inquired any further, but instead seem to prefer outright denial of my argument. To this you will likely respond with: " what argument? You don't have one." You won't define a set of conditions under which you would accept my argument either, giving me nothing to work with. You have nothing but the very thing you accuse me of having: hubris. You dropped a shitty quote from some hack postmodernist, and, in the spirit of postmodernism, you will never take an objective stance on it, preferring instead the strategy of continuously moving goal posts and speaking vaguely in the hope that I will give up. Then you make this weird combination of a threat and appeal to authority: "I'm going to post your comment on some lousy subreddit that I believe is full of smart people who will laugh at you"... Post away, oh inept one, but don't forget you have yet to respond to a single point I made. You may dismiss this engagement as being unfruitful (which is a reasonable excuse to leave), or you may flee for lack of ability to respond. Just know that even if you claim the former, the latter will be assumed. Cheers

[@tonyFotiart]

Tony Foti To be fair, though, biology and psychology (which have transformed completely since Nietzsche's time) can say a lot not just about how we do things, but help us get closer to the why as well.

[@mysterymastermind175]

I like these, thank you.

[@akaking7499]

Damn you Nietzsche! I thought I thought of it first!

[@luke2291]

Best philosophy youtube videos ever!!! This channel has so many great ideas!!!

[@davidtimothy7319]

New Idea: Do both!, I am religious and love science, alright peace achieved.

[@davidtimothy7319]

ethan45ful www.icr.org/article/bible-believing-scientists-past/

[@davidtimothy7319]

ethan45ful so am I

[@davidtimothy7319]

ethan45ful Because; Then there'd be no free will, and God by his word decreed he would allow free will, God cannot go against his own word

[@davidtimothy7319]

ethan45ful The price of sin had to be paid by somebody who had no sin; you cannot pay another's dept when ye are also in dept, so, he needs to pay the dept in pain, who to send; God the father can not dwell in the presence of the unclean(like anyone could hurt him anyways) and the holy ghost posses no body of which to be harmed. so; Process of elimination; the answer is C; Christ, why did the dept need to be paid; Justice, that's why!

[@davidtimothy7319]

ethan45ful Goodness; This is circular, Ok then, he also predicted the many who would get eternal Life! , also knowing somebody would do something DOESN'T MEAN YOU MADE THEM DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@Gemini_Samura1]

This is awesome! Keep them coming!

[@chosenrubric7308]

The idea of fulfillment though any means, to me, it stupid. Science or religion, I don't think it's useful or smart to try fill the void of unanswerable questions with dogmas. I just simply accept all that is around me and that I am here, if there is a issue that can be solved, then I strive to solve it and for me, that's why I accept science. There's no reason to try find a purpose or explanation for our creation, only to try figure how the world works so we can better our situation. Our existence, to me, is just a chain of infinitely unlikely and likely possibilities that just happened to fall into place and we should try to make the best of our immensely short lives.

[@sladifer4565]

I am a christian. I believe that God created everything and gave it order. Then shredded the instructions and dropped us in it to figure things out as we go. I love science and scientific theories. I love to find out how thing work even to the smallest level we can find. I don't see why science and religion can't peacefully coexist. The problem to me seems to arise when people try to either prove or disprove God's existence when neither can be done. The things that we have definitive proof for in science, as far as I know, don't conflict with what I and many others believe to be true from the bible. If we would stop going at each other to prove one another wrong, throw out past prejudices that may exist we can have a peace between science and religion.

[@nivolord]

But without purpose or meaning, how can you recognize what an 'issue' is? An issue seems to imply something is less then it should be, hence its existence demands some kind of valuation, a meaning. Do you not, by acting, try to fulfill some wish? Isn't solving a problem some kind of fulfillment? What constitutes a better life?

[@ZiPolishHammer]

+nivolord Whatever YOU feel constitutes a better life, is what constitutes a better life. After all, you're the only one living your life. No one else can do it for you. So a problem can exist in the sense that it interferes with YOUR objectives, when others might see no problem at all given the same circumstances.

[@rometimed1382]

"Whatever YOU feel constitutes a better life is what constitutes a better life. After all, you're the only one living your life." Which is interesting because we all are living like "gods" compared to those a few generations ago built on the backs of those who came before and they had their own feelings on what constituted a better life, etc.

[@lukechen4295]

I think this is my new favorite youtube series. Keep it up, guys!

[@JPKloess]

This video was a surprisingly fair description of the attitude someone who is earnestly seeking truth ought to have. I did not expect to watch something approaching wisdom when I clicked this video.

[@MrShoe321]

I think that the music needs to be turned down. It's louder and hard to hear the narrator.

[@quack_stack]

Wow I'm learning so much.

[@MrBalbza]

plz make longer episodes !! these videos are awsome

[@FlipTheAngryAsian]

Whats a good program to do animation of this type? been wanting to do sprite animations

[@YayPeptobismal]

Why not create it in flash, so therefore you've got the smoothness and record it with a recording software?

[@YayPeptobismal]

Noxus Axios nice mustache

[@FlipTheAngryAsian]

flash cost money and i would rather not pirate it

[@x3naurus]

FlipTheAngryAsian why don't you pir-- oh. Why are you even on the internet? (Jk jk.)

[@FlipTheAngryAsian]

information and entertainment

[@gomoed]

It's obviously that on question "Why?", which lead us to genesis of the phenomenon, answering metaphysics. And metaphhysics has nothing to do with science. Science answers on question "How?", not "Why?"

[@AlaaBanna]

Great video (and contents). Love the 8-bit stuff you're making. Science limitations isn't just about the meaning behind phenomenons, it is in the core of what science is (Finding a rational answer to explain events around us).. What if in reality the world actually runs by some sort of an irrational (magical) logic? (Yes, gods and angels.. etc).. By science, one may try to find this rational answer... Without proper evidence, the most an honest scientist can do is saying "I don't know, I don't have the tools to find an answer. I stop here" and deny/reject all sorts of claims not supported by evidence. (Even if by pure luck were correct). I don't believe/buy any of the religious nonsense, and I know that such questions are meaningless (Suggesting imaginary scenarios just to satisfy the point), but I think science (I'm talking about the scientific philosophy as a whole) is somehow "atheistic". It is a healthy and sane way to look at the world.. but the thing is, claiming that "Your philosophy is wrong because it isn't scientific" isn't a fair disprove for something..

[@CalTheTactician1993]

I'm liking this series so far :) Keep it up ^.^

[@dragonfighter4171]

What if Video game are little universes?

[@virgomontclare5553]

Couldn't be because they are created within our universe.

[@ShrinkingChef]

You may have heard of this little movie called Tron.

[@TheRuggedPyrrhus]

I suppose that the question whether science can attain truth depends upon the level of certainty we are comfortable with concerning truth. For example, science uses the inductive method of reasoning to form conclusions. The inductive method of reasoning can only form highly likely conclusions about the nature of the physical world. It cannot provide absolute certainty with regard to anything. Inductive reasoning is probabilistic. However, with regards to the question: Does science attain highly likely truths? The answer is most emphatically yes.

[@noticias6111]

Last week someone brought up quantum mechanics and I hope that continues here.The thing about science is that there comes a point where the instrument we use to gauge observable phenomena has limits.I don't wanna shoehorn Heisenberg's uncertainty principle but an example is (the observer effect?) an how the mind has to understand that light is both a particle and wave.What we try to do after is model with math and ask not "How can we get the best answer with our science" but reformat things to "how can we continue to do research with our science. While I personally despise Neitzche on various levels but that last quote from "the gay science" was actually okay.Grief would I like to what what epistemologists actually think about him >~< . Wikipedia once told me that intellectualism is a form of consequentialism/ teleology with an undertone of making the imperative that "the best action is the one that best fosters and promotes knowledge" which sortas goes with the "going after knowledge for knowledges own sake" thing that's being said here. However clinging to that premise even when life itself is put at risk can backfire terribly on a person and their endeavour to the point that it's an empty and destructive Pryrrhic victory. Intellectual clinging/attachment for something abstract like dominance, fame,superiority,a fact or answer,victory, someone's love,advantage,glory, wanting whatever suits you to be affirmed,status,wanting to quantify or technologize everything,even wanting/craving for the well-being a/o happiness of someone who declines it or is on the course to an unfavorable inevitable etc can indeed cause some of the worst kind of suffering as I'm sure many of us have felt.

[@knightbrolaire526]

Time to pass the pipe.

[@DanielGuerson]

David Deutsch approaches this question (in the first chapter of his book, "The Fabric of Reality") from the point of view of a physicist. Worth the reading. Great vid btw

[@TheGhostPanel]

"Worshipping knowledge for knowledge sake can lead to dire consequences" Without citing a work of fiction, can you give a real-world example of this? Every misuse of scientific inquiry or discovery that I can think of, like say experimentation on ethnic-specific civilians during WW2, was the pursuit of knowledge NOT for knowledge's sake but was guided or informed by a specific political or social goal.

[@aymanayad7230]

pit it that way science is so concerned about IF they can do this but rarely think if it should

[@TheGhostPanel]

+Ayman Ayad Scientific institutions have ethics committees that must unanimously approve an experiment before it can be carried out. There are scientists whose entire job is to consider whether they should. Again, got any real world examples of major breaches of scientific ethics that were motivated by "knowledge for knowledge's sake" as opposed to money, politics, etc?

[@aymanayad7230]

+Ghost Panel how abiut a couple years back when a soviet scientist attached a second head to a dog or more recently the cloning experiments with that sheep given the amount of unethical experiments have dropped significantly in the past few years

[@l0venp34ce5]

+Ghost Panel Should there be a real world example? Imo Nietzsche just warns for a possibility that people see science as a general unchanging truth that is worshippable, because it is so "perfect". The knowledge that we gain isn't and doesn't answer any of the "ultimate purposes" and therefore people shouldn't pretend it is.

[@TheGhostPanel]

+Takowski If you're gonna state something as concrete as"worshipping knowledge for knowledge's sake can lead to dire consequences" you should probably have a real world example of what those dire consequences are, yeah. He didnt say that "dire consequences" was Nietzche's opinion, he stated it as if it were a fact.

[@kwillpen]

I love the new addition to the channel. Keep up the good work.

[@CloudCuckooCountry]

Is it just me, or does that sound a tad similar to postmodernism?

[@noticias6111]

***** If I may add on (but not to negate the "emotional appeal of existentialism) so does (post)structuralism which I'd go as far as to say is more influential to current Western philosophy as the linguistic based stuff in (post)structuralism is taken into account by *both* the Continental school (big on experience,consciousness and cultural issues) and Analytic school (big on reason,logic and language) that have been the mainstay after the turn of the century vacuum in philosophy Nietzche left.

[@Joepopa12]

The werdz i am redn dont flow into tha 8 bit word en wich aye live.

[@stuiesmb]

Actually, the idea that "God is dead" was a trademark of modernism not postmodernism.

[@Manuelomar2001]

Stuie Borenovich it's a trademark of both, since postmodernism was a reaction to modernism. You don't have one without the other. But really, it's just something that Nietchze said, and he wasn't really talking about God, but instead about the popular belief in God being dead.

[@Manuelomar2001]

No useful information about the truth of the universe is discovered without scientific thinking, observation, testing, or "scientific suppositions". This is why I really can't stand postmodernspeak like this.

[@andrewbutton5302]

This video is just ridiculously well done and clever.

[@timon55511]

Why does everything have to have a purpose?

[@timon55511]

Things can exist without purpose. Purpose implies that there is some overall meaning in that existence.

[@kellykoffi7904]

“The very meaninglessness of life forces man to create his own meaning. [...] The most terrifying fact about the universe is not that it is hostile but that it is indifferent; but if we can come to terms with this indifference and accept the challenges of life within the boundaries of death - however mutable man may be able to make them - our existence as a species can have genuine meaning and fulfillment. However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light.” ― Stanley Kubrick

[@LittleCthulhuOne]

some Why would they be without purpose? why would you believe that? why can you think about purpose it self or try to give it an significance? Welcome to philosophy.

[@AngelRodie]

Another amazing episode of 8-bit Philosophy! thanks for sharing!

[@Gio-ym4uj]

There's no why.

[@ArborealOreo]

Bravo! This is now one of my favourite videos online. I am religious despite believing science above any religious script that has ever been written, and now I know why.

[@AlSween]

This is the perfect explanation of what I see very often. I don't mind an atheist but when they go out of their way to call someone who has faith in something "stupid" when they themselves worship Science is not the brightest thing to do. Science explains the how and not the why. And of course religions aren't a definite truth.

[@BugzyUK]

Science does explain how, but also for most things it also explains why through pinning down cause and effect. E.g. it explains WHY we don't all just don't float off the face of the earth. You might argue that is just a rephrased HOW statement, but WHY and HOW does have that relationship. If by WHY you mean it can't answer questions like "Why are we here?" it is because you assume a supernatural or special reason for your existence. You assume you have a predefined purpose here. Take that assumption away and science can explain why you are here just as it can answer the question of why a termite is here. [No offense to your or termites intended]

[@AlSween]

That's a THEORY... that we are here by chance. But that's the point. Neither science nor religion can answer definitely "why are we here".

[@BugzyUK]

Haha... I didn't exactly say chance, but without getting bogged down in the details lets call it chance. It is a theory indeed, one with a staggering amount of evidence for it, the opposing theory has no evidence for it but relies on faith. The problem with these discussions is in your use of "definitely". Are you definitely 100% sure you don't owe me $1,000,000? I know there is no evidence you do, but have you never forgotten something before?, you may have forgotten you owe me the money, you may also have forgotten you spent it or stashed it somewhere. Does the fact that you can't be definite mean it is a credible possibility? as we will never know lets compromise, just transfer me $500,000. Knowledge isn't proving something 100%, if that is your definition i don't see how you function because you have no knowledge at all. This is clearly not true as you are still alive, so maybe you should reevaluate what you consider necessary evidence to call something fact

[@Manuelomar2001]

AlSween Gravity is also a "theory". Electromagnetism is a theory. Do the light bulbs in your room work? Well, it's "just a theory", maybe angels make it glow, rather than the alternating current that's passing from the neighborhood transformer-substation to the house. The word "Theory" doesn't mean the same thing in scientific literature that it does in everyday speech. Something doesn't get called a Theory unless there is tons of testing, experimentation, repeated independent testing, independent confirmation, and peer review involved.

[@Manuelomar2001]

Science is not a religion to be "worshipped". The very core of science, that observation and testing are what is needed to determine truth, goes against the inherent quality of religion: In religion, truth is something revealed by a divine power of some kind, and immutable. In scientific research, truth is something discovered by observation, testing, and proof. A good scientist will believe something only as long as the preponderance of the evidence and proof support it. If new information is discovered, a good scientist will take that information into account, test it, and modify his understanding of the world if the new information supplants or contradicts what he previously thought. And no, text in a holy book does not count as "proof" of anything.

[@blackyle3]

I have no clue what this channel is about but I subbed since the part 1 of 8 bit philosophy came out

[@walruspictures]

turn down the music just a tad next time.

[@maxb5950]

The 8 bit music kinda ruins it for me

[@Magnegro]

You guys deserve more views. Both shows are top-notch!

[@PinHeadzBlackson]

that made my day

[@aelkg]

Yo that's shit is DOPE, keep kickin those Philosophy Classs.

[@Jadguy24]

I love it. But as to the philosophy, what if there is no meaning?

[@DamianReloaded]

Then we are as good as dead and there is no point in pursuing anything that life has to offer, which empirically doesn't seem to be the way we take life. We care about things and suffer our losses.

[@Jadguy24]

I think you put to much meaning in there being a meaning. If there is no purpose to anything, then there is no purpose to anything. There is no plan, and when you die your consciousness ends, your material gets recycled. if you want a reason to live, living in of itself is a worthy pursuit.

[@DamianReloaded]

If there is no purpose, there is no reason. If there is no reason there is no point in wanting to have a reason to live. Having a reason to live is giving life a meaning, whatever that is for anyone. The video simply states what Nietzsche said: that science, just like religion, didn't fullfill this natural human need of life having a meaning. The truth is we don't know if it has an ultimate meaning or not. So it's valid to look up for it.

[@Jadguy24]

Damian Reloaded and yet there is the distinct possibility that the programming our genes have given us for finding patterns is finding patterns and meaning where there really is none. There is no man in the sky, but if you connect the dots there is a constellation that looks like one, does Orion have a meaning other than some people can look at the sky and see something that really isn't there.

[@DamianReloaded]

We just don't know. What we do know is that when we are curious we can do and discover awesome things. ^_^

[@l--..--l-i3m]

These are fantastic. A bit entry-level, but I guess that fits great with the aesthetics. Fantastic stuff. Keep it up.

[@michaelirwin6137]

How are you going to talk about Nietzsche and not talk about nihilism

[@PerpetualDaydreamer]

I never understood the whole "science and religion can't co-exist in one's life" thing. I firmly believe they go hand-in-hand, and that neither has to contradict the other.

[@EmilJohanssonEOC]

Science observes and describes. According to religious scriptures, God is truth and the source of creation, which would make Him the author of the laws of physics and the universe. That would also explain why He is "mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality nor takes a bribe." (Deu 10:17). We may not fully understand God, but it is not for a lack of trying, an attempt which can be called science. Then the question remains; what are we supposed to do with all this knowledge? What should our priorities be? According to Christ it is "Love God, Love Each Other". Religious and atheists alike may have trouble taking his word for it, but I believe it is the simple conclusion that mankind will have to make in the end. End of sermon, lol. ;)

[@eltonbormes]

Another great piece. I'm really enjoying it so far!

[@Monticello24]

Liking the new series man, keep it up.

[@CalebAtkins]

This video has way too much potential to be misinterpreted and used as an argument in support of anti-scientific views. It is true that Science is not equivalent to truth; however, Science IS the best way to evaluate and discover truth. It's a lot like stating that Juries are not equivalent to Justice, Democracy is not equivalent to Freedom, and Capitalism is not equivalent to Profit. Also, I agree whole-heartedly that Science should not be worshiped; it should be STUDIED. I'm of the opinion that it's probably not a good idea to WORSHIP anything though.

[@JackCaliber]

That's Nietzche for you :D

[@TempRawr]

yeah it's great intro to that idea that you must interpret science with as much criticism as everything else. But it didn't emphasize that enough and definitely could be misinterpreted. I hope you make a video to further elaborate. To remember that it's all about questioning knowledge. Focusing it on meaning creates this complex cycle of religious and scientific debate on the need for meaning, especially when often science isn't about meaning although we humans need to attach meaning to stuff like this. "All knowledge is situated" to quote so many human geographers. you get a subbed though Thug notes, you real.

[@Meloncov]

Jack Caliber Yeah, it'd hardly be Nietzsche if it wasn't possible to misinterpret and misuse. I mean, the Nazi's used Nietzschian language, when facism is about as far from the radical individualism Nietzsche argued for as you can get.

[@pifie]

Caleb Atkins I find some soft points in yor writing: 1. I wouldn't go so far as to say something is _the best_ X. 2. If we cannot discern truth from else (as it is the case), we cannot say science is _about_ truth (_"to evaluate and discover..."_). As an example, I assume many people would agree that _direct experience_ can be a better way to discover and evaluate something (such thing being _true_ or not). What science can aid you is in convincing others about such experiences. For example, I have the experience of _being me_. I cannot easily convince you that I'm not a non-sentient being (or a robot, or an algorithm in Google's computers), but I can use scientific arguments to convince you about it _(for example, stating and showing: "look, see this non-photoshopped family portraits, see I have a brain, I respond to impulses, I have oedipus complex..." and so)_. On the other hand, such scientific statements don't make my evaluation or discovery of _me being myself_ any better. It makes it up for you (which I want to convince), but don't play any role in my discovery and evaluation (in the first-hand experience, I mean), and were unneeded if I was the only person alive in the world. A similar argument about what you wrote, but one which I can agree with, is: *Science is a convincing way to criticize things* Science should be studied, and criticized and made.

[@virgomontclare5553]

Here's what's wrong with science at the moment. People are too concerned with unverifiable theories and pushing them on people instead of trying to find the facts.

[@onlynamelefthere]

As an ongoing scientist I have to say thank you :) This reflectes perfectly, what we in our field have the remind us everyday!

[@LividImp]

The more I learn about philosophy, the more I realize how meaningless philosophy itself is. Who gives a fuck what the meaning of fire is? All we really care about is how to harness it to make our lives better, and science gives us that. These are still great videos though, keep up the good work.

[@Kevtbynumi]

There in lies the contradiction within your own argument. what does it mean to make life better? how can u harness something to do something else if you do not examine what that something is? Science cannot explain why something ought to be done. Doing so is the is/ought fallacy. The question is not literally surrounding the meaning of fire, but fire's telo's or reason for being. And what the ultimate purpose of fire is. And on a larger scale what is the purpose of reality.

[@LividImp]

Kevin Donaldson Look, don't get me started, because my arguments will start to get insultive by nature, and I am really not trying to insult. I am not a philosophy hater, it was going to be my major in college, but I was (rightfully) convinced that if I wanted a job after college, philosophy was not the way to go. I was very enthusiastic for the subject back then. And yes, I understand that the "meaning of fire" isn't the point, I was being dismissive. Ultimately the "meaning of life" is itself meaningless.

[@LividImp]

alice x. How do you know I haven't already gone there and circled back around? If you think I'm a kid or uneducated, you are very wrong on both.

[@LividImp]

alice x. There is nothing to "give up". Just a lot of mental masturbation by people so insecure with their own lives that need it to mean something.

[@LividImp]

alice x. That's a pretty simplistic way to look at it. Looks you're the one that has a long way to go.

[@Chud_Bud_Supreme]

@Livid Imp "All we really care about is how to harness (science) it to make our lives better, and science gives us that." So in other words, science just gives us the power to make our lives more comfortable. Science and modern society seem to fetishize comfort; and people wonder where we get our nihilistic, misanthropic tendencies. It's because 99 percent of people aren't scientists but mere creatures seeking creature comforts. This is what creates herd mentality more than anything, and this is why it is necessary for each of us to create our own meaning and live for more than just our basic needs, else we paradoxically devolve in an advanced age. This is also why Nietzsche believed the modern man was behind the man of antiquity-the Roman. This is also why angry little Tumblr SJWs exist, because their lives are empty shells at least made comfortable and convenient, so in their "ressentiment" they seek causes to their own inner pain, caused by the void science can never fill.

[@Danilaschannel]

Nietzsche's and Marx' theories on the perfect self are polar opposites. And I believe Nietzsche is correct. *Fight me*

[@R0DisG0D]

Actually if I'm not mistaken Nietzsche called communism a great thing in theory but impossible in reality.

[@Danilaschannel]

R0DisG0D He's right, though. Communism is impossible to achieve because of human nature. Marx' criticism of a purely capitalistic society is good but he's too much of an idealist to come up with a practical solution. He basically described a Utopian society (i.e. not real) Marx placed too much trust into humanity, disregarding the fact that it hasn't really changed throughout history.

[@R0DisG0D]

Dandvadan Depends on what you see as human nature. The consume-culture we live in today is relatively new. I believe other motivation factors aside from money could work (social praise and recognition are stronger factors for the most part anyway). Truth is nobody can say if human nature would allow such a thing because it hasn't been really tried aside maybe from Lenin, who still got a lot of things wrong in my opinion and died 2 yeaers after founding the USSR and then Stalin fucked everything up bigtime. I'd also argue that Nietzsche's "Übermensch" is equally utopic as is any idea worth fighting for, including democracy and even Adam Smith's idea of economical liberalism (=unregulated capitalism). It may not work the way I want it to but that doesn't make it any less worth fighting for.

[@Danilaschannel]

R0DisG0D You don't need a consumer's culture to know people are selfish and want stuff. Most of the seven sins from Christianity deal with wanting things, therefore it's a safe bet that even when they were created people knew that humanity is selfish. The fact that we need a motivational factor like money is proof of that. That is to say, money doesn't exist simply as a motivational factor. It's real purpose is simple convenience. When something costs less, it means that it's in lower demand, which means that by simply buying or producing what's cheaper for you, you don't use the things that are in demand, and these things can be used by the people who actually need them. As an example, imagine you're building a road and you have two ways it can go, through or around a mountain range. Going through requires more engineering and less material, going around - the opposite. If more engineering and less materials costs more, that means that at the moment a lot of people need engineering, so buy paying less, everyone wins. If no money existed, you'd have to do research on what is needed now, and by the time you actually do it, things may have changed. Currency isn't perfect but removing it would do more harm than good. The Übermensch really is impossible, though. But it comes from a more individualistic perspective, so I'm more fond of it. What's worth finding for really comes down to perspective. Though humans most of the time do fight for grand ideas. You can fight for whatever you want, but I myself can't defend something that I don't think works well. That is probably why I rarely defend things.

[@R0DisG0D]

Dandvadan We'd probably need an hour long discussion to just set premises here so if it's fine with you I'll just agree to disagree.

[@landonrivers]

Just started playing "The Longest Journey" which kinda touches on this.